See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #201
   On July 25th, 2008 at 11:40 am, zeroangel said:

   atheling:

   Equivocation, and just plain silly.

   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feel

   8. to have a general or thorough conviction of; think; believe: I feel he’s guilty.

   We both know how I used the word. You are simply being disingenuous.

2. #202
   On July 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm, abstractmind said:

   sorry i missed that part, zero.

   It still doesnt change the face of the discussion though, and the willful blindness to other facts.

   To close, even if you remove the “human” part of the discussion, there is still the fact there is life there, regardless of the form. The matter and cellular structures are still living, which you have a tough time arguing but i’ve displayed already.

   that’s all there is to it. i’m sorry if i posted the other in haste, but picking about nits doesnt change anything really.

3. #203
   On July 25th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, zeroangel said:

   abstractmind:

   Many things have “life” of a form. This doesn’t mean I will have equal concern for those things as I would to a woman who wants an abortion.

   This is the main point. You consider a fetus to be a “whole person” on par with an infant. I do not, I place the concerns of the woman first.

   At this point we can agree to disagree, or you can keep claiming my logic is flawed and I am willfully blind. It matters not.

4. #204
   On July 25th, 2008 at 2:11 pm, zeroangel said:

   abstractmind, et al.:

   Honestly, have a nice day. I respect your opinions but I don’t share them. Let’s say we put this to bed. It’s Friday afterall. *smile*.

5. #205
   On July 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm, englishqueen01 said:

   I do not, I place the concerns of the woman first.

   If you did, you’d seriously consider the traumatic impact of abortion on women and work for alternatives.

6. #206
   On July 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pm, zeroangel said:

   englishqueen01:

   Truly, we have a different opinion on this, and as I have mentioned before, I am no stranger to the issue in a personal sense.

   Have a good weekend.

7. #207
   On July 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pm, NHMagenta said:

   I do realize Planned Parenthood is an apparent bete noir of the publishers of this blog and many of their posters. However on a fiscal prudence point of view it’s a real investment for the Gov’t to help Planned Parenthood reduce the number of future welfare-dependent babies.

   I also believe the underlying principles of eugenics are sound and should be applied; namely the offspring of all 3rd or more generation welfare dependents should be sterilized along with all violent felons (all ages) and any males who have sired 2 or more kids they can’t support.

8. #208
   On July 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pm, zeroangel said:

   NHMagenta:

   Oh boy… you’ve really done it.

   Truly, many of the posters here (myself included) would probably just rather have certain violent offenders executed, but you lost me and undoubtedly most everyone else here with your other points.

   Come on, you are joking aren’t you?

   Folks: this has got to be one of our liberal friends trolling for laughs.

   Fess up dude. *smile*

9. #209
   On July 25th, 2008 at 2:30 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

   This doesn’t mean I will have equal concern for those things as I would to a woman who wants an abortion.

   And that is the crux of your argument. You, and others like you, willfully deciding that the zygote conceived is of less “concern” to you than the woman (and man) who made (in 99+% of cases excluding the involuntary rapes abstract provided rough numbers for above) a poor decision. So rather than preserve life and what would certainly be a human being whether at conception (like half of us believe), or 4 weeks like Yash, or 2 months like you, or “after coming home from the hospital” like some left wing loons who happen to be in governmental power (/shudder) you would rather “destroy” that form of life that would become human to protect the financial/emotional/etc interests of a party of people who choose poorly to begin with.

   Abortion would be a nearly non-existent issue, it would still be opposed by people like me regardless, if it were used for the 1% or less of cases of forced rape or where the mother will indeed die from unforseen complications during the pregnancy. But instead it is used as an after-the-fact birth removal (can’t call it control, as birth control is meant to prevent conception) of a child all because the mother doesn’t want the “burden” of a child but does want the pleasure of making bad choices.

   So yes, this debate is never going to go away and there will always be two sides. One that claims scientifically and spiritually that the unique life of a human being begins at conception, and the other side that varies on what science is used to describe on when a human is really human in order to justify bad behavior (in 99+% of cases).

10. #210
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:31 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    Wow, this thread brought out all the Eugenics nuts from the woodworks. Genocidal murderers unite!

    /puke

11. #211
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm, zeroangel said:

    alaskangrizzly:

    Aren’t you getting bored of this thread?

    I sure am. I wonder if we can get this to 300 comments before the end of the day.

12. #212
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:42 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    alaskangrizzly:

    Aren’t you getting bored of this thread?

    Bored of defending the lives of the unborn…… hmmm nope

    Ask lgm if I am bored of defending the Constitution from liberal attacks to the second amendment

13. #213
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm, abstractmind said:

    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pm, zeroangel said:

    Fair enough. We’ll call it for now

    In at least my own view, while the woman is present, in this particular case, i call the 2 even and see them as one and the same.

