Drilling in Alaska

[HowardRoark]

Watching and reading the media this week, I believe they have given up all pretense of being objective. I don’t want to sound too much like Tex, but I am embarrassed for them.

The New York Times is going after a young American Indian girl for getting knocked up. Good God, they are as bad as we are taught Christopher Columbus was; racists and sexist to the core.

I thought they were for free sex. Why in the world do they feel the need to pick on this poor oppressed minority woman?

Let them drill in Alaska in peace.

[mraynrand]

Come now, Howard! The press isn't biased and certainly wouln't be caught dead being non PC. The little indian probably just had too much malt liquor and you know what happens to indians under the influence....

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200104/26_stawickie_crazyhorse/images/bottle_front.jpg

That's right, they get pregnant and gamble away their savings at casinos!


http://www.krankyscartoons.com/images/Indian_Casinos.jpg


Excuse, me the PC police are at my door. Apparently, I'm being arrested.....

[texaspackerbacker]

Watching and reading the media this week, I believe they have given up all pretense of being objective. I don’t want to sound too much like Tex, but I am embarrassed for them.

The New York Times is going after a young American Indian girl for getting knocked up. Good God, they are as bad as we are taught Christopher Columbus was; racists and sexist to the core.

I thought they were for free sex. Why in the world do they feel the need to pick on this poor oppressed minority woman?

Let them drill in Alaska in peace.

Why the hell don't you want to sound like me, Howard? i get a little bit fed up with your wimpy shit. Are you ASHAMED to be on right side--on the pro-American side--against the sick America-hating ASSHOLES of the left? If calling Obama's God damned pieces of shit "assholes" offends you, I'm sorry--FOR YOU for being offended by the truth.

You are on the right side of the great majority of arguments, but you somehow can't seem to get over your weird desire not to upset or insult the ASSHOLES and IDIOTS of the left who show nothing but hate and disrespect for this country and everything that is good about it.

[mraynrand]

When it comes to the treatment of Palin, I want to sound MORE like Tex. How do you like them apples? What a collection of nasty, vile, liars and HYPOCRITES. I did a search through about 10 liberal newspapers headlines and articles and it was running about 10-1 NEGATIVE articles on Palin. Based on WHAT? 1) Based on rumors that her baby with Downs Syndrome was her granddaughter 2) Based on jealous and dismissive treatment of her 'beauty queen' status. Even Ty Bigguns 'Hero' Andrew Sullivan threw out this insulting bullshit 3) Based on the pregnancy of her daughter or 4) Questioning whether it was appropriate for a mother to work with these family obligations. Dan Quayle must have been shitting in his pants thinking back to the Murphy Brown 'controversy' (Quayle had the Audacity to suggest a child was better off with a Mother AND a Father - I know, GASP!!!). Virtually none of the articles mentioned much of anything else, completely missing or completely glossing over any real accomplishments as politician (even most 'background articles' listed this stuff as a laundry list in the last paragraphs) focusing on characterizing her not as a Governor, but as a 'Hockey Mom' or 'Mother of Five.' - Descriptions no male governor would EVER receive (ask yourself if you even know how many kids any male governor has). The main stream media bias is unreal. The sick, twisted evil 'reporters' and 'newspeople', like Andrew Sullivan and Alan Colmes, who took rumors about Palin covering for her 'daughters pregnancy' and ran 'real news stories' based on rumors, should be fired. It's a stain on FOX news to keep the Colmes skeleton on their network.

[HowardRoark]

If calling Obama's God damned pieces of shit "assholes" offends you, I'm sorry--FOR YOU for being offended by the truth.

I made a commitment to myself to leave the candidate’s feces out of the discussion.

They are off limits.

[hoosier]

Watching and reading the media this week, I believe they have given up all pretense of being objective. I don’t want to sound too much like Tex, but I am embarrassed for them.

The New York Times is going after a young American Indian girl for getting knocked up. Good God, they are as bad as we are taught Christopher Columbus was; racists and sexist to the core.

I thought they were for free sex. Why in the world do they feel the need to pick on this poor oppressed minority woman?

Let them drill in Alaska in peace.

Where did the NYT "go after a young American Indian girl"???

[HowardRoark]

Watching and reading the media this week, I believe they have given up all pretense of being objective. I don’t want to sound too much like Tex, but I am embarrassed for them.

The New York Times is going after a young American Indian girl for getting knocked up. Good God, they are as bad as we are taught Christopher Columbus was; racists and sexist to the core.

I thought they were for free sex. Why in the world do they feel the need to pick on this poor oppressed minority woman?

Let them drill in Alaska in peace.

Where did the NYT "go after a young American Indian girl"???


A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.

[hoosier]

A series of disclosures about Gov. Sarah Palin, Senator John McCain’s choice as running mate, called into question on Monday how thoroughly Mr. McCain had examined her background before putting her on the Republican presidential ticket.

On Monday morning, Ms. Palin and her husband, Todd, issued a statement saying that their 17-year-old unmarried daughter, Bristol, was five months pregnant and that she intended to marry the father.

You say the NYT is "going after" Palin's daughter because it mentions her pregnancy? If that's all you have, it says more about you than about the NYT. Note that the NYT editorial page specifically rejects the idea that her daughter's pregnancy is a political issue.


Candidate McCain’s Big Decision

Published: September 2, 2008
More often than not, the role of a vice president is a minor one, unless some tragedy occurs. But a presidential nominee’s choice of a running mate is vitally important. It is his first executive decision and offers an important insight into how that nominee would lead the nation.

Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.

Go to The Board » Readers' Comments
Share your thoughts on this article.
Post a Comment »
Read All Comments (128) »
If John McCain wants voters to conclude, as he argues, that he has more independence and experience and better judgment than Barack Obama, he made a bad start by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Mr. McCain’s supporters are valiantly trying to argue that the selection was a bold stroke that shows their candidate is a risk-taking maverick who — we can believe — will change Washington. (Mr. Obama’s call for change — now “the change we need” — has become all the rage in St. Paul.)

To us, it says the opposite. Mr. McCain’s snap choice of Ms. Palin reflects his impulsive streak: a wild play that he made after conservative activists warned him that he would face an all-out revolt in the party if he chose who he really wanted — Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut.

Why Mr. McCain would want to pander to right-wing activists — who helped George W. Bush kill off his candidacy in the 2000 primaries in a particularly ugly way — is baffling. Frankly, they have no place to go. Mr. McCain would have a lot more success demonstrating his independence, and his courage, if he stood up to them the way he did in 2000.

As far as we can tell, Mr. McCain and his aides did almost no due diligence before choosing Ms. Palin, raising serious questions about his management skills. The fact that Ms. Palin’s 17-year-old daughter is pregnant is irrelevant to her candidacy. There are, however, very serious questions about her political past and her ideology.

If Mr. McCain wanted to break with his party’s past and choose the Republicans’ first female vice presidential candidate, there are a number of politicians out there with far greater experience and stature than Ms. Palin, who has been in Alaska’s Statehouse for less than two years.

Before she was elected governor, she was mayor of a tiny Anchorage suburb, where her greatest accomplishment was raising the sales tax to build a hockey rink. According to Time magazine, she also sought to have books banned from the local library and threatened to fire the librarian.

For Mr. McCain to go on claiming that Mr. Obama has too little experience to be president after almost three years in the United States Senate is laughable now that he has announced that someone with no national or foreign policy experience is qualified to replace him, if necessary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who has been one of Mr. McCain’s most loyal friends, said Tuesday that he was certain that Ms. Palin would take the right positions on issues like Iraq, Russia’s invasion of Georgia and Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. That seemed based largely on his repeated assertion that Ms. Palin would be tended by Mr. McCain’s foreign policy advisers. That was not much of an endorsement.

Some of the things Ms. Palin has had to say in the recent past about foreign policy are especially worrisome. In a speech last June to her former church in Wasilla, Ms. Palin said the war in Iraq was “a task that is from God.” Mr. Bush made similar claims as he rejected all sound mortal advice on how to conduct the war.

Mr. McCain, Mr. Graham and others also claim that Ms. Palin is a fearless reformer who is committed to fighting waste, fraud and earmarks. Ms. Palin did show courage taking on some of the Alaska Republican Party’s most sleazy politicians. But she also was an eager recipient of earmarked money as a mayor and governor.

Mayor Palin gathered up $27 million in subsidies from Washington, $15 million of it for a railroad from her town to the ski resort hometown of Senator Ted Stevens, now under indictment for failing to report gifts.

The Republicans are presenting Ms. Palin as a crusader against Mr. Stevens’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” The record says otherwise; she initially supported Mr. Stevens’s boondoggle, diverting the money to other projects when the bridge became a political disaster. In her speech to the Wasilla Assembly of God in June, Ms. Palin said it was “God’s will” that the federal government contribute to a $30 billion gas pipeline she wants built in Alaska.

Mr. McCain will make his acceptance speech on Thursday, and Ms. Palin will speak on Wednesday. Those two appearances will go a long way to forming voters’ views of this Republican ticket.

As Senator Graham noted, Mr. McCain has to reach out beyond the party’s loyal base. “We’re going to have to win this thing,” he said. “This is not our race to lose.”

Mr. McCain’s hurdles are substantial. To start, he has to overcome Mr. Bush’s record of failures. (The president addressed the convention Tuesday night and now, McCain strategists fervently hope, will retire quietly to the Rose Garden.) That record includes the disastrous war in Iraq, a ballooning deficit, the mortgage crisis — and the list goes on.

To address those many problems, this country needs a leader with sound judgment and strong leadership skills. Choosing Ms. Palin raises serious questions about Mr. McCain’s qualifications.

[hoosier]

Of course, one could also take the low road, otherwise known as the Tex approach: "If this were Biden's or Obama's daughter who were pregnant, do you really think the Right wouldn't be wringing their hands and making political capital out of it?"

[mraynrand]

Of course, one could also take the low road, otherwise known as the Tex approach: "If this were Biden's or Obama's daughter who were pregnant, do you really think the Right wouldn't be wringing their hands and making political capital out of it?"

Obama's daughter wouldn't be pregnant for long. Obama's already on record that if one of his daughters made a mistake and got pregnant that he wouldn't want her punished with a baby.

As for Biden, I really know nothing of his family, except that one son is a lobbyist who may be under investigation. The press seems to be completely uninterested in his children. Maybe they are not as cute as Obama's girls.

[HowardRoark]

They have their talking point....."vet, vet, vet!!!!!"


Aides Say Team Interviewed Palin Late in the Process

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 3, 2008; A01



ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.

It's like when Hillary kept saying she "would not bring up Obama's cocaine use."

[mraynrand]

Look how skewed the title is too

Title: Aides Say Team Interviewed Palin Late in the Process

Content: Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview


The title spins 'lengthy in-person interview' into suggesting she wasn't interviewed until late in the process, attempting to lead the reader to believe that she wasn't properly 'vetted' (Which was the Democrat talking point the last three days, pushed by all major news outs and also NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS). The truth is that she was vetted on all the critical stuff having to do with governing, but they may have overlooked her daughter's pregnancy until the last day. Maybe Palin didn't want to tell them. They probably told her "The leftist scumbags on Daily Kos won't leave you alone. They will spread vicious rumors and then Alan Colmes and Andrew Sullivan will report them as the truth, only later removing them from their websites, after the damage is done." Then she probably told them and McCain, correctly probably said "I'm not selecting your daughter, I'm selecting you for your work as Governor cleaning up corruption in Alaska's Republican party and Big Oil."

[mraynrand]

Keith Olbermann interviews John McCain: "So senator, when did you stop beating your wife?"

[hoosier]

Look how skewed the title is too

Title: Aides Say Team Interviewed Palin Late in the Process

Content: Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview


The title spins 'lengthy in-person interview' into suggesting she wasn't interviewed until late in the process, attempting to lead the reader to believe that she wasn't properly 'vetted' (Which was the Democrat talking point the last three days, pushed by all major news outs and also NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS). The truth is that she was vetted on all the critical stuff having to do with governing, but they may have overlooked her daughter's pregnancy until the last day. Maybe Palin didn't want to tell them. They probably told her "The leftist scumbags on Daily Kos won't leave you alone. They will spread vicious rumors and then Alan Colmes and Andrew Sullivan will report them as the truth, only later removing them from their websites, after the damage is done." Then she probably told them and McCain, correctly probably said "I'm not selecting your daughter, I'm selecting you for your work as Governor cleaning up corruption in Alaska's Republican party and Big Oil."

That's a laugh, though he may well have said it. We all know the real reason he chose her: cuz the Christian Right would have had a shit fit if he had chosen a pro-choice nominee such as Lieberman or Ridge.

[hoosier]

Of course, one could also take the low road, otherwise known as the Tex approach: "If this were Biden's or Obama's daughter who were pregnant, do you really think the Right wouldn't be wringing their hands and making political capital out of it?"

Obama's daughter wouldn't be pregnant for long. Obama's already on record that if one of his daughters made a mistake and got pregnant that he wouldn't want her punished with a baby.

As for Biden, I really know nothing of his family, except that one son is a lobbyist who may be under investigation. The press seems to be completely uninterested in his children. Maybe they are not as cute as Obama's girls.

Or maybe they don't present the same interesting contrast between Protestant moralizing and teenage sex.

[texaspackerbacker]

Of course, one could also take the low road, otherwise known as the Tex approach: "If this were Biden's or Obama's daughter who were pregnant, do you really think the Right wouldn't be wringing their hands and making political capital out of it?"

Hoosier, you miss the point. The New York Times USED TO BE and still PRETENDS TO BE mainstream media--NOT "the left". I guess they showed their true colors. Wouldn't you agree?

Vile as the attacks might be on Palin and her daughter, I look at it, and probably Palin herself looks at it as desperation by the leftists--who, on a national level--very much like our leftist forum flunkkies, just don't dare discuss issues because they are so horrendously WRONG on the issues--and Sarah Palin just highlights the true American views and values which the leftists HATE so much.

[retailguy]

Vile as the attacks might be on Palin and her daughter,


I see it as this is not only the "best" they've got, it's ALL they've got. If this is "all" they've got, then, well, the republican ticket is in GREAT shape.

Let's see what she says tonight. She'll either give them more material, or, she's home free until the debates.

[mraynrand]

Look how skewed the title is too

Title: Aides Say Team Interviewed Palin Late in the Process

Content: Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview


The title spins 'lengthy in-person interview' into suggesting she wasn't interviewed until late in the process, attempting to lead the reader to believe that she wasn't properly 'vetted' (Which was the Democrat talking point the last three days, pushed by all major news outs and also NBC, CBS, ABC, and PBS). The truth is that she was vetted on all the critical stuff having to do with governing, but they may have overlooked her daughter's pregnancy until the last day. Maybe Palin didn't want to tell them. They probably told her "The leftist scumbags on Daily Kos won't leave you alone. They will spread vicious rumors and then Alan Colmes and Andrew Sullivan will report them as the truth, only later removing them from their websites, after the damage is done." Then she probably told them and McCain, correctly probably said "I'm not selecting your daughter, I'm selecting you for your work as Governor cleaning up corruption in Alaska's Republican party and Big Oil."

That's a laugh, though he may well have said it. We all know the real reason he chose her: cuz the Christian Right would have had a shit fit if he had chosen a pro-choice nominee such as Lieberman or Ridge.

Way to avoid the issue of the post. But your point is absolutely correct. One of the reasons he selected her is that she has solid conservative values - the values that most Americans relate to and agree with, if they are allowed to hear them. But a huge consideration had to be her Maverick, clean up corruption credentials, because McCain knows that he can't win promoting himself as your typical Republican. Common sense, and a look at polling ought to make that obvious.

[texaspackerbacker]

Vile as the attacks might be on Palin and her daughter,


I see it as this is not only the "best" they've got, it's ALL they've got. If this is "all" they've got, then, well, the republican ticket is in GREAT shape.

Let's see what she says tonight. She'll either give them more material, or, she's home free until the debates.

I think she will do some reaching out tonight.

She doesn't have to prove herself to the base. In addition to her wonderful background of positions and views, she did some of that in her brief speech a few days ago.

Her best value is in appealing to disenfranchised Hillary supporters, women and otherwise. Ohio is the most key state in the whole country, and she solidifies that if she even wins over a few of that category. Pennsylvania is an up hill battle, but she helps the chances there too. Ditto that for West Virginia--usually a Dem state.

And in Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, etc. she helps without even a lot repeating her positions on the issues conservatives relish.

[Freak Out]

Vile as the attacks might be on Palin and her daughter,


I see it as this is not only the "best" they've got, it's ALL they've got. If this is "all" they've got, then, well, the republican ticket is in GREAT shape.

Let's see what she says tonight. She'll either give them more material, or, she's home free until the debates.

Just like most Americans you focus on the trash that equals news in this country instead of her record/lack thereof. Have you read anything about her time as mayor or Governor? She's a politician just like most that have come before her...just better looking and a little more ambitious.

[mraynrand]

Her best value is in appealing to disenfranchised Hillary supporters, women and otherwise. Ohio is the most key state in the whole country, and she solidifies that if she even wins over a few of that category.

