Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sarah Palin is a FOX

Dang----The woman has some Popeye forearm action going on too...She gets better with each pic I see...Good pic post and thanks FastEd. I'm making that my screen saver!

How can a guy NOT love that picture??

Basically, yes.

But semantics are important. You aren't killing a human. You are preventing a potential life from forming. Very different things.

We can go round and round on this (I won't though), but it can be neatly summed up with the thought experiment whereby a fertilized embryo in a petri dish, and a 6-month-old baby, are in danger. You can only save one. By your actions, you show that YOU don't see them as equal.

For that matter, if a pregnant woman was in a dire circumstance where a child was in danger, but her actions to save it would result in the probably termination of her pregnancy, what's she going to do? Save the actual child, at the expense of the potential child.

Furthermore, you right wing warmongers <grin> think NOTHING of initiating events that kill kids, for... what? The clearest example of this is right here on this list in the form of one of the military pilots who posts here. He took place in the Libya raid, which was pure politics. The purpose of the raid was to target a family, pure and simple, and it worked. Kids were killed. He is PROUD of his part in that raid, and yet is a rabid pro-Lifer. Explain THAT one.

In the end though it comes down to reproductive freedom, the right to have some control of how, when, where, and with whom one chooses to reproduce. Am I pro-abortion? No. Am I pro-choice? You bet.

Jeff,
One question on your abortion stance-
When you speak of 'saving the life in the petri dish or that of the mother', out of the estimated? 3500 abortions a day in the US(I don't have a reference, just what I have heard) how many of those(abortions) do you think are truly required to save the mother's life?

I really am curious as I will admit that I see abortion as it is currently in America as mass murder- nothing more, nothing less.

At what point is the fetus considerd a human? When it's born? Why the arbitrary line at the first trimester?

I sure am glad I'm not ok with murdering babies at any age.

"For that matter, if a pregnant woman was in a dire circumstance where a child was in danger, but her actions to save it would result in the probably termination of her pregnancy, what's she going to do? Save the actual child, at the expense of the potential child."

Of course she would but not because of the reasoning you laid out, but because she's a mother and it would be her instinct to protect her own. It wouldn't be because she stopped and made a conscious decision between the two.

I reserve the right to change my previous opinion of her.

What a bunch of psycho babble hooey based on a false choice. If left no choice, I choose to murder you over choosing one of my kids. That doesn't make me less of a murderer.

"Probable termination" in "dire circumstances"? How the hell does that equate to killing a baby out of convenience?

From a biological standpoint,you are, in fact, killing a human. The genetic makeup is human, and it will be a human.Nor has it ever been anything but a human. Furthermore, it is a living human when you start, and a dead human when you are done. Guess what - you killed a human. How this can even be discussed with any possible interpretation than this, is beyond my comprehension. Semantics are for lawyers. The facts are irrefutable by any intelligent being.Welcome to the reality of a 3 month old BABY.

No, I can guarantee you he's not laughing at me, but he must be cracking up because he finally found some dumbazz here that will buy into his schit!

Well as they say .............where ignorance is bliss..............

By the way, how's your Jeff_O (short for Obama) /340boy "snuggling around the campfire" thingy is going?

Ooops..........I just noticed what time it was.

Aren't you late for your job at the abortion clinic that your campfire buddy Jeff -O (short for Obama) got for you??

There's something about a hot chick holding a rifle...

Tim,

I think you misunderstood. I wasn't speaking of the life of the mother. I was repeating something I've read that illustrates the point that a fetus, particularly a very young one, is NOT the same as a child. I'll flesh it out a little more.

A building is burning. You run in. In the room, there's a baby, and a petri dish with a fertilized embryo. Due to the circumstances, you can only save one. Which one do you save?

We would ALL save the baby. Why? Because it is an actual human being, not a potential one. There's a crucial difference there.

As to saving the life or health of the mother, I don't know what the statistics are.

But, to bring this back around to the topic (Palin), she would outlaw abortion even when the mother's health or life is at stake, or when the baby is deformed. She also believes that kids should be taught abstinence instead of frank, explicit sex education.

My problem with this isn't that a person shouldn't have the CHOICE to (say) not abort a fetus that is deformed, or practice abstinance. Of course, they should. But it's stupid! Look how it's worked out for Palin. An unmarried daughter, with a loser dad of their teen-pregnancy child. And a Down's Syndrome baby because 45-year-old women have a VERY high incidence of defective children. That is what she would COMPELL all of us to suffer. No!!

IF what Palin is preaching WORKED, I would give it more credence but it does not.

Hurray................. now we have the first set of "ignore twins" here on the Campfire!!!

A "boy" and a girl.

340boy and Jeff_O (short for Obama) born 1-14-10.

How about some pics???

<laughin' my azz off>

Roe v Wade get overturned? Some how, I don't think she can change that despite her beliefs.

Disagree.

It would be because one is an actual human, while the other represents only a potential.

The first trimester is simply an arbitrary line. Like, letting kids drive at 16, vote at 18, drink at 21, collect SS at 65, etc.

In other words nothing really happens at 3 months one day. But you have to draw a line somewhere. That's where I personally draw it. Beyond that point I would personally outlaw abortion except in the case of danger to the mother and/or a deformed fetus.

So a frog egg is the same as a frog?

A seed is the same as a tree?

A spore is the same as a mushroom?

OK so let's say Mom is 9 months preggers and ready to pop. Little Johnny stumbles and falls into oncoming traffic. You disagree that it would be instinct for Mom to try and save Little Johnny without regard for her safety and that of her unborn baby?

"As a fetus grows, the "bundle of rights" (as we put it in the real estate world) slides over to the now-infant, to the point at which by the time it's at term, the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the adult!"

At 3 months and one day the fetus becomes an infant in your mind and magically receives the right to life?

Fertilized frog eggs will become frogs (Traceable to which frog laid the eggs, and deposited the sperm), fertilized seeds become not only trees, but specific trees, Spores, well, they are pretty simple, everybody is pretty much the same, you know, like liberals...In any case, frogs, trees, and mushrooms are not on the same level as humans. It is a bad analogy.