    But perhaps, another time
    good weekend all!

14. #214
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:45 pm, zeroangel said:

    Bored of defending the lives of the unborn…… hmmm nope

    I respect your conviction bud, let’s leave it at that.

    defending the Constitution from liberal attacks to the second amendment

    On this we agree.

    (#213 & counting.)

15. #215
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:46 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dammit, abstractmind messed up my count! Above was #214, and this is #215 (I hope).

16. #216
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    But perhaps, another time
    good weekend all!

    Later Abstract, I don’t have much longer myself until it’s time for a cheeseburger and some Batman at the theatres.

17. #217
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:51 pm, zeroangel said:

    alaskangrizzly:

    Wife and I are planning on dinner and a movie tonight. I heard mixed reviews about “The Dark Knight.” I am leaning toward “Hellboy 2″ or “Get Smart.”

    #217

18. #218
    On July 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    I liked the first one, Batman Begins, so I’ll have to see if this one lives up the hype.

19. #219
    On July 25th, 2008 at 3:09 pm, zeroangel said:

    alaskangrizzly:

    To me, it seems like “Batman” has been rebooted one too many times.

    I remember watching the orignal series as a kid. It was campy and the modern reboots are kinda kewl in that they aren’t campy. Still, it seems like it’s just been redone one too many times, I can’t even keep track anymore.

    To be honest, I think I am more interested in the dinner part of “dinner and a movie.” I’ll probably just defer the movie choice to the wife as long as I get to choose the resturant.

    #219

20. #220
    On July 25th, 2008 at 3:30 pm, alaskangrizzly said:

    To me, it seems like “Batman” has been rebooted one too many times.

    I agree it has been attempted one too many times, but I like the more realistic feel of the newer ones. To me it’s kind of like the aliens movie series but in reverse. I think they should have stopped after the second one where the Marines go in to the planet where the original alien ship was found and crashed. Then they should have waited 20 years to revive it with a fresh story line with the same alien badguys but instead they kept pushing it and pushing it and merging it too fast with Predator and it has lost its keeping-you-on-edge factor and interesting storylines in my opinion.

21. #221
    On July 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pm, zeroangel said:

    alaskangrizzly:

    Oh man, yah I totally agree there ref. Aliens.

    After the 2nd one they just went downhill.

    I had high hopes for the reboots with Predator. The Alien / Predator crossover happened I think with a Comic book, then a scene in one of the Predator movies where an Alien skull is seen as a trophy in the Predator spaceship, and then the video game (IIRC, in that order).

    They really had a chance to tie two classics together and make a great movie. Instead, they made some cheesy plot with a bunch of special effects and plainly just tried to capitalize on the success of the video game.

    Truly, a disappointment; I didn’t even see AVP 2 and probably won’t unless I am bored one day and I decide to watch it on On Demand.

    #221

22. #222
    On July 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm, abstractmind said:

    ok, came back and saw batman on here….

    Seriously, hellboy 2 is ok…but i’ve been back to see Batman twice! It’s seriously that good (but i’m biased and REALLY and a nerd)

    I’d recommend seeing batman, if nothing else for the stellar performance ledger put there…incredibly well done.

    I saw the first AVP..for what it was, it wasnt bad, but i could tell the ones after it were just on name of the movie alone, and didnt bother seeing them.

    anyway, leaving here in 10 minutes.

    And NH…i guess its a good thing i’m a productive member of society with FOUR kids, because you’d have to hunt me down.

    And i promise, i wouldnt go down easily

23. #223
    On July 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On July 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am, RetFireman said:
    You know…if these SOB’s could, I truly believe they would start performing “Retro-abortions” in order to rid the world of those pesky children that get in their way. I just plain think there is something almost evil about a person that does not like children, and would want to snuff out their lives before they even start.

    The SOB’s already are.

24. #224
    On July 26th, 2008 at 11:01 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On July 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am, Weary Citizen said:
    Contraception IS the main focus of their business. They do however realize many are too irrespnsible to take advantage of it. So they also give abortion as another option along with adoption.

    Our problem is abortion AS birth control.

25. #225
    On July 26th, 2008 at 11:01 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On July 24th, 2008 at 1:10 pm, HDFOB said:
    Single parents w/o money ought to have a legal obligation to give their children up for adoption.

    Legal obligation? You think the government should be allowed to take away their kids if they are unwed and poor?

26. #226
    On July 26th, 2008 at 11:11 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On July 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm, birdlady79 said:
    In my opinion, this issue is so passionate for many reasons, one of which is as elementary as control of another.
    The Deacon sitting next to you in church – his daughter will have an abortion (legally) today, then he’ll be preaching against it tomorrow. This issue brings about so much hypocrisy, it nauseates me. As for me, it is NONE of my business what someone else chooses.