I know someone who fits this description, but she is a democratic operative, so she's obviously going Obama. Funny thing is, when you really talk issues with her, she knows that Obama's got nothing - it's just the strong desire to get Bush the hell out of there and have the entire government in Democratic hands. They really want the redistribution floodgates to open, and they figure it will be pretty easy to push Obama around. What they are really licking their chops over is the possibility of getting a veto proof, fillibuster-proof Senate majority, so that even if McCain wins, they can force all sorts of legislation through and block any but the most moderate judges. The Dems are feelin pretty confident.

[cpk1994]

Of course, one could also take the low road, otherwise known as the Tex approach: "If this were Biden's or Obama's daughter who were pregnant, do you really think the Right wouldn't be wringing their hands and making political capital out of it?"Its funny that they say "How can she lead when she has 5 children". I mean, The lefties don't seem to have a problem with Nancy Pelosi, who also has five children while being Speaker of the House.

[HowardRoark]

That's a laugh, though he may well have said it. We all know the real reason he chose her: cuz the Christian Right would have had a shit fit if he had chosen a pro-choice nominee such as Lieberman or Ridge.

You seem like a pretty smart guy. Someone who is able to answer a question without saying "it's above my paygrade."

When does life begin?

It really is not a "moral" issue at all (even though I am on record as saying EVERYTHING is a moral issue....and morals have to come from someplace after all......that is unless you are Ty).

No morality is a morality. Pro-Choice people are imposing their morality.

[Freak Out]

Clean up corruption? Are you talking about the ethics bill that the legislature wrote and she signed into law? Or about the Alaskan Republican party? Last time I looked the same "corrupt" republicans are running the party that were running it when she became Governor. Including the one she outed while on the oil and gas commission. The oil tax? Alaskans backed raising the tax rate on leases on State land so the legislature and Governor had no choice but to rework the royalties structure....irregardless of how much money BP and CP spent on TV time.

[mraynrand]

Clean up corruption? Are you talking about the ethics bill that the legislature wrote and she signed into law? Or about the Alaskan Republican party? Last time I looked the same "corrupt" republicans are running the party that were running it when she became Governor. Including the one she outed while on the oil and gas commission. The oil tax? Alaskans backed raising the tax rate on leases on State land so the legislature and Governor had no choice but to rework the royalties structure....irregardless of how much money BP and CP spent on TV time.

Sounds like a lot of good things happened while she was Governor. Imagine what would have happened with a Governor in the tank for the Oil industry (pun intended).

[retailguy]

Vile as the attacks might be on Palin and her daughter,


I see it as this is not only the "best" they've got, it's ALL they've got. If this is "all" they've got, then, well, the republican ticket is in GREAT shape.

Let's see what she says tonight. She'll either give them more material, or, she's home free until the debates.

Just like most Americans you focus on the trash that equals news in this country instead of her record/lack thereof. Have you read anything about her time as mayor or Governor? She's a politician just like most that have come before her...just better looking and a little more ambitious.

Quite honestly, I've read some of that. Some good, some bad, overly with my limited vantage point, it seems OK on the whole.

My comments were meant to illustrate a couple of things. 1st, you typically lead with the best you've got. This is what they're leading with. Does it make her a hypocrite? Perhaps in some areas, clearly not in other areas. The biggest downfall is that most of us have kids and realize at some point you just can't control the decision that they make. Clearly at 17, this girl is taking control of her life, and didn't include either of her parents in HER decision making process. Going down the "values" angle is a disaster for those trying to find fault with her.

2nd, if the lead story doesn't work, then, they'll move elswhere trying to find something that will stick. Problem is that they now do that with reduced credibility from those "undecided people" who are paying attention and went "so what?" over this one. Even if the next one is better, which it doesn't look like it will be, the credibility bar is higher.

3rd, doesn't the dearth of coverage regarding the issues you feel so passionate about indicate to you that most people don't find it newsworthy? I've googled about everything I can think of related to her trying to understand what you find so objectionable, and I can't figure it out. Care to fill me in? I'll read it if you post it.

Finally, an anecdotal piece. Several of you know that my wife is in Law School, and I've posted on multiple occasions that the vast majority of those who participate in my wife's study group are very liberal minded. Turns out, that 2/3'rd of those women, now intend to vote McCain as they are more excited about electing a woman than they are Obama. Many of them did not support Obama, and were strong Hillary supporters. Curiously, most of them are unconcerned about Palin's conservative leanings, even saying Palin's stance on abortion "didn't matter". take it for what it is worth, after all, it is anecdotal.

[HowardRoark]

Many of them did not support Obama, and were strong Hillary supporters. Curiously, most of them are unconcerned about Palin's conservative leanings, even saying Palin's stance on abortion "didn't matter". take it for what it is worth, after all, it is anecdotal.

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

[SkinBasket]

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

And you intend to vote?

[retailguy]

Many of them did not support Obama, and were strong Hillary supporters. Curiously, most of them are unconcerned about Palin's conservative leanings, even saying Palin's stance on abortion "didn't matter". take it for what it is worth, after all, it is anecdotal.

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

you select the one you want, then "click on it" with your mouse. :wink:

Incidentally, the humorous part is that Palin gets more of a pass from me than she does from my wife, who struggles with the idea that she is taking time from her family.... I find that really interesting, and not at all what I expected.

[HowardRoark]

Proof that women's suffrage is a bad idea.

(how do you work those damn smiley things.....if I could I would put up something that indicated I'm kidding......for the most part)

And you intend to vote?

Only if my wife explains to me (real slowly) where the polling place is.

[hoosier]

Way to avoid the issue of the post. But your point is absolutely correct. One of the reasons he selected her is that she has solid conservative values - the values that most Americans relate to and agree with, if they are allowed to hear them. But a huge consideration had to be her Maverick, clean up corruption credentials, because McCain knows that he can't win promoting himself as your typical Republican. Common sense, and a look at polling ought to make that obvious.

I avoided the issue because I wasn't really sure what point you were trying to make, other than trying to link the Wash Post with the left--which is a bit of a stretch. And the last line of your post did jump out at me, so I responded to that. Here are three key paragraphs of the article, which is too long to reproduce here in its entirety:

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.
(...)
The new details of the selection process provide a fuller picture of how and when McCain made his decision. Despite the late interview of the little-known Palin, senior McCain advisers said Tuesday night that she was chosen only after a lengthy and deliberative process that included the same background investigation given to others on McCain's shortlist and considerable debate among the candidate's inner circle about all his choices.

McCain did not speak face to face with Palin until Thursday morning, at his retreat in Sedona, Ariz. He also talked to her by telephone the previous Sunday. McCain had spoken with all of the others on his shortlist over the course of a selection process that went on for several months, but he was least familiar personally with the person he finally chose.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/02/ST2008090203591.html

What am I missing here? How is the author "spinning" anything? His claim is that McCain's campaign didn't meet with Culvahouse until Wednesday, the day before she was introduced as nominee, and that McCain himself didn't talk to her until that same day. By normal standards of scrutinizing political nominees, this seems very hasty, and that is Balz's point. Why do say he's "spinning" some aspect of this story?

[hoosier]

Hoosier, you miss the point. The New York Times USED TO BE and still PRETENDS TO BE mainstream media--NOT "the left". I guess they showed their true colors. Wouldn't you agree?
Agree that the NYT is left of center, but not out of the mainstream by any stretch of the imagination--excepting, of course, those among us who look to our left and see Mussolini, and beyond that everything else looks identical. But what you haven't yet demonstrated here is that the NYT was indeed attacking Palin or her daughter.

[mraynrand]

Way to avoid the issue of the post. But your point is absolutely correct. One of the reasons he selected her is that she has solid conservative values - the values that most Americans relate to and agree with, if they are allowed to hear them. But a huge consideration had to be her Maverick, clean up corruption credentials, because McCain knows that he can't win promoting himself as your typical Republican. Common sense, and a look at polling ought to make that obvious.

I avoided the issue because I wasn't really sure what point you were trying to make, other than trying to link the Wash Post with the left--which is a bit of a stretch. And the last line of your post did jump out at me, so I responded to that. Here are three key paragraphs of the article, which is too long to reproduce here in its entirety:

ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 2 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was not subjected to a lengthy in-person background interview with the head of Sen. John McCain's vice presidential vetting team until last Wednesday in Arizona, the day before McCain asked her to be his running mate, and she did not disclose the fact that her 17-year-old daughter was pregnant until that meeting, two knowledgeable McCain officials acknowledged Tuesday.
(...)
The new details of the selection process provide a fuller picture of how and when McCain made his decision. Despite the late interview of the little-known Palin, senior McCain advisers said Tuesday night that she was chosen only after a lengthy and deliberative process that included the same background investigation given to others on McCain's shortlist and considerable debate among the candidate's inner circle about all his choices.

McCain did not speak face to face with Palin until Thursday morning, at his retreat in Sedona, Ariz. He also talked to her by telephone the previous Sunday. McCain had spoken with all of the others on his shortlist over the course of a selection process that went on for several months, but he was least familiar personally with the person he finally chose.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/02/ST2008090203591.html

What am I missing here? How is the author "spinning" anything? His claim is that McCain's campaign didn't meet with Culvahouse until Wednesday, the day before she was introduced as nominee, and that McCain himself didn't talk to her until that same day. By normal standards of scrutinizing political nominees, this seems very hasty, and that is Balz's point. Why do say he's "spinning" some aspect of this story?


Your own post undermines your own position. The only important point is whether she was properly 'vetted.' The title was clearly biased. The average person is going to read it and think - Hey, McCain didn't even interview her till the last minute! Well, later in the article, they point out that her entire background WAS checked out, in much the same way as other possible candidates and that McCain DID talk to her by phone. We don't know how long that conversation was. That was my point - that the title was intentionally misleading. (and the POV it espoused was pretty much identical with the democratic talking points on the VP pick).

[hoosier]

When does life begin?

It really is not a "moral" issue at all (even though I am on record as saying EVERYTHING is a moral issue....and morals have to come from someplace after all......that is unless you are Ty).

No morality is a morality. Pro-Choice people are imposing their morality.

After the third cup of coffee?

[hoosier]

Your own post undermines your own position. The only important point is whether she was properly 'vetted.'

That's one important point. Another is whether McCain appears to have made a hasty or rash decision--the VP decision, after all, is the litmus test for political judgment, no? The appearances suggest that McCain was favoring another nominee but had to back off because of political pressure. And, while I don't know for sure, I'm guessing that most VP nominees have gone through a much longer vetting process than Palin's--and a rushed vetting is much more likely to be sloppy. Then there's another important consideration: to what degree is McCain pandering here to the Christian Right? All of these are IMO completely legitimate issues, and I think they're all in the background of Balz's article. I agree that the article could have done a better job of foregrounding them, and if it had, maybe it wouldn't have struck you as duplicitous. Biased, perhaps, but at least forthright.

[HowardRoark]

Pregnant Pause
Trying to end the Palin candidacy before it begins.

By the Editors, National Review


Bristol Palin, the world now knows, is five months’ pregnant. The McCain campaign released a statement from Governor Palin and her husband expressing loving support for their daughter, who will have her child and plans to marry the father — like Miss Palin, a high-school senior. It is obviously a wrenching situation for the family, but the Palins appear to be handling it appropriately, living by their values.

Shouldn’t that be the end of the matter? John McCain certainly thinks so. The circumstances were raised when Gov. Palin was being vetted, and he nevertheless selected her as his running-mate — an inspired choice, if enthusiasm from Republicans and conservatives is any guide. Barack Obama and his chosen running-mate, Sen. Joe Biden, have admirably stipulated that candidates’ children should be off-limits and that the Palins’ family matters are irrelevant to the upcoming election.

Would that the ticket’s surrogates and supporters followed their candidates’ lead. Instead, there is a feeding frenzy — a race to the bottom between the left-wing blogosphere and the mainstream media, with the bloggers ahead by a hair.

The New York Times’s webpage on Tuesday led with no fewer than three stories about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy. CNN has tried to exploit Miss Palin as a laboratory specimen for a high-profile examination of sex-education. MSNBC and the Huffington Post are titillating viewers with exposes on Miss Palin’s boyfriend. Slate, owned by the Washington Post, is running a “Name Bristol Palin’s Baby” contest. US Weekly has “Babies, Lies, and Scandal” on its cover. But unsavory as all this is, it can’t hold a candle to Andrew Sullivan.

Once a respectable journalist, The Atlantic’s self-declared champion of respect for privacy and of civil discourse now obsesses over Miss Palin, airing baseless and abhorrent questions about the motherhood of Trig, Gov. Palin’s infant son, born this year with Down syndrome. One wonders if David Bradley bought The Atlantic — a venerable institution that once published Mark Twain and Martin Luther King — so that he could associate it with the most despicable ravings of the left-wing blogosphere. What price in reputation is Bradley willing to pay for increased unique-visitor numbers from among the fever swamps?

This shameful but predictable media performance stands in marked contrast to the rigorous “hands-off” privacy policy dutifully honored by the press throughout the Clinton years for the president’s then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. Indeed earlier this year, though Miss Clinton was now well into her twenties and an impressively poised surrogate for her mother’s campaign, NBC News suspended reporter David Shuster for asserting that Sen. Clinton’s campaign was “pimping” her daughter — a classless formulation, to be sure. But where’s the hyper-sensitivity about a candidate’s child now?

When Al Gore’s son was arrested on narcotics and speeding charges in 2007, moreover, the national press was a model of sympathetic restraint. The muted coverage was devoid of calls for a national “teaching moment” on drug abuse or responsible driving. The message was plain and correct: No news here, move along.

The Republican base and other people of good will are angry over this grotesque display. It is obvious what the media and Democrats are up to here. They want to define Sarah Palin as a failure before she even has a chance to succeed. Hence the speculation that McCain will dump her from the ticket. How absurd. All we know about Palin’s performance as a candidate so far is that she gave polished performances at her unveiling in Ohio and at a rally the next day in Pennsylvania. The supposed embarrassments — about her alleged membership in the fringe Alaskan Independence Party and her woefully incomplete vetting — are concoctions of a media stumbling over itself to prove a conclusion it has already reached.

So far, it is the press that has embarrassed itself, not the governor from Alaska.

[SkinBasket]

Then there's another important consideration: to what degree is McCain pandering here to the Christian Right?

Uhhhhh...

*sigh*

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

[HowardRoark]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

Let me try to help you out here.

Obama trumpets that fact that “our time is now” and that “yes we can.” He talks about how he can bridge the gap and work with all kinds of people. According to him, we need to be able to help out all people. HE did not help out his brother. It is a direct reflection on Obama’s character on how poorly he has treated his brother. His brother has nothing to do with it other than how Barack has treated him.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin has beliefs on abortion and abstinence. If Sarah Palin had an abortion, you could rip on her all you want. She too, just like Obama, would be a hypocrite. What happened here was that Sarah’s daughter spread her legs and got pregnant. In case you have been busy lately, Bristol Palin is not running for Vice President.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

Let me try to help you out here.

Obama trumpets that fact that “our time is now” and that “yes we can.” He talks about how he can bridge the gap and work with all kinds of people. According to him, we need to be able to help out all people. HE did not help out his brother. It is a direct reflection on Obama’s character on how poorly he has treated his brother. His brother has nothing to do with it other than how Barack has treated him.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin has beliefs on abortion and abstinence. If Sarah Palin had an abortion, you could rip on her all you want. She too, just like Obama, would be a hypocrite. What happened here was that Sarah’s daughter spread her legs and got pregnant. In case you have been busy lately, Bristol Palin is not running for President.

Obama: That is a nice reworking of his policy. :roll:

Palin: Right. Her daughter and her actions don't reflect on her character? LOL

Her daughter is the clearest example of Mrs. Palin's effective leadership, morals and values. She trumpets abstinence education..and yet her own daughter can't follow it. And, now she is going to "force" her daughter into a "smart" marriage at 17/18. Nice.

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

Her character is severely challenged..bristol, troopergate, bridge to nowhere, etc.

[SkinBasket]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

I'm really not seeing how you're pretending to compare these things to one another.

[retailguy]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

I'm really not seeing how you're pretending to compare these things to one another.

I am convinced that is the true beauty of the comparison.

[texaspackerbacker]

"pandering to the religious right"--Hoosier's words--is actually code for appealing to good old American NORMALCY--the wonderful views and values that are prevalent with the vast majority of decent family oriented generally apolitical, but staunchly America-loving Americans.

Choosing somebody like Palin who so typifies this kind of NORMALCY really highlights how out of touch and downright evil the Dem/lib leadership is, along with the sick collection of weirdo groups and agendas that were flaunted at the DNC.

The beauty of our convention system is that practically all Americans--except maybe those so disinterested that they probably won't vote anyway--get to see and here exactly what the two parties choose to emphasize, exactly what the candidates and other party leaders are for and against, etc.--all of it UNFILTERED by the God damned leftist mainstream media.

Of course, like in 2000 and 2004, when that happens the hopes and chances of the Democrats go right in the toilet.

A lot of people on TV and elsewhere are writing off Republican chances in Congressional elections. Maybe, but I certainly don't see that as quite so clear cut. Logically, there too the evil media influence lessens as the election approaches, and the views and positions of the candidates become known.

[mraynrand]

And, now she is going to "force" her daughter into a "smart" marriage at 17/18. Nice.

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.



And now, just like with the McCain family, Ty is a member of the inner circle of the Palin family, knowing the thoughts and feelings of all involved. It's interesting to see your 'value system' in action - it looks very much like that of your hero, Andrew Sullivan, who libeled the Palin family as well. Hmmm... premarital sex without a condom or piece of shit liar? Alex, I'll take premarital sex for $400.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

I'm really not seeing how you're pretending to compare these things to one another.

Of course you don't. And, you further show your lack of ability to even meaningfully discuss by insulting me. Super!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And, now she is going to "force" her daughter into a "smart" marriage at 17/18. Nice.

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.



And now, just like with the McCain family, Ty is a member of the inner circle of the Palin family, knowing the thoughts and feelings of all involved. It's interesting to see your 'value system' in action - it looks very much like that of your hero, Andrew Sullivan, who libeled the Palin family as well. Hmmm... premarital sex without a condom or piece of shit liar? Alex, I'll take premarital sex for $400.

Who is "knowing?" Her boyfriend has stated it. That, my friend, is on the record.

Premarital sex...what kind of family let's that happen? Not the palin's who are for abstinence education. Wow! Teenagers having sex..whoda thunk it. Good thing that didn't know how to use birth control. :oops:

[HarveyWallbangers]

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

How does not wanting kids == not being in love or not wanting to get married?

[mraynrand]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

Seems to me the Palin family is dealing with sin the way a family of faith should -they protect the life of the baby and decide between adoption or marriage and keeping the baby.

Seems to me that Obama, who claims (in his nomination acceptance speech) that we should help the 'least of our brothers' is not doing that for the least of his brothers.

[mraynrand]

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

How does not wanting kids == not being in love or not wanting to get married?

Ty is a member of the family, and/or he feels empowered to make facts up, just like his libel-spewing hero Andrew Sullivan.

[Scott Campbell]

I think the emphasis on this triviality is a pretty good sign that Democrats are having to grasp at straws to find chinks in her armor.



Did you hear that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbo?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

How does not wanting kids == not being in love or not wanting to get married?

Of course not, but, let's be honest...he hadn't proposed, wasn't engaged prior to this.

Nor do i think the palin's envisioned their daughter getting married this young.

Johnson said, he is "in a relationship,'' but on the question about how he feels about children he said: ``I don't want kids.''

'I'm a f--kin' redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some s--t and just f--kin' chillin' I guess. Ya f--k with me I'll kick ass.''

Sounds like a guy ready to settle down!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

How does not wanting kids == not being in love or not wanting to get married?

Ty is a member of the family, and/or he feels empowered to make facts up, just like his libel-spewing hero Andrew Sullivan.

You should check yourself...cause you just look even more stupid.

His not wanting kids is public record. :oops:

[texaspackerbacker]

Is it "on the public record" that he wanted her to have an abortion? I'm just curious, since Ty seems to have made all this his business.

How many abortions did Chelsea have? Is that "on the public record" too?

Has Michelle Obama been sleeping around on Barak? Seems like I saw some reference to that in a "public record" at the super market the other day.

[Scott Campbell]

Is it "on the public record" that he wanted her to have an abortion? I'm just curious, since Ty seems to have made all this his business.

How many abortions did Chelsea have? Is that "on the public record" too?

Has Michelle Obama been sleeping around on Barak? Seems like I saw some reference to that in a "public record" at the super market the other day.


For a party that defended extra marital May/December sex in the oval office and subsequent lies under oath to a grand jury, this witch hunt behavior seems more than a little inconsistent.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Is it "on the public record" that he wanted her to have an abortion? I'm just curious, since Ty seems to have made all this his business.

How many abortions did Chelsea have? Is that "on the public record" too?

Has Michelle Obama been sleeping around on Barak? Seems like I saw some reference to that in a "public record" at the super market the other day.


For a party that defended extra marital May/December sex in the oval office and subsequent lies under oath to a grand jury, this witch hunt behavior seems more than a little inconsistent.

For a party that instigated a witch hunt, it seems a bit inconsistent not to expect one.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Is it "on the public record" that he wanted her to have an abortion? I'm just curious, since Ty seems to have made all this his business.

How many abortions did Chelsea have? Is that "on the public record" too?

Has Michelle Obama been sleeping around on Barak? Seems like I saw some reference to that in a "public record" at the super market the other day.

Who said anything about abortion?

Mr. Johnston's statements are of record. This isn't being made up.

Chelsea/Obama: Are you just making things up now?

If so, how many gay lovers has tom delay had? How often does W give Cheney a reach around?

[Freak Out]

The sad thing about this is that there are plenty of things to focus on that should affect this election in regards to Palin but so many only care about moose hunting credentials and teen sex. But that's modern American politics.

[mraynrand]

The sad thing about this is that there are plenty of things to focus on that should affect this election in regards to Palin but so many only care about moose hunting credentials and teen sex. But that's modern American politics.

How about moose sex and teens hunting?

[Scott Campbell]

Is it "on the public record" that he wanted her to have an abortion? I'm just curious, since Ty seems to have made all this his business.

How many abortions did Chelsea have? Is that "on the public record" too?

Has Michelle Obama been sleeping around on Barak? Seems like I saw some reference to that in a "public record" at the super market the other day.


For a party that defended extra marital May/December sex in the oval office and subsequent lies under oath to a grand jury, this witch hunt behavior seems more than a little inconsistent.

For a party that instigated a witch hunt, it seems a bit inconsistent not to expect one.


Not at all. It's a family member, not the elected official themselves. If Chelsea was the one having sex in the oval office, and lying about it in front of grand jury, even Tex wouldn't have called for Bill's impeachment.

This issue is as weak as they come.

[Freak Out]

The sad thing about this is that there are plenty of things to focus on that should affect this election in regards to Palin but so many only care about moose hunting credentials and teen sex. But that's modern American politics.

How about moose sex and teens hunting?

Seeing as how you brought it up...as a teen while hunting moose in November once I came upon a older bull with a small harem who was saddled up....I didn't have the heart to kill him.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Is it "on the public record" that he wanted her to have an abortion? I'm just curious, since Ty seems to have made all this his business.

How many abortions did Chelsea have? Is that "on the public record" too?

Has Michelle Obama been sleeping around on Barak? Seems like I saw some reference to that in a "public record" at the super market the other day.


For a party that defended extra marital May/December sex in the oval office and subsequent lies under oath to a grand jury, this witch hunt behavior seems more than a little inconsistent.

For a party that instigated a witch hunt, it seems a bit inconsistent not to expect one.


Not at all. It's a family member, not the elected official themselves. If Chelsea was the one having sex in the oval office, and lying about it in front of grand jury, even Tex wouldn't have called for Bill's impeachment.

This issue is as weak as they come.

Palin is being talked about..not bristol. Mrs. Palin's family is more than fair game when you present yourself..and the party presents her as a symbol of family values, solid mom, etc. Mrs. Palin's thoughts and policies should be examined as to how they affect all residents of her state...and certainly her daughter qualifies.

P.S. I guess all those stories about billy carter and ruth carter were just...well, i imagined them. Same goes for ron jr and the rest of his RR's family.

P.P.S. Wouldn't be in this mess if Mac had the courage of his convictions and went with Joe..or KBH. But, when you sell your soul...these types of things happen.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The sad thing about this is that there are plenty of things to focus on that should affect this election in regards to Palin but so many only care about moose hunting credentials and teen sex. But that's modern American politics.

How about moose sex and teens hunting?

Seeing as how you brought it up...as a teen while hunting moose in November once I came upon a older bull with a small harem who was saddled up....I didn't have the heart to kill him.

You should have. Quite clearly a liberal moose not following good normal american values.

One moose, one cow!

Soon to be a republican plank.

[SkinBasket]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

I'm really not seeing how you're pretending to compare these things to one another.

Of course you don't. And, you further show your lack of ability to even meaningfully discuss by insulting me. Super!

Well that certainly clears things up. Thanks for making that link and expounding on your infallible non-argument.

How did I insult you again?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

I'm really not seeing how you're pretending to compare these things to one another.

Of course you don't. And, you further show your lack of ability to even meaningfully discuss by insulting me. Super!

Well that certainly clears things up. Thanks for making that link and expounding on your infallible non-argument.

How did I insult you again?

I explained my position..and for you to claim otherwise is asinine. But, why would one address you, when you don't take what i say as serious? The word "pretending" certainly doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

And, you continue with the insults. Super!!

[HowardRoark]

I think Campbell Brown should wander around the Upper West Side asking random people “why didn’t you guys do a better job of vetting Obama? Do you really think he is ready to be President” with an incredulous expression on her face.

[Scott Campbell]

Mrs. Palin's family is more than fair game when you present yourself..and the party presents her as a symbol of family values, solid mom, etc.


I don't remember anyone "presenting her as a symbol" of anything. She's on McCains ticket as the VP. If all we were looking for was a " symbol of family values, solid mom", McCain could have selected Mrs. Cunningham.




http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/29/marionross_l.jpg

[mraynrand]

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

How does not wanting kids == not being in love or not wanting to get married?

Ty is a member of the family, and/or he feels empowered to make facts up, just like his libel-spewing hero Andrew Sullivan.

You should check yourself...cause you just look even more stupid.

His not wanting kids is public record. :oops:

You went far beyond that simple fact. You have inside knowledge about what the love is like - whether it is like 'Romeo and Juliet' etc.. You make up facts as they suit you. You could work for the Star!

But that's only half the equation. Your hero, the epitome of your value system of your history and culture is a libeler. And you are following in his footsteps. I guess your value system says it's OK to libel, just so long as it suits your goals.

[hoosier]

Wow, this thread turned nasty in a hurry. Time to lighten things up with a little banter with old Tex....

[hoosier]

"pandering to the religious right"--Hoosier's words--is actually code for appealing to good old American NORMALCY--the wonderful views and values that are prevalent with the vast majority of decent family oriented generally apolitical, but staunchly America-loving Americans.

Choosing somebody like Palin who so typifies this kind of NORMALCY really highlights how out of touch and downright evil the Dem/lib leadership is, along with the sick collection of weirdo groups and agendas that were flaunted at the DNC.

The beauty of our convention system is that practically all Americans--except maybe those so disinterested that they probably won't vote anyway--get to see and here exactly what the two parties choose to emphasize, exactly what the candidates and other party leaders are for and against, etc.--all of it UNFILTERED by the God damned leftist mainstream media.

Of course, like in 2000 and 2004, when that happens the hopes and chances of the Democrats go right in the toilet.

A lot of people on TV and elsewhere are writing off Republican chances in Congressional elections. Maybe, but I certainly don't see that as quite so clear cut. Logically, there too the evil media influence lessens as the election approaches, and the views and positions of the candidates become known.

That sounds great, but unfortunately experience has long taught us that behind the shrillest voices for what you call "normalcy" there lurks a foot-tapping pervert waiting to get out.

Hegel once wrote that the gaze that finds evil everywhere in the world is the true source of evil. I propose that the same logic holds for those who can't stop talking about the corruption of "normalcy".

[hoosier]

Peggy Noonan doesn't share y'all's optimism and good cheer about the Palin nomination.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/noonan_and_murphy_meet_the_hot.html

[mraynrand]

Peggy Noonan doesn't share y'all's optimism and good cheer about the Palin nomination.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/noonan_and_murphy_meet_the_hot.html

Have you listened to her lately? I can't remember the last time she showed god cheer about anything!

[hoosier]

Peggy Noonan doesn't share y'all's optimism and good cheer about the Palin nomination.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/03/noonan_and_murphy_meet_the_hot.html

Have you listened to her lately? I can't remember the last time she showed god cheer about anything!

We should dub her the anti-Tex.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

BTW, the soon to be husband never wanted kids. So, let's not pretend that they are some romeo and juliet and were dying to get married.

How does not wanting kids == not being in love or not wanting to get married?

Ty is a member of the family, and/or he feels empowered to make facts up, just like his libel-spewing hero Andrew Sullivan.

You should check yourself...cause you just look even more stupid.

His not wanting kids is public record. :oops:

You went far beyond that simple fact. You have inside knowledge about what the love is like - whether it is like 'Romeo and Juliet' etc.. You make up facts as they suit you. You could work for the Star!

But that's only half the equation. Your hero, the epitome of your value system of your history and culture is a libeler. And you are following in his footsteps. I guess your value system says it's OK to libel, just so long as it suits your goals.

Nice try.

1. I used quotes. I never said what her thoughts were. But, as a conservative american woman i think we all can pretty much guess that she insn't in favor of pre marital sex..and now she thinks that Levi should do the right thing by her daughter.

2. hero. You must be following the Atwater school of lying. I have never said Sullivan is my hero.

You are my hero. Your obstinacy inspires me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Mrs. Palin's family is more than fair game when you present yourself..and the party presents her as a symbol of family values, solid mom, etc.


I don't remember anyone "presenting her as a symbol" of anything. She's on McCains ticket as the VP. If all we were looking for was a " symbol of family values, solid mom", McCain could have selected Mrs. Cunningham.




http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/29/marionross_l.jpg

It would be nice if you joined reality sometime. I guess the evangelicals swooning over her was because she baked a mean pie. :roll:

[Scott Campbell]

I think Sarah just sent a big shout out to Tex. She didn't actually use the term "god damned america hate'n leftist media", but she sure implied it.


:lol:

[SkinBasket]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

I'm really not seeing how you're pretending to compare these things to one another.

Of course you don't. And, you further show your lack of ability to even meaningfully discuss by insulting me. Super!

Well that certainly clears things up. Thanks for making that link and expounding on your infallible non-argument.

How did I insult you again?

I explained my position..and for you to claim otherwise is asinine. But, why would one address you, when you don't take what i say as serious? The word "pretending" certainly doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

And, you continue with the insults. Super!!

You didn't explain shit, you cock snorkel. See, now I've insulted you, you dirty uterus. You presented us with two disparate statements about two different people in completely different situations and contexts. Then you pronounced your moral superiority over everyone else because apparently you see something than no one else can see and that you yourself cannot seem to explain or expound upon.

Tom eats apples. Sally likes pears. Fucking hypocrites.

Argue that you crotch critter, because that's about all you gave us to work with with your post.

Super duper anal lubber!!

[Scott Campbell]

It would be nice if you joined reality sometime.


....says the putz constantly pretending to be an angry black man.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I find it interesting that the conservatives here in this forum were hopping mad about Obama not helping out his distant stepbrother, but find the idea of talking about Palin's abstinence education stance (how is that working for ya Sarah!) and her daughter being pregnant as being outside the pale.

The hypocrisy on this forum never ceases to amaze.

I'm really not seeing how you're pretending to compare these things to one another.

Of course you don't. And, you further show your lack of ability to even meaningfully discuss by insulting me. Super!

Well that certainly clears things up. Thanks for making that link and expounding on your infallible non-argument.

How did I insult you again?

I explained my position..and for you to claim otherwise is asinine. But, why would one address you, when you don't take what i say as serious? The word "pretending" certainly doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

And, you continue with the insults. Super!!

You didn't explain shit, you cock snorkel. See, now I've insulted you, you dirty uterus. You presented us with two disparate statements about two different people in completely different situations and contexts. Then you pronounced your moral superiority over everyone else because apparently you see something than no one else can see and that you yourself cannot seem to explain or expound upon.

Tom eats apples. Sally likes pears. Fucking hypocrites.

Argue that you crotch critter, because that's about all you gave us to work with with your post.

Super duper anal lubber!!

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It would be nice if you joined reality sometime.


....says the putz constantly pretending to be an angry black man.

Try and not mix your ethnic groups. :oops:

[Freak Out]

Palin only lied on a few occasions so I'm cool with her now.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Palin only lied on a few occasions so I'm cool with her now.

LOL

Care to illuminate?

[Freak Out]

Palin only lied on a few occasions so I'm cool with her now.

LOL

Care to illuminate?

Well....just as an example..the "Bridge to nowhere" money. Did the State of AK give it back? Fuck no...it was just spent on other construction projects. The State of AK would never "build it ourselves"....we would use money from Uncle Don Young or Uncle Ted just like she has in the past.

[Scott Campbell]

It would be nice if you joined reality sometime.


....says the putz constantly pretending to be an angry black man.

Try and not mix your ethnic groups. :oops:


Why?

Trouble following along?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It would be nice if you joined reality sometime.


....says the putz constantly pretending to be an angry black man.

Try and not mix your ethnic groups. :oops:


Why?

Trouble following along?

Because you don't understand either.

[mraynrand]

It would be nice if you joined reality sometime.


....says the putz constantly pretending to be an angry black man.

Try and not mix your ethnic groups. :oops:


Why?

Trouble following along?

Because you don't understand either.

Leave it to the lefty multiculturalist to 'be against' mixing ethnic groups - and then tell you that you can't possibly understand. Look at the source. This is high humor. 'Because you don't understand!!' But he does! HA HA HA HA!!!!!

[falco]

i would post more in this thread if it was titled "drilling miss alaska"

[mraynrand]

i would post more in this thread if it was titled "drilling miss alaska"

Just start your own thread!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It would be nice if you joined reality sometime.


....says the putz constantly pretending to be an angry black man.

Try and not mix your ethnic groups. :oops:


Why?

Trouble following along?

Because you don't understand either.

Leave it to the lefty multiculturalist to 'be against' mixing ethnic groups - and then tell you that you can't possibly understand. Look at the source. This is high humor. 'Because you don't understand!!' But he does! HA HA HA HA!!!!!