    What nauseates me is people who think that everyone opposed to abortion came to that position becuase of religion. I went from being pro-abortion, immoral, and liberal to being pro-life, immoral, and liberal. Shedding the immoral and liberal parts came later.

    On July 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm, birdlady79 said:
    I personally abhor abortion; however, it is not my business what another woman, under other circumstances, might choose.

    I had asked about an hour earlier…

    On July 24th, 2008 at 1:38 pm, KaosKlerik said:
    How is,
    “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”
    morally different from,
    “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own one.”?

    If I assume you personally abhor slavery, then I guess you don’t see a difference.

27. #227
    On July 26th, 2008 at 11:12 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On July 24th, 2008 at 3:17 pm, abstractmind said:
    The example of eating meat, however, is cold blooded to members of PETA. Persons of certain eastern philosophies believe killing anything on purpose, including ants, is wrong. It all depends on the view of the person involved. But those things pale, methinks, against the backdrop of detroying life when its the case of human beings.

    True; some on the pro-abortion side do not value a human life as greater than any animal.

28. #228
    On July 26th, 2008 at 11:18 pm, KaosKlerik said:

    On July 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm, Yashmak said:

    But give it some water and a place to grow, and soon…you’ll have a wonderful pumpkin pie

    Right, and give a fetus a place to grow and some time, and one day you might have a wonderful firefighter, or accountant, etc. etc. But that’s alot different than saying it’s a person from the moment of conception.

    On July 24th, 2008 at 3:34 pm, Yashmak said:
    So you recognize that the organism developing in those eggs is not a bald eagle yet.
    It’s also important to note that while Bald Eagles are endangered species, the same cannot be said of humans (although that’s not entirely relevant to this discussion).

    Actually that IS relevant. If a growing fertilized egg of a Bald Eagle is protected becuase it will grow into a Bald Eagle, then a growing fertilized egg of human being should be given AT LEAST the same consideration.

    On July 24th, 2008 at 3:47 pm, Yashmak said:

    Yes it is. It isn’t a fish, or a frog, or a cat.
    It’s a Bald Eagle. Granted, it’s developing, but it’s genetic make up is no different from a full-grown Bald Eagle.
    - englishqueen

    No, you said it BECOMES a bald eagle, indicating it’s not one yet.
    You’re right though. It’s not a fish, frog, or cat. It’s an egg.

    It’s a FERTILIZED egg. Fertilizing an egg is a deliberate act. Having sex is a deliberate act wherein the ultimate consequence (depite all precautions) is the fetilization of an egg.
    Once fertilized, barring complications, an egg will develop for about 20 years, then survive for decades more. Some of those initial years will require various degrees of external aid in order to survive.
    At what point does it go from being a fertilized egg (subject to being killed without legal consequences) to a human being (endowed by it’s creator with certain inalienable rights, specifically, life); when it’s ready to go to college?

29. #229
    On July 27th, 2008 at 4:44 am, RetFireman said:

    Why is it that when a pregnant woman is killed, the murderer faces double homicide or if the woman is assaulted and loses the child, the offender faces…at minimum…a manslaughter charge, yet when a doctor is the one who does it, it is simply a “choice” and a “medical proceedure”?

    How can that be if it is not alive/not human/not viable outside the womb?

    Seems to me, that if it is ok to remove said “tissue” with a suction unit, medicine, or scrambling it and awaiting a normal discharge under the guidance and hands of a professional physician, then there should be no murder/manslaughter charge…according to the pro-deathers here. Yet there is.

    How is that justified? Is it simply a matter of what the mother feels the child is at the time? If she is planning to have the child it is murder/manslaughter, but if she was planning on having an abortion anyway, she shold just be grateful and even take the offender out for dinner as a way of saying “thanks” for saving her the time and money?

    Tell me, pro-deathers…just where do you draw the line in this regard? If it is murder for one, should it not be murder for all?

    Or maybe is it just whether or not it was some minority child who was just going to be a drain on the economy and welfare. After all, there are also the ones advocating genocide of welfare and other “undesireables”. Where does it come into play with you guys? Do you think it would be best for roving gangs of “Unlicensed Neighborhood Abortion Professionals” to roam around the inner cities looking for welfare moms who are pregnant and then “stage” a mugging that “goes bad”?

    Does this relaly sound that bizarre? Not really, if you take the pro-deather’s arguments to their rational conclusion based on their beliefs.

30. #230
    On July 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pm, atheling said:

    Good points, RetFireman and KaosKlerik.

    The pro deathers suffer from moral relativism. Again, it’s some sort of mental dysfunction. They are irrational in their thought processes.

    Symptom of the mental disease that is liberalism.