I understand one...which is one more than you or SC.

[falco]

i would post more in this thread if it was titled "drilling miss alaska"

Just start your own thread!

pfft a thread like that is worthless without pics

got any?

[Harlan Huckleby]

now that i've seen Sarah Palin, I know I'd like to do some drilling in Alaska. know what i mean? huh? huh?

[SkinBasket]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

[mraynrand]

now that i've seen Sarah Palin, I know I'd like to do some drilling in Alaska. know what i mean? huh? huh?

See page 9 in "VP raffle, GOP edition"

[Maxie the Taxi]

Palin only lied on a few occasions so I'm cool with her now.

LOL

Care to illuminate?

Well....just as an example..the "Bridge to nowhere" money. Did the State of AK give it back? Fuck no...it was just spent on other construction projects. The State of AK would never "build it ourselves"....we would use money from Uncle Don Young or Uncle Ted just like she has in the past.

"Lie" is a strong accusation. I don't believe in mind-reading, so I'm not inclined to believe those who profess to know what is in the heart and mind of another person.

A "lie" is a false statement made with the deliberate intent to decieve, or at least that's my dictionary's definition.

Those who accuse someone of lying must first prove the alleged liar's statements are false. The accuser must then prove the alleged liar's false statements were made in order to delibertately deceive.

People with an ax to grind, most especially politicians, are often accused nowadays of being liars. However, sometimes these people are just stupid, i.e., they don't know their statements are false (e.g., Nancy Pelosi). Sometimes their own personal perspective on things is so out of touch with reality, they actually believe their false statements are true (e.g., Dennis Kucinich). Sometimes what people say is technically true, but only half of the whole story. Does this make them liars? Maybe, if they intentionally refuse to be truthful about the other half.

The media has been so busy slandering Palin's family and mindlessly repeating outlandish internet rumors, they have for the most part failed to investigate the other half of the "Bridge to Nowhere" story. This proves to me the press is more interested in slinging mud than than in digging up the truth.

Before Palin's selection as the Republican VP nominee, what stories did appear in the media about the Bridge to Nowhere were still only half stories that concentrated on the corruption of Alaskan politicians, mostly Republicans. In these stories Palin was painted as a reformer. If you don't believe me, read the following Wall Street Journal article by John Fund posted in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fund/alaskas-gop-congressmen-a_b_119574.html

The article's slight mention of Palin includes this:


But voters are voicing dissent. Gov. Sarah Palin swept into office in 2006 by winning a GOP primary over incumbent Frank Murkowski, a former colleague of Stevens and Young in Congress. "I want Alaska to be known for more than FBI sting operations," she has declared. Palin openly encouraged Sean Parnell, her lieutenant governor, to mount a primary challenge to Young and has not endorsed Mr. Stevens against his primary challenger, Anchorage banker David Cuddy.

Now, however, after Palin's nomination as the Republican VP, articles like the one which follows appear in the same Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/2-top-alaska-newspapers-q_b_122625.html

This article by Greg Mitchell tells us that "2 top Alaskan newspapers question Palin's fitness." The article quotes editorials from these two newspapers and then reports this:


A reporter for the Anchorage daily, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post, in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80%, but 65% and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president.... I expect her to stick with simple truths. When asked about continued American troop presence in Iraq, she said she knows only one thing about that (I paraphrase): no one has attacked the American homeland since George Bush took the war to Iraq."

His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Another top Republican, John Harris, the speaker of the House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

So before Palin's nomination Alaskan Republicans were corrupt conservatives slurping at the trough of public earmarks (making statements like "Those who bite me will be bitten back."). Now, after Palin's nomination, top Alaskan Republicans are trusted sources with regard to Palin's alleged incompetence.

Were the newspapers quoted in this article Democratic mouthpieces like the NY Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? What axes do the quoted Alaskan Republicans have to grind? Are they liars?

I would like the whole unvarnished truth to come out on the Bridge to Nowhere. I would like the media to ask Palin tough followup questions. But I would also like to see the media ask equally tough followup questions of Barrack Obama and Joe Biden. For instance, what is the full story with regard to Obama's connection to Mayor Daley and the Chicago political machine? What is the full story with regard to Biden and his lobbyist son?

We are all smart enough to become informed citizens and judge for ourselves, after listening to the candidates, what is truth and what isn't and, perhaps, if there is evidence enough, what is a lie.

But simply labeling a person a liar, without proof of intent, without the full story being told in all it's many colors, details and prospectives, amounts to nothing more than slander.

We should all take it for what it is.

[sheepshead]

i would post more in this thread if it was titled "drilling miss alaska"

A few keepers in here...


http://www.missalaskapageant.com/2008misscontestants.html

[texaspackerbacker]

"pandering to the religious right"--Hoosier's words--is actually code for appealing to good old American NORMALCY--the wonderful views and values that are prevalent with the vast majority of decent family oriented generally apolitical, but staunchly America-loving Americans.

Choosing somebody like Palin who so typifies this kind of NORMALCY really highlights how out of touch and downright evil the Dem/lib leadership is, along with the sick collection of weirdo groups and agendas that were flaunted at the DNC.

The beauty of our convention system is that practically all Americans--except maybe those so disinterested that they probably won't vote anyway--get to see and here exactly what the two parties choose to emphasize, exactly what the candidates and other party leaders are for and against, etc.--all of it UNFILTERED by the God damned leftist mainstream media.

Of course, like in 2000 and 2004, when that happens the hopes and chances of the Democrats go right in the toilet.

A lot of people on TV and elsewhere are writing off Republican chances in Congressional elections. Maybe, but I certainly don't see that as quite so clear cut. Logically, there too the evil media influence lessens as the election approaches, and the views and positions of the candidates become known.

That sounds great, but unfortunately experience has long taught us that behind the shrillest voices for what you call "normalcy" there lurks a foot-tapping pervert waiting to get out.

Hegel once wrote that the gaze that finds evil everywhere in the world is the true source of evil. I propose that the same logic holds for those who can't stop talking about the corruption of "normalcy".

Although your overall response is typically--for leftists--weak and flaccid, you do bring up one mildly valid point, the several instance of faguery among Republicans--Larry Craig and the Florida guy--I forgot his name. Of course, you Dem/libs had at least two similar instances--one of which is Barney Franks--probably the most blatant fag in politics, who instead of being roundly condemned, has been praised and made an icon of the Democrat Party.

As I would think even you would admit, Hoosier, homosexuality, along with the various other sick perversions out there, may be rare exceptions lurking below the surface with normal Americans i.e. Republicans, but they are matters of shame and disgust. With the Democrats, on the other hand, the same sick perversions are encouraged/promoted/made matters of party policy to push those evil agendas.

[Freak Out]

Palin only lied on a few occasions so I'm cool with her now.

LOL

Care to illuminate?

Well....just as an example..the "Bridge to nowhere" money. Did the State of AK give it back? Fuck no...it was just spent on other construction projects. The State of AK would never "build it ourselves"....we would use money from Uncle Don Young or Uncle Ted just like she has in the past.

"Lie" is a strong accusation. I don't believe in mind-reading, so I'm not inclined to believe those who profess to know what is in the heart and mind of another person.

A "lie" is a false statement made with the deliberate intent to decieve, or at least that's my dictionary's definition.

Those who accuse someone of lying must first prove the alleged liar's statements are false. The accuser must then prove the alleged liar's false statements were made in order to delibertately deceive.

People with an ax to grind, most especially politicians, are often accused nowadays of being liars. However, sometimes these people are just stupid, i.e., they don't know their statements are false (e.g., Nancy Pelosi). Sometimes their own personal perspective on things is so out of touch with reality, they actually believe their false statements are true (e.g., Dennis Kucinich). Sometimes what people say is technically true, but only half of the whole story. Does this make them liars? Maybe, if they intentionally refuse to be truthful about the other half.

The media has been so busy slandering Palin's family and mindlessly repeating outlandish internet rumors, they have for the most part failed to investigate the other half of the "Bridge to Nowhere" story. This proves to me the press is more interested in slinging mud than than in digging up the truth.

Before Palin's selection as the Republican VP nominee, what stories did appear in the media about the Bridge to Nowhere were still only half stories that concentrated on the corruption of Alaskan politicians, mostly Republicans. In these stories Palin was painted as a reformer. If you don't believe me, read the following Wall Street Journal article by John Fund posted in the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-fund/alaskas-gop-congressmen-a_b_119574.html

The article's slight mention of Palin includes this:


But voters are voicing dissent. Gov. Sarah Palin swept into office in 2006 by winning a GOP primary over incumbent Frank Murkowski, a former colleague of Stevens and Young in Congress. "I want Alaska to be known for more than FBI sting operations," she has declared. Palin openly encouraged Sean Parnell, her lieutenant governor, to mount a primary challenge to Young and has not endorsed Mr. Stevens against his primary challenger, Anchorage banker David Cuddy.

Now, however, after Palin's nomination as the Republican VP, articles like the one which follows appear in the same Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/2-top-alaska-newspapers-q_b_122625.html

This article by Greg Mitchell tells us that "2 top Alaskan newspapers question Palin's fitness." The article quotes editorials from these two newspapers and then reports this:


A reporter for the Anchorage daily, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post, in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80%, but 65% and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president.... I expect her to stick with simple truths. When asked about continued American troop presence in Iraq, she said she knows only one thing about that (I paraphrase): no one has attacked the American homeland since George Bush took the war to Iraq."

His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"

Another top Republican, John Harris, the speaker of the House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen."

So before Palin's nomination Alaskan Republicans were corrupt conservatives slurping at the trough of public earmarks (making statements like "Those who bite me will be bitten back."). Now, after Palin's nomination, top Alaskan Republicans are trusted sources with regard to Palin's alleged incompetence.

Were the newspapers quoted in this article Democratic mouthpieces like the NY Times and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? What axes do the quoted Alaskan Republicans have to grind? Are they liars?

I would like the whole unvarnished truth to come out on the Bridge to Nowhere. I would like the media to ask Palin tough followup questions. But I would also like to see the media ask equally tough followup questions of Barrack Obama and Joe Biden. For instance, what is the full story with regard to Obama's connection to Mayor Daley and the Chicago political machine? What is the full story with regard to Biden and his lobbyist son?

We are all smart enough to become informed citizens and judge for ourselves, after listening to the candidates, what is truth and what isn't and, perhaps, if there is evidence enough, what is a lie.

But simply labeling a person a liar, without proof of intent, without the full story being told in all it's many colors, details and prospectives, amounts to nothing more than slander.

We should all take it for what it is.

The truth is out there for smart people like you to find. The earmark for the bridge was removed before she ever became Governor. The State still got the money and could spend it where they wanted for road construction and transportation related projects. Palin campaigned in Ketchikan while running for Governor saying she was for the bridge and that the people of Ketchikan were getting a bad rap.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Freak Out wrote:

The truth is out there for smart people like you to find. The earmark for the bridge was removed before she ever became Governor. The State still got the money and could spend it where they wanted for road construction and transportation related projects. Palin campaigned in Ketchikan while running for Governor saying she was for the bridge and that the people of Ketchikan were getting a bad rap.

In researching this I've come across the website of Andrew Halcro (http://www.andrewhalcro.com/). He's probably Alaska's biggest critic of Sarah Palin. I understand he ran against her for Governor. He posted the following after Palin's speech last night:


from http://www.andrewhalcro.com/grading_palins_speech_a

Grading Palin's Speech: A

It was a great night for Alaskans as Governor Sarah Palin hit all of the high notes and delivered a well rounded speech that touched all of the bases.

She introduced her family, talked about her experience, talked about Alaska and how we could help the country with our energy sources and even took swipes at the media and the Obama camp in true Sarah fashion. I gave the speech an A and probably would have given it an A+, except for the fact that I know her actual record as governor too intimately.

In describing some of her accomplishments as governor she not only stretched on some, but down right fabricated others.

[Palin statements from speech are in bold type]

And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

Yes but some of that money was put back during the following budget cycle.

I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

The legislature had a hand in suspending the state fuel tax and saying she championed reform to end the abuses of earmarks means the state only asked for 31 earmarks this year totaling $190 million dollars.

I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves.

She did cancel the funding for the bridge after campaigning strongly for it a year earlier, but the state kept the money. What we really said was thanks but no thanks but thanks for the cash anyway. Governor Palin's press release on September 21, 2007:

“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”

When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.

Yes but the only reason the state had the cash in the treasury was because she raised oil & gas taxes to one of the highest marginal tax rates in the world.

And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources. As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

No she did not. With the exception of the major tax hike in November of 2007, nothing has changed any facet of the competitive landscape on the North Slope. In fact last month when BP announced a new development on federal lease lands, their president said the development would have never happened on state lands because Alaska's taxes are too high.

I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.

No she did not. What passed was legislation to give $500 million to a Canadian company to do the permitting paperwork. TransCanada's CEO has already stated that they can't afford to build the gas pipeline without the oil companies paying for it.

And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

Blatantly false. There is no deal to build any pipeline. It is a deal to have a Canadian company spend $500 million of taxpayer money to try and get permits for a pipeline they can't afford to build on their own. Meanwhile, the oil companies who have the legal leases to develop the gas and are the only ones who can financially backstop the pipeline are still waiting to be invited to the table.

Is Palin a liar? I honestly can't say. Halcro's allegations are certainly damning. On the other hand, I haven't been able to confirm his statements.

For the outsider, researching Palin via the internet is difficult and time-consuming. Alaskan politics are rough and tumble. Every Alaskan seems to have an ax to grind and seems to grind it with glee. (I didn't realize Alaska was such a bastion of progressive thinking.)

After digesting all the research the most believable description of Palin I've found is that she's a "redneck conservative," which means, I imagine, that she is a populist more than a doctrinaire conservative, especially in matters of taxing and spending.

I'll leave the rest of the research to the media. However, giving Palin the benefit of the doubt, I'll be watching Palin closely over the next couple months and listening closely to her statements as she is grilled by the mainstream media.

[LL2]

Of course Halcro is going to be critical as he lost to her in the election. As with every politician though, they all fudge the truth a little bit. I don't who they are. The most important thing to me is selecting a candidate based on the positions they take on issues, what they stand for, and their principles, while realizing that no one is perfect.

[Freak Out]

Listen Maxi...I understand what is going on here and know it's all about politics especially at the conventions. I am pretty sure Palin is a good person and her populist activities in Alaska are a big part of who she is and has not all been thrown out the window because she was made an offer from Mac that she really could not refuse. I'm a proud Alaskan and am proud that an Alaskan has a chance to reach that high an office (who would have said that about the VP 20 years ago!) and may even vote for Mac just because of that. :lol: Alaska will go Mac/Palin no matter how I vote but it's not all Palin love up here. Alaska is easy to lead when the coffers are overflowing but there are still huge issues here that Palin has done little to take care of...but that's why we have a legislature as far as I'm concerned.

I do worry about a Palin Presidency though if something were to happen to Mac.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Listen Maxi...I understand what is going on here and know it's all about politics especially at the conventions. I am pretty sure Palin is a good person and her populist activities in Alaska are a big part of who she is and has not all been thrown out the window because she was made an offer from Mac that she really could not refuse. I'm a proud Alaskan and am proud that an Alaskan has a chance to reach that high an office (who would have said that about the VP 20 years ago!) and may even vote for Mac just because of that. :lol: Alaska will go Mac/Palin no matter how I vote but it's not all Palin love up here. Alaska is easy to lead when the coffers are overflowing but there are still huge issues here that Palin has done little to take care of...but that's why we have a legislature as far as I'm concerned.

I do worry about a Palin Presidency though if something were to happen to Mac.

I appreciate where you're coming from. There's not a lot of McCain love down here either, at least from where I sit. :) I am extremely mistrustful of the Republicans. What they promise and what they actually do are too often very, very different. If I thought McCain/Palin were serious about "reforming" Washington, I'd send them a big contribution. But I've heard all the promises of reform before. I'm willing to bet that if the Republicans are elected, four years later taxes will be higher, spending will be higher and the country's economy will be hanging by a thread.

Earlier this year I considered voting for Obama, thinking his brand of progressivism along with a clear majority in Congress would create a backlash once and for all against progressivism. But I just can't imagine being able to pull the lever for the man.

[Maxie the Taxi]

P.S. As far as worrying about a Palin presidency if Mac dies, my advice is sit back and enjoy the show. That's what I'm planning if Obama gets it. Besides, from what I've learned, whatever Palin has or hasn't accomplished in Alaska, at least it hasn't been boring with her as Governor!

[SkinBasket]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself. :lol:

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

[mraynrand]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself. :lol:

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

This from the same guy who wanted Edward's affair left alone. You're such a transparent fool. The PRESS, not Palin did this to her child.

[SkinBasket]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself. :lol:

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.


You still haven't established your "premise." You insulted me and others as hypocrites. I'm waiting to hear why I'm a hypocrite. Illuminate me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself. :lol:

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

This from the same guy who wanted Edward's affair left alone. You're such a transparent fool. The PRESS, not Palin did this to her child.

Of course the press did this...did you expect them not to cover her children. Family has long been subject to the press. THey cover them before they are in the whitehouse, while they are there...and afterwords.

I guess you were shouting about People, etc. covering the Bush wedding.

[mraynrand]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself. :lol:

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

This from the same guy who wanted Edward's affair left alone. You're such a transparent fool. The PRESS, not Palin did this to her child.

Of course the press did this...did you expect them not to cover her children. Family has long been subject to the press. THey cover them before they are in the whitehouse, while they are there...and afterwords.

I guess you were shouting about People, etc. covering the Bush wedding.

What a moron. So Andrew Sullivan Libeling Palin's daughter is the same as covering a wedding? The libel forced reporting the pregnancy. Ty, you really should work for the Enquirer - you wold fit right in with that scum.

[Scott Campbell]

What a moron. So Andrew Sullivan Libeling Palin's daughter is the same as covering a wedding? The libel forced reporting the pregnancy. Ty, you really should work for the Enquirer - you wold fit right in with that scum.


I don't think he'd meet their ethics standards.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

THose insults a find humorous. Keep them up.

Expound: Right. I guess my posts don't fulfill your criteria so they dont' count. :roll:

Moral superiority: Pot, meet kettle.


They don't count because you haven't said anything. Paint me stupid. I'm glad to accept the label if you would just enlighten me as to how exactly, or even vaguely, you find the two statements you posted similar in any way, much less in a way that makes those of us who have a problem with Obama's lack of basic humanity hypocrites (Of course, I'm sure you meant hypocrites in a non-insulting way by the way).

Since I don't understand your implied and obviously logically and morally robust comparison between Obama's actions toward his African brother and Palin's actions regarding her pregnant daughter, I'm pretty sure I must be an idiot, so use small words and complete thoughts please.

I'm assuming Google didn't produce any results worth plagiarizing this time.

You are now arguing with yourself. :lol:

Ok: Lack of humanity...and you dont' find exposing your daughter and her sex life to show a lack of humanity/motherhood/decency?

What type of mom does that to her child? It isn't like Bristol was a celeb and is used to that kind of attention. Mrs. Palin shoulda turned down the VP job...it wasnt' the right time.

This from the same guy who wanted Edward's affair left alone. You're such a transparent fool. The PRESS, not Palin did this to her child.

Of course the press did this...did you expect them not to cover her children. Family has long been subject to the press. THey cover them before they are in the whitehouse, while they are there...and afterwords.

I guess you were shouting about People, etc. covering the Bush wedding.

What a moron. So Andrew Sullivan Libeling Palin's daughter is the same as covering a wedding? The libel forced reporting the pregnancy. Ty, you really should work for the Enquirer - you wold fit right in with that scum.

Are you really that dense as to suggest that sullivan broke the story of bristol's pregnancy? You are talking about the rumor of trig palin. I'm not discussing that.

Bristol Palin's pregnancy was going to be a story. You can spin it anyway you want, but a good mom would not have put her daughter in that situation.

Parents should protect their children..not put them in the media glare.

[HowardRoark]

Parents should protect their children..not put them in the media glare.

http://blackcelebritykids.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/obamaspeople-magazine.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

Parents should protect their children..not put them in the media glare.


You have less experience as a parent than Partial has in the workplace.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Parents should protect their children..not put them in the media glare.

http://blackcelebritykids.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/obamaspeople-magazine.jpg

That is exactly the point. The Obama family doesn't have problems..at least not ones we know of.

The press is going to cover them..every move. Look at how they covered every drunken bush girl episode.

Knowing that, i certainly can't admire a mom who puts their child in that kind of scrutiny.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Parents should protect their children..not put them in the media glare.


You have less experience as a parent than Partial has in the workplace.

I have been a teenager. I have friends with children. I am an uncle.

This is common sense, and the fact that you talk about me tells me that you know i'm right. You know that you wouldn't do that to your children.

[HowardRoark]

i certainly can't admire a mom who puts their child in that kind of scrutiny.

We finally agree on something.....you are correct that Michelle Obama should keep her kids out of People Magazine.

[Scott Campbell]

I have been a teenager. I have friends with children. I have been a community organizer.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I have been a teenager. I have friends with children. I am an uncle.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

You just prove my point.

All you need to do is tell us how wonderful a mom she is...to put her pregnant daughter in the spotlight. To have a 17 year old girl's sex life be national fodder.

Come on Scott. You can do it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

i certainly can't admire a mom who puts their child in that kind of scrutiny.

We finally agree on something.....you are correct that Michelle Obama should keep her kids out of People Magazine.

Exactly. People should be exclusively about unwed pregnant teens! Can't wait to see how much bristol and the palins get paid for exclusive baby pics.

[Scott Campbell]

I have been a teenager. I have friends with children. I am an uncle.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

You just prove my point.

All you need to do is tell us how wonderful a mom she is...to put her pregnant daughter in the spotlight. To have a 17 year old girl's sex life be national fodder.

Come on Scott. You can do it.


I'm content enough listening to the wannabe parent telling us how it's supposed to be done. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I have been a teenager. I have friends with children. I am an uncle.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

You just prove my point.

All you need to do is tell us how wonderful a mom she is...to put her pregnant daughter in the spotlight. To have a 17 year old girl's sex life be national fodder.

Come on Scott. You can do it.


I'm content enough listening to the wannabe parent telling us how it's supposed to be done. :lol: :lol: :lol:

C'mon scott..just tell me. You are a parent, enlighten me. Tell us how wonderful that decision was. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

C'mon scott..just tell me. You are a parent, enlighten me. Tell us how wonderful that decision was. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Ok, if you really want me to.

[HowardRoark]

Can't wait to see how much bristol and the palins get paid for exclusive baby pics.

Don’t hold your breath.

The thing I enjoyed most about Sarah’s speech last night was the underlying unspoken theme of “go fuck yourself” to all of the so called establishments that have been created by the media elite over the past MANY years.

She doesn’t give a shit what people like Ty, Norah O’Donnell, Katie Couric, etc. think. She was downright Roarkian.

“Sarah, what do you think about the media?”

“I don’t think about the media.”

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Can't wait to see how much bristol and the palins get paid for exclusive baby pics.

Don’t hold your breath.

The thing I enjoyed most about Sarah’s speech last night was the underlying unspoken theme of “go fuck yourself” to all of the so called establishments that have been created by the media elite over the past MANY years.

She doesn’t give a shit what people like Ty, Norah O’Donnell, Katie Couric, etc. think. She was downright Roarkian.

“Sarah, what do you think of the media?”

“I don’t think about the media.”

Yeah, that was the real mrs. palin. I'm sure she wrote that speech herself.

She also prolly handed it to hannity herself..so he could quote it on his show.
:roll:

Interesting how it was Bristol's decision to keep the baby. Interesting for a woman who is against sex ed and abortion..yet her daughter could make that decision...yet, mrs. palin would have no problem taking that choice away from the rest of american women. :oops:

[HowardRoark]

I'm sure she wrote that speech herself.

I'm sure you came up with that yourself.

Oh, that's right, I remember, the email list for Obama had that talking point one minute after the speech.

[Scott Campbell]

I have been a teenager. I have friends with children. I have been a community organizer.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm sure she wrote that speech herself.

I'm sure you came up with that yourself.

Oh, that's right, I remember, the email list for Obama had that talking point one minute after the speech.

Howard, no pol writes his own speech..and i certainly don't need obama to tell me that.

BTW, if you think i'm on his email list or text list..you really don't know me at all.

P.S. Nice of you to drop the two main points..pretty indefensible. :lol:

[HowardRoark]

Nice of you to drop the two main points..pretty indefensible. :lol:

You had a point?

[HowardRoark]

Howard, no pol writes his own speech..

Why did you bring it up then?

And "his" is a word that you Liberals use. We also use the word "her."

[MJZiggy]

Can't wait to see how much bristol and the palins get paid for exclusive baby pics.

Don’t hold your breath.

The thing I enjoyed most about Sarah’s speech last night was the underlying unspoken theme of “go fuck yourself” to all of the so called establishments that have been created by the media elite over the past MANY years.

She doesn’t give a shit what people like Ty, Norah O’Donnell, Katie Couric, etc. think. She was downright Roarkian.

“Sarah, what do you think of the media?”

“I don’t think about the media.”

Yeah, that was the real mrs. palin. I'm sure she wrote that speech herself.

She also prolly handed it to hannity herself..so he could quote it on his show.
:roll:

Interesting how it was Bristol's decision to keep the baby. Interesting for a woman who is against sex ed and abortion..yet her daughter could make that decision...yet, mrs. palin would have no problem taking that choice away from the rest of american women. :oops:

Her daughter didn't have a choice. She's not old enough and didn't have parental consent.

[GBRulz]

I believe Alaska changed that law a couple years back?!? So, she had a choice and I applaud her for not doing it.

[SkinBasket]

Nice of you to drop the two main points..pretty indefensible. :lol:

You had a point?

This is the best summation of this thread yet. We're all hypocrites. but he can't tell us why. We drop points without knowing there were any. I think Ty wins a lot of arguments in his head throughout the day that no one else ever knows about.

[MJZiggy]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

[HowardRoark]

I have been a teenager. I have friends with children. I have been a community organizer.



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Alright, I think I can do it.......

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Howard, no pol writes his own speech..

Why did you bring it up then?

And "his" is a word that you Liberals use. We also use the word "her."

Because you said it was the "real" her. What is real about a speech written by others. Jeez, not to hard to follow.

Super! Then i guess you'll be with us when we change the bible. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

A choice Mrs. Palin would take away from every woman in america. Including those victims of rape and incest.

I'm sure every woman would like a reminder of being raped or the incest for the rest of their lives. :oops:

[mraynrand]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

A choice Mrs. Palin would take away from every woman in america. Including those victims of rape and incest.

I'm sure every woman would like a reminder of being raped or the incest for the rest of their lives. :oops:

As if they could forget.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

A choice Mrs. Palin would take away from every woman in america. Including those victims of rape and incest.

I'm sure every woman would like a reminder of being raped or the incest for the rest of their lives. :oops:

As if they could forget.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. But, for sure they won't with a reminder.

So, then you are in favor of taking away a woman's right to choose in all cases?

[mraynrand]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

A choice Mrs. Palin would take away from every woman in america. Including those victims of rape and incest.

I'm sure every woman would like a reminder of being raped or the incest for the rest of their lives. :oops:

As if they could forget.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. But, for sure they won't with a reminder.


Are you suggesting that the baby would be there reminding them, if it were adopted?

[bobblehead]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

A choice Mrs. Palin would take away from every woman in america. Including those victims of rape and incest.

I'm sure every woman would like a reminder of being raped or the incest for the rest of their lives. :oops:

As if they could forget.

either you believe abortion is killing a child or not....rape really doesn't enter into that decision....Oh, I was raped and had the kid, but NOW I don't like the reminder....kill it.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

A choice Mrs. Palin would take away from every woman in america. Including those victims of rape and incest.

I'm sure every woman would like a reminder of being raped or the incest for the rest of their lives. :oops:

As if they could forget.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. But, for sure they won't with a reminder.


Are you suggesting that the baby would be there reminding them, if it were adopted?

Why don't you just answer the question?

Are you in favor of taking away the right to choose in all cases. Simple question.

[mraynrand]

If they did change that law, then I'm with you on the applause, and not just her, but any young parent who makes a tough choice and raises the child.

A choice Mrs. Palin would take away from every woman in america. Including those victims of rape and incest.

I'm sure every woman would like a reminder of being raped or the incest for the rest of their lives. :oops:

As if they could forget.

Maybe they can, maybe they can't. But, for sure they won't with a reminder.


Are you suggesting that the baby would be there reminding them, if it were adopted?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Still waiting.

Interesting you won't answer as you criticize me for not defining my values. Waiting to hear yours. :oops:

[mraynrand]

I admit, I'm a quite conflicted in cases of incest, and somewhat in cases of rape. Still, biologically life begins at conception, and except in rare cases, that human being will grow and develop into a reasoning human and should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us. I don't think it's our right to take it away from developing humans when they are completely defenseless. But I know the issue is very difficult for those two cases. I would urge protecting life (Another way of looking at it is that life is the only good thing to come out of those crimes). I would not be in favor of a law banning abortion in cases of rape and incest, but I would want to provide a way to help women in those situations to choose adoption. That's not a cut and dry answer, but, like I said, I'm conflicted about it.

[mraynrand]

Still waiting.

Interesting you won't answer as you criticize me for not defining my values. Waiting to hear yours. :oops:

As far as I can tell, you have no discernable values.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I admit, I'm a quite conflicted in cases of incest, and somewhat in cases of rape. Still, biologically life begins at conception, and except in rare cases, that human being will grow and develop into a reasoning human and should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us. I don't think it's our right to take it away from developing humans when they are completely defenseless. But I know the issue is very difficult for those two cases. I would urge protecting life (Another way of looking at it is that life is the only good thing to come out of those crimes). I would not be in favor of a law banning abortion in cases of rape and incest, but I would want to provide a way to help women in those situations to choose adoption. That's not a cut and dry answer, but, like I said, I'm conflicted about it.

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I admit, I'm a quite conflicted in cases of incest, and somewhat in cases of rape. Still, biologically life begins at conception, and except in rare cases, that human being will grow and develop into a reasoning human and should be afforded the same rights as the rest of us. I don't think it's our right to take it away from developing humans when they are completely defenseless. But I know the issue is very difficult for those two cases. I would urge protecting life (Another way of looking at it is that life is the only good thing to come out of those crimes). I would not be in favor of a law banning abortion in cases of rape and incest, but I would want to provide a way to help women in those situations to choose adoption. That's not a cut and dry answer, but, like I said, I'm conflicted about it.

That's exactly how I feel. You should ask Tyrone when he thinks life begins? Conception? Birth? Somewhere in between? That's the critical question that people disagree on.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Still waiting.

Interesting you won't answer as you criticize me for not defining my values. Waiting to hear yours. :oops:

As far as I can tell, you have no discernable values.

that says more about you than me.

[mraynrand]

Still waiting.

Interesting you won't answer as you criticize me for not defining my values. Waiting to hear yours. :oops:

As far as I can tell, you have no discernable values.

that says more about you than me.

Says the guy who won't discuss the definition of life.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

[mraynrand]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible.

It's extreme in the sense that I think the polls suggest most people would allow exceptions for rape and incest. I don't think it's extreme to have the position of protecting life.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Still waiting.

Interesting you won't answer as you criticize me for not defining my values. Waiting to hear yours. :oops:

As far as I can tell, you have no discernable values.

that says more about you than me.

Says the guy who won't discuss the definition of life.

When did you ask that question? Never.

I said i wouldn't talk about it...because first the issue has to be decided about palin's position.

We can argue all day about the definition of life. LIfe vs. human life, historical viewpoints, is an embryo and human being, etc.

In Sparta it was ok to leave a child to die if it was thought to be unsuitable. Plato thought the human soul didn't enter the body till birth.

Old testament clearly doesn't define it as murder.

Should we go by the Catholic Church which for most of its history..viewed immediate animation/ensoulment as impossible, and under the traditional Catholic doctrine, a male fetus became animated — infused with a soul at forty days after conception, and the female fetus became animated at eighty days after conception?

Should be we use the metabolic, genetic, embryonic or neurologic definition of life?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

Not the old testament Harv. And, you'd be hardpressed to find the definition of that in the new testament as well. Can find as many saying the opposite.

[mraynrand]

Still waiting.

Interesting you won't answer as you criticize me for not defining my values. Waiting to hear yours. :oops:

As far as I can tell, you have no discernable values.

that says more about you than me.

Says the guy who won't discuss the definition of life.

When did you ask that question?

WTF - you said you wouldn't discuss it.

How about the definition of what you will protect? I think every effort should be made to protect human life once it is started at conception - since it will develop into one of us. That's a lot simpler that trying to figure out when the soul enters or what it is before the soul enters. We know what a human is, how it forms, etc. It's no secret.

[MJZiggy]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

[mraynrand]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

The position of the Catholic CHURCH is that life begins at conception. The Catholic church, as opposed to the Lutheran Church, for example, has more leeway in interpretation. Their position of when life begins is long standing, back to Augustine. Ensoulment is a different matter, and their are conflicting opinions on that as well.

Zig, what about the baby at 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours? Why draw the 'viable outside the mother's body' distinction?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Still waiting.

Interesting you won't answer as you criticize me for not defining my values. Waiting to hear yours. :oops:

As far as I can tell, you have no discernable values.

that says more about you than me.

Says the guy who won't discuss the definition of life.

When did you ask that question?

WTF - you said you wouldn't discuss it.

How about the definition of what you will protect? I think every effort should be made to protect human life once it is started at conception - since it will develop into one of us. That's a lot simpler that trying to figure out when the soul enters or what it is before the soul enters. We know what a human is, how it forms, etc. It's no secret.

I said i wouldn't discuss it..and gave you the reason.

That still doesnt' change the fact that you never asked me anything.

Life: Really? That is funny as sceintifically it is constantly evolving...i've given you 4 distinct areas that definitely have differing viewpoints within them. Why should we accept conception..and what exactly is conception..is it a single moment?

Protect: I will protect a baby. I will protect what U.S. law says.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

The position of the Catholic CHURCH is that life begins at conception. The Catholic church, as opposed to the Lutheran Church, for example, has more leeway in interpretation. Their position of when life begins is long standing, back to Augustine. Ensoulment is a different matter, and their are conflicting opinions on that as well.

Zig, what about the baby at 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours? Why draw the 'viable outside the mother's body' distinction?

That is its position now. So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

[MJZiggy]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

The position of the Catholic CHURCH is that life begins at conception. The Catholic church, as opposed to the Lutheran Church, for example, has more leeway in interpretation. Their position of when life begins is long standing, back to Augustine. Ensoulment is a different matter, and their are conflicting opinions on that as well.

Zig, what about the baby at 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours? Why draw the 'viable outside the mother's body' distinction?

Harvey didn't mention the Catholic Church, he mentioned the Bible. I don't know if he's Catholic or not. Then again, how do you use the Bible to make laws in a country where church and state are to remain separate. You can't. Twenty weeks is what the medical field has determined as the age of viability. At 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours, the clinic is likely closed (Really, how many kids are conceived between 9-4). Even if the clinic weren't closed, what's the point of having an abortion at that point? I just don't see the logic.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

I think that's fair, in a way. Like I said though, somebody else would disagree with you (and I). As a society, where do we stand? It's "nuanced."
:D

As far as the Bible, I'll grant you that it's not overly clear. I don't have all of the exact passages, but it's pretty clear in the Bible that children in the womb are recognized as babies. The Bible recognizes the prenatal phase of life as that of a child. I never thought it was clear when that was exactly. However, I've been shown passages in the Bible that indicate to me that it's at conception.

Again, mraynrand stated a position that is very close to what I believe.

[falco]

i think the history of religion makes it pretty clear that life is sacred in the womb, but once it gets out of there its pretty much fucking worthless

[MJZiggy]

i think the history of religion makes it pretty clear that life is sacred in the womb, but once it gets out of there its pretty much fucking worthless

You do have a point there.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

I think that's fair, in a way. Like I said though, somebody else would disagree with you (and I). As a society, where do we stand? It's "nuanced."
:D

As far as the Bible, I'll grant you that it's not overly clear. I don't have all of the exact passages, but it's pretty clear in the Bible that children in the womb are recognized as babies. The Bible recognizes the prenatal phase of life as that of a child. I never thought it was clear when that was exactly. However, I've been shown passages in the Bible that indicate to me that it's at conception.

Again, mraynrand stated a position that is very close to what I believe.

Harv,

The old testament, the talmud, etc. clearly show that life wasn't considered the same....the punishments were different.

The Catholic Church, including both Thomas Acquinas and Augustine of Hippo, held the view that fetuses were animated (i.e., ensouled) around day 40.


And if two men strive together and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty: as the woman's husband shall lay upon him he shall pay with valuation. But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life (Exodus 21:21-23)

Clearly there is a concept of differentiation. One that was accepted by early Christians like Tertullian.

Psalm 139: 13-16 stresses again upon the growth of the child from something formless to something developed and complete.

The New Testament clearly involves God in determining the beginning of human life.

Galatians 2:20 "... the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself to me"

Some Christian theologians argue that humanness is acquired on a continuum, and the state of humanness is reached through the acts of birth and baptism. It has been argued, that the true acquisition of humanness cannot be obtained until after a baptism or at least birth, because miscarried fetal material is usually not accorded the signs of recognition with which some Christians note human birth and death: baptism, burial and weeping.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

i think the history of religion makes it pretty clear that life is sacred in the womb, but once it gets out of there its pretty much fucking worthless

Ty weeps for your daughter. :wink:

[mraynrand]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

The position of the Catholic CHURCH is that life begins at conception. The Catholic church, as opposed to the Lutheran Church, for example, has more leeway in interpretation. Their position of when life begins is long standing, back to Augustine. Ensoulment is a different matter, and their are conflicting opinions on that as well.

Zig, what about the baby at 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours? Why draw the 'viable outside the mother's body' distinction?

That is its position now. So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

Did I say anything about truth. I was explaining the difference between the positions of the churches.

[mraynrand]

At 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours, the clinic is likely closed (Really, how many kids are conceived between 9-4). Even if the clinic weren't closed, what's the point of having an abortion at that point? I just don't see the logic.

I agree, what is the logic? My point is: what is the difference between a developing human at 19 weeks, 6 days, 23 ours and a human one hour later? There isn't much of one. Thus, the point - development is along a continuum and it doesn't make any sense to differentiate from one moment to the next with regard to the value of what is developing - that is as much a distraction as trying to figure out when exactly a human may be 'ensouled.'

[mraynrand]

So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

I would argue that our understanding of the truth changes, but that there is an absolute truth. Rand believed that and Even Kant would agree with me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Would you then be able to admit that palin's position is extreme?

I'm not going to discuss the defintion of life.

Not for a Christian. Life begins at conception, according to the Bible. Like mraynrand, I realize that not everybody shares my views, so it's hard for me to say that a law should be passed to ban all abortions. However, a society has to have some fundamental morals. There has to be a limit. Should we allow partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? Where's the line?

I may be a bit rusty on my theology, but I don't remember ever reading anything in the Bible defining the beginning of life.

My view on abortion is that though I'm against it and I'd rather see every child carried to term and those that aren't wanted by the parents, adopted to the myriad infertile couples out there, I do draw the hard and fast line at the moment the baby becomes viable outside the mother's body. 20 weeks. She hung onto that kid for 5 months and even if she aborts, she has to deliver it anyway. She may as well deliver the baby alive and let someone desperate for a baby parent him or her.

The position of the Catholic CHURCH is that life begins at conception. The Catholic church, as opposed to the Lutheran Church, for example, has more leeway in interpretation. Their position of when life begins is long standing, back to Augustine. Ensoulment is a different matter, and their are conflicting opinions on that as well.

Zig, what about the baby at 19 weeks, 6 days and 23 hours? Why draw the 'viable outside the mother's body' distinction?

That is its position now. So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

Did I say anything about truth. I was explaining the difference between the positions of the churches.

YOu stated the Catholic churches position. But, that position has changed. Therefore truth has changed.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

I would argue that our understanding of the truth changes, but that there is an absolute truth. Rand believed that and Even Kant would agree with me.

Well, the CC must had some sorta wild understandings as they flip flopped more times than Kerry.

Most of it immediate ensoulment/animation wasn't possible.

Pope Sixtus made the penatly for abortion/contraception excom. Then along comes Greg who reversed that. The comes Pius 9 and we are back to exom.

But, at no point did any of them ever say life begins at contraception...Rather, it is a statement that we don't know the time of ensoulment.

[mraynrand]

So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

I would argue that our understanding of the truth changes, but that there is an absolute truth. Rand believed that and Even Kant would agree with me.

Well, the CC must had some sorta wild understandings as they flip flopped more times than Kerry.

Most of it immediate ensoulment/animation wasn't possible.

Pope Sixtus made the penatly for abortion/contraception excom. Then along comes Greg who reversed that. The comes Pius 9 and we are back to exom.

But, at no point did any of them ever say life begins at contraception...Rather, it is a statement that we don't know the time of ensoulment.

I have to agree with you on that one.

[hoosier]

So, truth changes..yes my moral friend.

I would argue that our understanding of the truth changes, but that there is an absolute truth. Rand believed that and Even Kant would agree with me.

This is an interesting comparison. Kant says that there are absolute truths, but that the only knowledge we can have of them is negative (the real experience of the mind not being able to get there). This negative experience has two important ramifications: it confirms for us that we are moral beings (rejection of Humean relativism) but it also means that nobody can claim to have the Truth in their back pocket. That's what distinguishes Kant from a moralizer who wants everyone to live their lives by his truth. Where does Rand stand on this? This is a totally innocent question...have no idea what Rand says about morality.

[HowardRoark]

Damn, I leave for a day to go to the Badger game and return to read Ty pontificating on Christian theology. I laughed so hard I literally had tears in my eyes. Galatians 2:20 "... the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself to me. Do you even know what this is talking about? Talk about casting a swine before pearls.

Ty also quotes ancient times…Plato, Sparta, etc. while on the other hand lectures about how everything is evolving forward and science now is all that matters. Science can explain everything we are told by Ty and his ilk. Well, science doesn’t explain anything, it merely measures everything. What does science measure when it comes to this issue? New and different DNA, heart, spine, brain and limbs.

It is quite humorous that everyone has been duped into calling this a “moral” issue. That is the language of one side of this debate (hint: it’s not the Pro-Life side). Everything is a moral issue….or not. I am pro-Choice on rape. I can choose anyone I want to have sex with at anytime of my choosing. Why not? There are no universal truths, so don’t bring your morality into it.

The Bible probably never does say in chapter and verse that abortion is wrong or specifically when life begins. It does however on many, many occasions refer to the so called “thingy” in the womb as a human. Good enough for me. And the Bible tells us not to kill. It’s pretty easy to merge these two concepts. But who cares about the Bible anyway? Don’t ram any morality down my throat.

Morality. Interesting concept.

Some things are just so intuitive that it really is ridiculous. There will be a day in the future when they look back at these times and just wonder what the hell we were even thinking.

[mraynrand]

Howard,

Science tells me that 'embryo' becomes 'human' when the three major layers - ecoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm are specified. Another scientist believes it is when the anterior Hox gene cluster is actively transcribed. Who is correct?

[HowardRoark]

Howard,

Science tells me that 'embryo' becomes 'human' when the three major layers - ecoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm are specified. Another scientist believes it is when the anterior Hox gene cluster is actively transcribed. Who is correct?

I suppose it has to be the determination of the Übermensch scientist.

[HowardRoark]

I agree with this article. It is a dupe job on the Left to say this is a theological or moral issue.


September 08, 2008, 4:13 p.m.

In the Beginning
The Democratic ticket confuses science and theology.

By Yuval Levin


Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama raised some eyebrows in last month’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency when in reply to the question “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?” he said:

Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

In the explanations that Obama and others have since offered to expand upon this answer, it quickly became clear that Obama was not answering the question as it was asked. His answer, instead, was directed to the question of when life begins, and in addressing that question Obama did not mean to suggest that he was not capable of grasping the scientific facts that would underlie an answer, but that the question is essentially about theology, and that he’s no theologian.


Obama and his running mate both made that particularly clear this past weekend, when in separate interviews both were asked to clarify their views on the beginning of human life. Obama said:

As a Christian I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into, in, it's a pretty tough question. And so all I meant to communicate is that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.

Biden, as usual far more expansive in his answer, put it this way:

I'd say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others—who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life—I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

Both insist that the question of when a human life begins is a theological question, and so one without a generally applicable answer. But in fact, the question of when a new human life begins is not fundamentally a theological question but a biological question. After conception is concluded, a new biological organism exists that did not exist before — a member of our species in every way, alive and human. That is when the life of that human being starts. That life will proceed in one continuous path until death, whether that comes days later in a lab dish, months later in a clinic, or decades later in a nursing home surrounded by children and grandchildren. Human life has a straightforward scientific definition, and its beginning in biological terms is complicated only by questions about the process of conception itself. When conception is completed and a developing embryo exists, a life has begun.


That fact does not by itself necessarily settle the abortion or embryo research debates. After all this new human being is at first very small, for a little while does not resemble anyone we encounter in our daily life, and at first does not even feel pain or exhibit any but the simplest autonomic responses. The embryo and the fetus are different in some important physical respects from most of us. So the question is not when life begins, but whether every human life is equal.


For some people, this question of equality does have a theological component, for others it does not. But either way the question obviously has a political and legal component, and indeed America’s political tradition offers one answer to the question, written in the Declaration of Independence. We can disagree with the answer, but to do so we must take up the appropriate question: not when does life begin, but whether we are all created equal. Do all human beings share in some minimal equal humanity that entitles us to some minimal equal protections, like the protection from intentional killing, regardless of our age, our size, our capacities, abilities, and circumstances?


That’s not a question that answers itself. But it is the question at the heart of the abortion and embryo research debates, and Senators Obama and Biden are avoiding the question by insisting they lack an answer to the prior question — the question of the beginning of life — which they wrongly assert to be a matter of theology.

Now tell me again which party seeks refuge in theology when it doesn’t like the facts that science helps us know.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Damn, I leave for a day to go to the Badger game and return to read Ty pontificating on Christian theology. I laughed so hard I literally had tears in my eyes. Galatians 2:20 "... the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself to me. Do you even know what this is talking about? Talk about casting a swine before pearls.

Ty also quotes ancient times…Plato, Sparta, etc. while on the other hand lectures about how everything is evolving forward and science now is all that matters. Science can explain everything we are told by Ty and his ilk. Well, science doesn’t explain anything, it merely measures everything. What does science measure when it comes to this issue? New and different DNA, heart, spine, brain and limbs.

It is quite humorous that everyone has been duped into calling this a “moral” issue. That is the language of one side of this debate (hint: it’s not the Pro-Life side). Everything is a moral issue….or not. I am pro-Choice on rape. I can choose anyone I want to have sex with at anytime of my choosing. Why not? There are no universal truths, so don’t bring your morality into it.

The Bible probably never does say in chapter and verse that abortion is wrong or specifically when life begins. It does however on many, many occasions refer to the so called “thingy” in the womb as a human. Good enough for me. And the Bible tells us not to kill. It’s pretty easy to merge these two concepts. But who cares about the Bible anyway? Don’t ram any morality down my throat.

Morality. Interesting concept.

Some things are just so intuitive that it really is ridiculous. There will be a day in the future when they look back at these times and just wonder what the hell we were even thinking.

Galatians: YEs, i do. And, your failure to rebutt tells me i'm as right as you.

Womb...nope. You are patently wrong. And, the bible clearly gives two distinct punishments. If an abortion was the same as killing a man/woman you wouldn't have two punishments.

Pro choice on rape: Yep, i guess the other party isn't really involved now is she. Your wife must be thrilled with your attitude.

Kill: I love it when you guys trot that out..but, then are for capital punishment and wars. I guess killing then is ok. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I agree with this article. It is a dupe job on the Left to say this is a theological or moral issue.


September 08, 2008, 4:13 p.m.

In the Beginning
The Democratic ticket confuses science and theology.

By Yuval Levin


Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama raised some eyebrows in last month’s Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency when in reply to the question “At what point is a baby entitled to human rights?” he said:

Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

In the explanations that Obama and others have since offered to expand upon this answer, it quickly became clear that Obama was not answering the question as it was asked. His answer, instead, was directed to the question of when life begins, and in addressing that question Obama did not mean to suggest that he was not capable of grasping the scientific facts that would underlie an answer, but that the question is essentially about theology, and that he’s no theologian.


Obama and his running mate both made that particularly clear this past weekend, when in separate interviews both were asked to clarify their views on the beginning of human life. Obama said:

As a Christian I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into, in, it's a pretty tough question. And so all I meant to communicate is that I don't presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.

Biden, as usual far more expansive in his answer, put it this way:

I'd say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It's a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I'm prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others—who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They're intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life—I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society.

Both insist that the question of when a human life begins is a theological question, and so one without a generally applicable answer. But in fact, the question of when a new human life begins is not fundamentally a theological question but a biological question. After conception is concluded, a new biological organism exists that did not exist before — a member of our species in every way, alive and human. That is when the life of that human being starts. That life will proceed in one continuous path until death, whether that comes days later in a lab dish, months later in a clinic, or decades later in a nursing home surrounded by children and grandchildren. Human life has a straightforward scientific definition, and its beginning in biological terms is complicated only by questions about the process of conception itself. When conception is completed and a developing embryo exists, a life has begun.


That fact does not by itself necessarily settle the abortion or embryo research debates. After all this new human being is at first very small, for a little while does not resemble anyone we encounter in our daily life, and at first does not even feel pain or exhibit any but the simplest autonomic responses. The embryo and the fetus are different in some important physical respects from most of us. So the question is not when life begins, but whether every human life is equal.


For some people, this question of equality does have a theological component, for others it does not. But either way the question obviously has a political and legal component, and indeed America’s political tradition offers one answer to the question, written in the Declaration of Independence. We can disagree with the answer, but to do so we must take up the appropriate question: not when does life begin, but whether we are all created equal. Do all human beings share in some minimal equal humanity that entitles us to some minimal equal protections, like the protection from intentional killing, regardless of our age, our size, our capacities, abilities, and circumstances?


That’s not a question that answers itself. But it is the question at the heart of the abortion and embryo research debates, and Senators Obama and Biden are avoiding the question by insisting they lack an answer to the prior question — the question of the beginning of life — which they wrongly assert to be a matter of theology.

Now tell me again which party seeks refuge in theology when it doesn’t like the facts that science helps us know.

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

So, you are going on record that the soul doesn't exist? Care to tell that to the evangelicals. Care to say that we are just flesh and blood without god/jesus.

[HowardRoark]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

So, you are going on record that the soul doesn't exist? Care to tell that to the evangelicals. Care to say that we are just flesh and blood without god/jesus.

Yes!!! That's my point!! Stop with the theology on this issue. Haven't you read my posts?

As far as how the body relates to the soul. The Greeks understood the human person as an "incarnate soul," meaning, the soul has prior existence, and the soul is the main thing in our humannness. The Hebrews understood the human person as an "animated body," meaning the body is the main thing, along with the spirit, from God, that causes the body to be something. The point is, the body is the heart and center of our faith, even as we look forward not to the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the flesh.

If we have an existence prior to or apart from the body, it is only in this sense, that we are in the mind, thoughts, plans of God.

[HowardRoark]

Galations is talking about spiritual matters. Not abortion matters.


Galatians: YEs, i do. And, your failure to rebutt tells me i'm as right as you.

I think there is another party involved in abortion, so I think my example works.


Yep, i guess the other party isn't really involved now is she.

It either is or it isn't. Start a thread on capital punishment if you want


Kill: I love it when you guys trot that out..but, then are for capital punishment and wars. I guess killing then is ok.

[Freak Out]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

[mraynrand]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

[mraynrand]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

It was first mentioned by the atheist - and referenced completely of of context. Then it was mentioned again by the same guy, claiming his 'point' hadn't been rebutted. It has been rebutted twice. Let's see if he tries again. We know that he is never wrong in his own mind, so I suspect it will be brought up again.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

So, you are going on record that the soul doesn't exist? Care to tell that to the evangelicals. Care to say that we are just flesh and blood without god/jesus.

Yes!!! That's my point!! Stop with the theology on this issue. Haven't you read my posts?

As far as how the body relates to the soul. The Greeks understood the human person as an "incarnate soul," meaning, the soul has prior existence, and the soul is the main thing in our humannness. The Hebrews understood the human person as an "animated body," meaning the body is the main thing, along with the spirit, from God, that causes the body to be something. The point is, the body is the heart and center of our faith, even as we look forward not to the immortality of the soul, but the resurrection of the flesh.

If we have an existence prior to or apart from the body, it is only in this sense, that we are in the mind, thoughts, plans of God.

Regardless, of the theology...all realized that at a certain point that thing in the womb wasn't a human.

I think i wasnt' clear. Let's stop with the theology on all issues.

I seem to recall that a certain prez put jesus as the greatest philosopher/thinker...can't exactly recall the term.

Are you gonna go against tex when he says we are a christian nation founded on christian principles.

If you want to take religion out of the equation fine....say goodbye to the republican party.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Galations is talking about spiritual matters. Not abortion matters.


Galatians: YEs, i do. And, your failure to rebutt tells me i'm as right as you.

I think there is another party involved in abortion, so I think my example works.


Yep, i guess the other party isn't really involved now is she.

It either is or it isn't. Start a thread on capital punishment if you want


Kill: I love it when you guys trot that out..but, then are for capital punishment and wars. I guess killing then is ok.

Galatians: Exaclty..i never said abortion. but, it speaks directly as to what makes you human. Without jesus..you aren't. So, if the pre born doesn't have that relation...it isn't human.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

[HowardRoark]

Galatians: Exaclty..i never said abortion. but, it speaks directly as to what makes you human. Without jesus..you aren't. So, if the pre born doesn't have that relation...it isn't human.

It's a spiritual thing Ty. Give it up, you're pissing "Freak Out" off.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

It was first mentioned by the atheist - and referenced completely of of context. Then it was mentioned again by the same guy, claiming his 'point' hadn't been rebutted. It has been rebutted twice. Let's see if he tries again. We know that he is never wrong in his own mind, so I suspect it will be brought up again.

Show me where i've said i'm an atheist.

Rebutted: Show me where.

[HowardRoark]

Regardless, of the theology...all realized that at a certain point that thing in the womb wasn't a human.

I think i wasnt' clear. Let's stop with the theology on all issues.

I seem to recall that a certain prez put jesus as the greatest philosopher/thinker...can't exactly recall the term.

Are you gonna go against tex when he says we are a christian nation founded on christian principles.

If you want to take religion out of the equation fine....say goodbye to the republican party.

Why do always put up strawmen when talking to me? Prez Bush, Tex....talk to them. I have stated I am for seperation of church and state. I have now put up two posts saying abortion is not a theological issue.

What I do say though is that eveything is a theological issue if you are honest.

[mraynrand]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

[mraynrand]

Galatians has been mentioned in more than one thread now...is this the christian encourager forum?

It was first mentioned by the atheist - and referenced completely of of context. Then it was mentioned again by the same guy, claiming his 'point' hadn't been rebutted. It has been rebutted twice. Let's see if he tries again. We know that he is never wrong in his own mind, so I suspect it will be brought up again.

Show me where i've said i'm an atheist.

Rebutted: Show me where.

Probably in Galatians somewhere.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

So what: You said conception..and that we all know when it begins. When shown to be wrong...you counter with so what..and the continuum.

Fine, continuum. Just dismiss the Embryological View, Neuro View, and Ecological / Technological view...those don't support your viewpoint..so, the science behind them is...well, not applicable.

When did i say individual...nice reframing.

Twinning: I guess that is one way of looking at it. The other would be that that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals.

Conception: I doubt it. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern.

[mraynrand]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

So what: You said conception..and that we all know when it begins. When shown to be wrong...you counter with so what..and the continuum.

Fine, continuum. Just dismiss the Embryological View, Neuro View, and Ecological / Technological view...those don't support your viewpoint..so, the science behind them is...well, not applicable.

When did i say individual...nice reframing.

Twinning: I guess that is one way of looking at it. The other would be that that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals.

Conception: I doubt it. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern.

That's total gibberish. Try again. You make zero sense. Does human life begin at conception or not? Do we not know when conception is? Conception is Fertilization - joining of gametes.

[texaspackerbacker]

Fascinating discussion ........ NOT!

I honestly couldn't care less about the scientific beginning of life. I'm not even all that interested in the theological aspect of it. Other than Thou Shalt Not Kill, the Bible really doesn't say anything definitive on the subject of abortion. It is a POLITICAL issue, and not really a very significant one at that.

I am against abortion for the same reason I'm for gun rights--even though I don't own a gun. It is out of solidarity with those on our side of the spectrum who do see these as vital issues.

I have detailed many times what I consider the issues MOST IMPORTANT to America, and abortion is pretty far down the list.

And then, of course, you have the little bit of irony that if you assume the large percentage of abortions occurred with liberal parents, and that family values being what they are, the large majority of aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberals, then, with all the huge number of abortions since Roe v. Wade, enough would probably have been old enough to vote to change the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections--which undoubtedly would have resulted in horrendous acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 that would not only have meant massive human losses, but terrible economic disasters that easily could have brought this country down from its status of dominance.

Does that mean I'm FOR abortion? Hell No. I'm just citing the silver lining in the cloud.

[HowardRoark]

I have detailed many times what I consider the issues MOST IMPORTANT to America, and abortion is pretty far down the list.

And then, of course, you have the little bit of irony that if you assume the large percentage of abortions occurred with liberal parents, and that family values being what they are, the large majority of aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberals, then, with all the huge number of abortions since Roe v. Wade, enough would probably have been old enough to vote to change the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections--which undoubtedly would have resulted in horrendous acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 that would not only have meant massive human losses, but terrible economic disasters that easily could have brought this country down from its status of dominance.

It's just one of many issues....I would agree. Although some would argue that abortion is a horrendous act of terror.

http://anti-abortion.info/images/aborted_7_month_fetus.jpg

[mraynrand]

Boy that's hard to look at - I wasn't going to cross that line. But that's the reality of it.


OK, Ty. I can't make sense of what you write. You're squirming all over the place, like a 4 month old baby, trying to stretch or suck it's thumb inside the womb. I have a direct question. See if you can give a direct answer.

WHEN, according to YOU does a developing homo sapien achieve 'human' status? In other words, at what point would you say "After _____ developmental time point, the developing embryo is Human, and should be protected from killing by law." If you can answer, please answer with specificity as to what the criteria are for this transition from embryo (that may be destroyed) to Human, (which should be protected by law). I hope it's not above your pay grade.

[LL2]

I have detailed many times what I consider the issues MOST IMPORTANT to America, and abortion is pretty far down the list.

And then, of course, you have the little bit of irony that if you assume the large percentage of abortions occurred with liberal parents, and that family values being what they are, the large majority of aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberals, then, with all the huge number of abortions since Roe v. Wade, enough would probably have been old enough to vote to change the outcome of the 2000 and 2004 elections--which undoubtedly would have resulted in horrendous acts of terror--repeats of 9/11 that would not only have meant massive human losses, but terrible economic disasters that easily could have brought this country down from its status of dominance.

It's hard for me why people support abortion when this is the result of it.

I applaud Sarah Palin for having her son Trig when she knew he was going to be born with Down Syndrom. Most on the pro-choice side of the debate would say an abortion is ok. You know what. The Nazi's said it was ok to get rid of those that had disabilities too.

It's just one of many issues....I would agree. Although some would argue that abortion is a horrendous act of terror.

http://anti-abortion.info/images/aborted_7_month_fetus.jpg

[LL2]

Somehow I made the last post look like Howard Roark wrote the section below his name...I must have over typed everything he typed.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That is one view of science...and furthermore, when exactly is conception. THat is debated among the community as well.

But, if you want science to rule..then fine. Then let's stop with the christian tradition you guys invoke all the time.

Are you really making the claim that scientists don't know when conception takes place? It takes place when the sperm enters the oocyte. The two pronuclei migrate to approximately the center and make a haploid nucleus. Before fertilization, you have a haploid sperm gamete that cannot form a human and a haploid oocyte that connot become a human. Only a fertilized, diploid oocyte can become human.

Lets keep it scientific and secular. Human life begins at conception in the vast vast majority of cases. Since human life is valued by all, why make a distinction between a developing human inside a woman and any other human being? We know what will happen to the fertilized egg - all things being equal, it will develop along a continuum and eventually become and adult human that will also age and die. We should do everything we can to protect it, just as we protect humans at every other stage of life.

Rand,

No. Sorry, but you aren't exactly on the money.

Although the opinion that life begins at fertilization is the most popular view among the public, many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

The most popular argument against the idea that life begins at the moment of fertilization has been dubbed the "twinning argument." The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization. Even though the chances of twinning are not very great, as long as there is the potential for it to occur the zygote has not completed the process of individuation and is not an ontological individual.

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

So what? I can claim that life begins at the blastual or morula stage - or even at epiboly rather than gastrulation - or at the specification of various germs layers - each of these event occur on a smooth developmental continuum so It's a pointless debate to try to establish some defined point where a fertilized egg acheives 'humaness.'

So is your trying to make a claim about individuals and twinning - So what? In fact, your position essentially says we should be EVEN MORE CAREFUL because there is the chance for TWO INDIVIDUALS instead of just one. Neither of these twins can form without fertilization. (I'm glad that you refer to them as INDIVIDUALS at the time of twinning. Eventually, I am confident that people will realize they are human at conception).

So what: You said conception..and that we all know when it begins. When shown to be wrong...you counter with so what..and the continuum.

Fine, continuum. Just dismiss the Embryological View, Neuro View, and Ecological / Technological view...those don't support your viewpoint..so, the science behind them is...well, not applicable.

When did i say individual...nice reframing.

Twinning: I guess that is one way of looking at it. The other would be that that point at which the zygote is an ontological individual and can no longer become two individuals.

Conception: I doubt it. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern.

That's total gibberish. Try again. You make zero sense. Does human life begin at conception or not? Do we not know when conception is? Conception is Fertilization - joining of gametes.

Right..a conservative calling science gibberish..how surprising. :roll:

Conception: For me, no. The point was that the determination of when life begins isn't confined to conception. And, that conception itself isn't what you say it is..that is your definition..other scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens. I've given you the science..you can choose to dismiss it or not agree, but you can't refute that science is saying it.

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

[mraynrand]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

[mraynrand]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

[mraynrand]

Right..a conservative calling science gibberish..how surprising. :roll:


The science is very clear to me. Your writing is gibberish. Make some clear declarative statements of your position.

[mraynrand]

OK, Ty. I can't make sense of what you write. You're squirming all over the place, like a 4 month old baby, trying to stretch or suck it's thumb inside the womb. I have a direct question. See if you can give a direct answer.

WHEN, according to YOU does a developing homo sapien achieve 'human' status? In other words, at what point would you say "After _____ developmental time point, the developing embryo is Human, and should be protected from killing by law." If you can answer, please answer with specificity as to what the criteria are for this transition from embryo (that may be destroyed) to Human, (which should be protected by law). I hope it's not above your pay grade.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

Go back to previous posts. I have explained this already.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Right..a conservative calling science gibberish..how surprising. :roll:


The science is very clear to me. Your writing is gibberish. Make some clear declarative statements of your position.

That is funny. What does my position have to do with anything.

But, i've given it to you..i go with the neurological definition of life.

[mraynrand]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

OK. You say that human should be defined by testing for a specific pattern on an EEG. So would you then say that before an abortion can take place, EEG testing should be performed. If the pattern that you require is present should the abortion be denied?

[mraynrand]

That is funny. What does my position have to do with anything.



I often think the same thing of you.

[mraynrand]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

Go back to previous posts. I have explained this already.

I didn't understand what you wrote. Please explain. I don't understand why scientist can't determine when conception happens. I understand 'conception' to be effectively identical to fertilization. Simply understood, fertilization is the joining of two haploid gametes to make a diploid cell, that will then undergo development. I don't understand why any scientist would be uncertain of this. I have never met a single scientist who didn't understands this. Your claim is to my knowledge unsubstantiated.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

OK. You say that human should be defined by testing for a specific pattern on an EEG. So would you then say that before an abortion can take place, EEG testing should be performed. If the pattern that you require is present should the abortion be denied?

No, what is the point. EEG patterns occur approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

[mraynrand]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

OK. You say that human should be defined by testing for a specific pattern on an EEG. So would you then say that before an abortion can take place, EEG testing should be performed. If the pattern that you require is present should the abortion be denied?

No, what is the point. EEG patterns occur approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

Then what is your criteria for allowing an abortion? What if you abort and there is an EEG that qualifies for life, according to your criteria. Isn't that killing a human. Do want to kill a human based on an approximation?

[mraynrand]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Re: conception

scientists don't agree and can't even agree when it happens.

What does this mean? What is conception? Why can't scientists agree on when it happens? Please explain.

Go back to previous posts. I have explained this already.

I didn't understand what you wrote. Please explain. I don't understand why scientist can't determine when conception happens. I understand 'conception' to be effectively identical to fertilization. Simply understood, fertilization is the joining of two haploid gametes to make a diploid cell, that will then undergo development. I don't understand why any scientist would be uncertain of this. I have never met a single scientist who didn't understands this. Your claim is to my knowledge unsubstantiated.

Metabolic View

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

This position is supported by research that has revealed that fertilization itself is not even an instantaneous event, but rather a process that takes 20-22 hours between the time the sperm penetrates the outermost layers of the egg and the formation of a diploid cell.

Genetic View

This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life.

Many scientists no longer support this position, as an increasing number of scientific discoveries seem to contradict it. One such discovery in the last twenty years is that research has shown that there is no "moment of fertilization" at all.

Thus, even if one were to argue that life begins at fertilization, fertilization is not a moment, but rather a continuous process lasting 12-24 hours, with an additional 24 hours required to complete the formation of a diploid individual.

Argument against fertilization..Twinning..which you either dispute or don't agree with, but it is a well known and popular argument. The main point of this argument is that although a zygote is genetically unique from its parents from the moment a diploid organism is formed; it is possible for that zygote to split into two or more zygotes up until 14 or 15 days after fertilization.

Embryological

Again...discussed. Gastrulation. You would argue that whether a zygote will eventually become one individual or multiple individuals is irrelevant. The key point (for my position) is that at least one human life may begin as the result of the zygote, and thus human life began at the creation of the zygote, fourteen days before gastrulation.

Hence the use of the morning after pill and and contragestational agents as long as they are administered during the first two weeks of pregnancy.

This view is endorsed by a host of contemporary scientists. This view of when life begins has also been adopted as the official position of the British government.

But, what does the British gov't know....everyone knows americans know everything. :roll:

We can debate this all day long. But, for you to make it out like there is one established thought on conception or when life begins isn't right. You are welcome to your beliefs.

As i am welcome to mine. And, my belief is that we have a right to choose..which is favored by a majority of this country.

[mraynrand]

We can debate this all day long. But, for you to make it out like there is one established thought on conception or when life begins isn't right. You are welcome to your beliefs.

As i am welcome to mine. And, my belief is that we have a right to choose..which is favored by a majority of this country.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

[mraynrand]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

Why not wait?

[mraynrand]

Gastrulation. You would argue that whether a zygote will eventually become one individual or multiple individuals is irrelevant. The key point (for my position) is that at least one human life may begin as the result of the zygote, and thus human life began at the creation of the zygote, fourteen days before gastrulation.


This got by me. So here you say human life begins fourteen days before gastrulation. So would you protect life by force of law 14 days before gastrulation? And, why not 14 days and 10 minutes before gastrulation (presumeably 10 minutes before completion of fertilization). If you knew that in 10 minutes, the embryo you are looking at will become human, wouldn't you want to wait? Why destroy it 10 minutes before you know it will be a human?

Why not wait?

[Freak Out]

Where the hell are the color pictures that normally come with an abortion debate? Oh wait....found one.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

[mraynrand]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

I got you. But why not wait until it is?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Myself..i tend to go with the neurological.

neurological what?

EEG...as i wrote in the post.

OK. You say that human should be defined by testing for a specific pattern on an EEG. So would you then say that before an abortion can take place, EEG testing should be performed. If the pattern that you require is present should the abortion be denied?

No, what is the point. EEG patterns occur approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

Then what is your criteria for allowing an abortion? What if you abort and there is an EEG that qualifies for life, according to your criteria. Isn't that killing a human. Do want to kill a human based on an approximation?

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

Kill: Are you against capital punishment? Are you against it because we might kill an innocent person...well, not might..have done so.

Are you against shooting at people on property. What if it is a simple mistake..like what happened in Lousiana.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

We can debate this all day long. But, for you to make it out like there is one established thought on conception or when life begins isn't right. You are welcome to your beliefs.

As i am welcome to mine. And, my belief is that we have a right to choose..which is favored by a majority of this country.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

Justify...see, that is what you and other conservs do...you just can't believe that others see it completely differently. I dont' need to justify anything. I'm not a woman..i'll never make that choice.

I respect your position..you don't respect others.

[mraynrand]

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

What if I'm a scientist and an embryologist and I say that once the sperm pronucleus enters the oocyte, that is human life? Your post above seems to think that life begins 14 days before gastrulation at the end of fertilization. I'm just rolling it back 12-24 hours, just to be safe.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

I got you. But why not wait until it is?

Because it isn't when the decision is made. If you wanna wait..go ahead. I dont' see it that way.

Why not...same reason i have protected sex. Am i not wasting my sperm. Same reason we have birth control..are women not wasting their eggs.

Not the optimal way for family planning, but i see no reason to not utilize it.

[mraynrand]

We can debate this all day long. But, for you to make it out like there is one established thought on conception or when life begins isn't right. You are welcome to your beliefs.

As i am welcome to mine. And, my belief is that we have a right to choose..which is favored by a majority of this country.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

Justify...see, that is what you and other conservs do...you just can't believe that others see it completely differently. I dont' need to justify anything. I'm not a woman..i'll never make that choice.

I respect your position..you don't respect others.

No, I very MUCH realize that people see it differently. I just want to explain as clearly as I can my position and hope to convince them to come to my view. I'm not a woman either, so I personally won't make that choice. But I think I have a very good understanding of what makes a human life possible, and why protecting from fertilization onward makes sense.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

What if I'm a scientist and an embryologist and I say that once the sperm pronucleus enters the oocyte, that is human life? Your post above seems to think that life begins 14 days before gastrulation at the end of fertilization. I'm just rolling it back 12-24 hours, just to be safe.

As i said..many viewpoints. You can have yours. And, it is one that many find appealing. Though, as pointed out..i can find other scientists who disagree.

As i stated..i favor neuro...so, i'm more than ok with it happening 20-24ish weeks in.

I don't agree with life beginning at conception. I also think there is huge diff between life and a person.

No matter how many times you ask it, my viewpoint is going to change...just as yours isn't. I've thought long and hard on this..and my position works for me. I'm not asking to have it work for you.

[mraynrand]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

I got you. But why not wait until it is?

Because it isn't when the decision is made. If you wanna wait..go ahead. I dont' see it that way.

Why not...same reason i have protected sex. Am i not wasting my sperm. Same reason we have birth control..are women not wasting their eggs.

Not the optimal way for family planning, but i see no reason to not utilize it.

Your sperm and the woman's egg cannot possibly develop. They must join during fertilization to do so. After that point a human will develop with high probability. Protected sex makes sense - that way you don't generate a human that you didn't want to have. But if you do generate a human, why then kill it?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

We can debate this all day long. But, for you to make it out like there is one established thought on conception or when life begins isn't right. You are welcome to your beliefs.

As i am welcome to mine. And, my belief is that we have a right to choose..which is favored by a majority of this country.

I know there are other viewpoints. The science, as you point out is very clear - before the sperm and oocyte meet there is no chance for human life and after they meet, and fertilization is complete (correctly described above), human life will develop with high probability of success. That is undeniable.

Also undeniable is your view of choice and my view that protecting the human embryo when it first has a very high probability of developing into a human. After fertilization is complete, the embryo WILL develop into a human with high probablity and this in my view makes far more sense as a point at which to protect human life than your arbitrary view of the EEG. As far as I can tell, the only reason you use the gastrulation and EEG time points is to rationalize the morning after pill and abortion up to approximately 24 weeks, respectively. In summary, your position (and that of the scientists you refer to - I've met these folks as well) on when 'humaness' forms isn't derived really from the potential of the embryo to form a human, but on your desire to justify your position on abortion choice.

Justify...see, that is what you and other conservs do...you just can't believe that others see it completely differently. I dont' need to justify anything. I'm not a woman..i'll never make that choice.

I respect your position..you don't respect others.

No, I very MUCH realize that people see it differently. I just want to explain as clearly as I can my position and hope to convince them to come to my view. I'm not a woman either, so I personally won't make that choice. But I think I have a very good understanding of what makes a human life possible, and why protecting from fertilization onward makes sense.

IF you want to convince people...it is best not to talk down to them..or denigrate their position..with words like "justify."

I also believe i have a good understanding..and have dealt with medical procedures and listening to this for a huge portion of my life.

I am more than aware of the complications and implications...and don't wander thru this blindly.

Case in point. I would never have my sig other ever deliver a baby at a catholic hospital.

[mraynrand]

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

What if I'm a scientist and an embryologist and I say that once the sperm pronucleus enters the oocyte, that is human life? Your post above seems to think that life begins 14 days before gastrulation at the end of fertilization. I'm just rolling it back 12-24 hours, just to be safe.

As i said..many viewpoints. You can have yours. And, it is one that many find appealing. Though, as pointed out..i can find other scientists who disagree.

As i stated..i favor neuro...so, i'm more than ok with it happening 20-24ish weeks in.

I don't agree with life beginning at conception. I also think there is huge diff between life and a person.

No matter how many times you ask it, my viewpoint is going to change...just as yours isn't. I've thought long and hard on this..and my position works for me. I'm not asking to have it work for you.

But you said you would go with what science determines. You also agree that scientist will disagree. I know that to be absolutely true: Different scientists have different views on when life begins. Aren't you really saying that you don't really care about what scientists say, but that you will choose to go with the scientist who agrees with your view on the abortion issue?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

But let's even say you're approximation is always correct. If you abort at 22 weeks an earlier, there is no EEG pattern that fits your definition of life. You obviously can't deny that if you wait two weeks or so, there WILL BE an EEG that defines a life worth protecting with the force of law. Why not wait? Why destroy something that you know, with a very, very high certainty, will develop the EEG pattern that will mean it is a human worth protecting? Why not wait?

Sorry. I don't agree.

It isn't a life..and that is the right to choose.

I got you. But why not wait until it is?

Because it isn't when the decision is made. If you wanna wait..go ahead. I dont' see it that way.

Why not...same reason i have protected sex. Am i not wasting my sperm. Same reason we have birth control..are women not wasting their eggs.

Not the optimal way for family planning, but i see no reason to not utilize it.

Your sperm and the woman's egg cannot possibly develop. They must join during fertilization to do so. After that point a human will develop with high probability. Protected sex makes sense - that way you don't generate a human that you didn't want to have. But if you do generate a human, why then kill it?

That is according to your viewpoint.

If we take the metabolic viewpoint that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Human: Again, you are framing the argument. Sex doesn't generate a human. It does generate life, but as i stated...big diff tween life/tissue and a human.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

My criteria is whatever science determines. If we want to be safe..we can roll it back a week or two.

What if I'm a scientist and an embryologist and I say that once the sperm pronucleus enters the oocyte, that is human life? Your post above seems to think that life begins 14 days before gastrulation at the end of fertilization. I'm just rolling it back 12-24 hours, just to be safe.

As i said..many viewpoints. You can have yours. And, it is one that many find appealing. Though, as pointed out..i can find other scientists who disagree.

As i stated..i favor neuro...so, i'm more than ok with it happening 20-24ish weeks in.

I don't agree with life beginning at conception. I also think there is huge diff between life and a person.

No matter how many times you ask it, my viewpoint is going to change...just as yours isn't. I've thought long and hard on this..and my position works for me. I'm not asking to have it work for you.

But you said you would go with what science determines. You also agree that scientist will disagree. I know that to be absolutely true: Different scientists have different views on when life begins. Aren't you really saying that you don't really care about what scientists say, but that you will choose to go with the scientist who agrees with your view on the abortion issue?

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

Like i said..since i have no vested interest in the decision i have come to my view of when life begins without abortion even entering the picture. Regardless of a court decision, i don't believe human life begins at conception. Cells are not human..not to me.

[mraynrand]

If we take the metabolic viewpoint that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Ty, when you throw a ball at the wall, does it ever hit the wall? If you break it down into parts, it can get 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, etc. I don't need to define that instant that the ball hits the wall to know that it hit and bounced off. Neither do I need to specifically define an absolute moment of conception/fertilization to know that sperm and oocytes cannot develop individually into humans, but that a fertilized oocyte will, with high probability. It is a new life. The sperm and the oocyte are not.




Human: Again, you are framing the argument. Sex doesn't generate a human. It does generate life, but as i stated...big diff tween life/tissue and a human.

Yes I am, and you answered my question. Once, you said EEG pattern, and you also said 14 days before gastrulation.

And you're twisting yourself in knots. If according to you "neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life" then how can sex generate life?

[mraynrand]

Cells are not human..not to me.

But humans are made up of cells. If you look carefully, at high resolution, the neurons that generate the EEG patterns are each and every one an individual cell, working together to create that EEG.

[mraynrand]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

[HowardRoark]

I rarely watch O’Reilly, but tuned into the show last night after the Packer game. He was interviewing Obama. It was interesting; O’Reilly was grilling him on redistribution of wealth. Obama did not have a response….finally, with a sheepish grin, he said something like, “c’mon Bill this waitress who makes minimum wage, the rich guy won’t even miss the money if he gives some to her…what’s so bad about that?” Isn’t that type of response supposed to be relegated to freshmen dormitories? Is this something that Presidential contenders say? Either he is REALLY naïve, or else he is a died in the wool Socialist. Why can’t he just come clean?

Same with abortion; why can’t people just come clean and say it like it is. This “mistake/kid” will cause a lot of trouble for me, so I am better off getting rid of it. I should have the right to get rid of this person if it is inconvenient to me….after all, they aren’t very good at fighting back at this stage.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

If we take the metabolic viewpoint that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Ty, when you throw a ball at the wall, does it ever hit the wall? If you break it down into parts, it can get 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, then 1/2 closer, etc. I don't need to define that instant that the ball hits the wall to know that it hit and bounced off. Neither do I need to specifically define an absolute moment of conception/fertilization to know that sperm and oocytes cannot develop individually into humans, but that a fertilized oocyte will, with high probability. It is a new life. The sperm and the oocyte are not.




Human: Again, you are framing the argument. Sex doesn't generate a human. It does generate life, but as i stated...big diff tween life/tissue and a human.

Yes I am, and you answered my question. Once, you said EEG pattern, and you also said 14 days before gastrulation.

And you're twisting yourself in knots. If according to you "neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life" then how can sex generate life?

Again, when you disagree with science you simply can't answer it but then go back to an "i know it." fine, just as i know that conception doesnt' mean life. It works both ways.

Nope: What i did was present differing viewpoints on ception. Not once have i ever said that i agree with gastrulation. I am merely pointing out what scientists have said...not what i believe.

Knots: Not according to me..according to those who believe in the metabolic view. The point wasn't that sex isn't involved...but, that there is no single moment...which for you begins at fertilization.

I will repeat this for the last time...because i am presenting differing views doesn't mean that i believe or am endorsing them..simply putting to rest your absurd notion that your viewpoint is right, widely held (only by the public), and that you have the monopoly on truth.

I have said repeatedly that i use the neuro to define what is human life.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Cells are not human..not to me.

But humans are made up of cells. If you look carefully, at high resolution, the neurons that generate the EEG patterns are each and every one an individual cell, working together to create that EEG.

don't be riduculous. Cells make up humans..of course. That doesn't mean an individual cell is human.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Cells are not human..not to me.

But humans are made up of cells. If you look carefully, at high resolution, the neurons that generate the EEG patterns are each and every one an individual cell, working together to create that EEG.

don't be riduculous. Cells make up humans..of course. That doesn't mean an individual cell is human.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

[mraynrand]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

I'm not using science to buttress my position. My position is straightforward: I think that your use of the EEG pattern as the establishment of 'human' is completely arbitrary. It is not a scientific conclusion. You also have said that 14 days prior to gastrulation is the beginning of 'human.' Scientists have opinions that differ, yet you claim you will let science rule on the question of when 'human' begins. Science can't make this ruling, it can only describe the process leading to the generation of a new human being.

You even go further and deny that there is such an event as fertilization, saying it can't be defined, since it doesn't happen 'in a moment.' No one ever said it did. It takes place from deposition of the pronucleus by the sperm to the fusing of both haploid pronuclei to form a diploid cell. Your position is about as backward as 200 BC (or BCE) in that you want to revisit Zeno's dichotomy and arrow paradoxes that were solved by Archimedes (Does the sperm ever meet the oocyte - does the male pronucleus ever meet the female pronucleus - does an arrow reach it's target - can anything actually happen at all - etc.).

Can't you accept that your view on when homo sapien becomes 'human' is an opinion and not a scientific conclusion?



My view is an opinion, but I think it is far more rational and less arbitrary.

1) The most significant point in the formation of a new human is fertilization (conception) because a) it requires an act of volition by (in most cases) two sexually mature humans and b) without feritlization the sperm and oocyte cannot develop into a human
2) Once fertilization happens, in the vast majority of cases, the fertilized oocyte will develop into a new adult, much like you and me, and other humans around us.
3) Other landmarks or developmental stages as determining 'human' are essentially arbitrary, since they tak place along a developmental continuum that requires no outside input, as does the initial act of procreation. Step s like the beginning of gastrulation, the mid-blastul transition, specificatio of germ layers, specification of neuronal precursors, specification of anterior, posterior, dorsal. and ventral structures are all significant, but they are part of the developmental program, much like post-natal developmental events, such as release of neurotropic compounds and hormones. it is just as easy to define postnatal transition points as transition points in the womb. There is no reason to believe that they are any more or less significant in the development of 'humaness.'

Conclusion: Since a new human is essentially formed at fertilization, it makes sense to protect that human, as you would a human at any other point in the life cycle of a human. I know many still want a woman's choice to have priority over the developing human. That is a legal psotion that may not ever be completely overturned, particularly for the very young (several weeks' old) humans, but at the very least we can acknowledge what it is we are doing when we are carrying out an abortion - we are ending the life of a human. To not acknowledge that abortions end the development of a human being amounts to a rationalization for what most view as an unpleasant and/or morally troubling procedure.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

I'm not using science to buttress my position. My position is straightforward: I think that your use of the EEG pattern as the establishment of 'human' is completely arbitrary. It is not a scientific conclusion. You also have said that 14 days prior to gastrulation is the beginning of 'human.' Scientists have opinions that differ, yet you claim you will let science rule on the question of when 'human' begins. Science can't make this ruling, it can only describe the process leading to the generation of a new human being.

You even go further and deny that there is such an event as fertilization, saying it can't be defined, since it doesn't happen 'in a moment.' No one ever said it did. It takes place from deposition of the pronucleus by the sperm to the fusing of both haploid pronuclei to form a diploid cell. Your position is about as backward as 200 BC (or BCE) in that you want to revisit Zeno's dichotomy and arrow paradoxes that were solved by Archimedes (Does the sperm ever meet the oocyte - does the male pronucleus ever meet the female pronucleus - does an arrow reach it's target - can anything actually happen at all - etc.).

Can't you accept that your view on when homo sapien becomes 'human' is an opinion and not a scientific conclusion?



My view is an opinion, but I think it is far more rational and less arbitrary.

1) The most significant point in the formation of a new human is fertilization (conception) because a) it requires an act of volition by (in most cases) two sexually mature humans and b) without feritlization the sperm and oocyte cannot develop into a human
2) Once fertilization happens, in the vast majority of cases, the fertilized oocyte will develop into a new adult, much like you and me, and other humans around us.
3) Other landmarks or developmental stages as determining 'human' are essentially arbitrary, since they tak place along a developmental continuum that requires no outside input, as does the initial act of procreation. Step s like the beginning of gastrulation, the mid-blastul transition, specificatio of germ layers, specification of neuronal precursors, specification of anterior, posterior, dorsal. and ventral structures are all significant, but they are part of the developmental program, much like post-natal developmental events, such as release of neurotropic compounds and hormones. it is just as easy to define postnatal transition points as transition points in the womb. There is no reason to believe that they are any more or less significant in the development of 'humaness.'

Conclusion: Since a new human is essentially formed at fertilization, it makes sense to protect that human, as you would a human at any other point in the life cycle of a human. I know many still want a woman's choice to have priority over the developing human. That is a legal psotion that may not ever be completely overturned, particularly for the very young (several weeks' old) humans, but at the very least we can acknowledge what it is we are doing when we are carrying out an abortion - we are ending the life of a human. To not acknowledge that abortions end the development of a human being amounts to a rationalization for what most view as an unpleasant and/or morally troubling procedure.

You have essentially proven my point. EEG is science...it is the neurological view.

You just don't like that view. So, you dismiss it.

Perhaps you might read The Facts of Life...Morowitz and Trefill.

Fertilization: Again, this isn't mine..this is science. You cling to the most popular public opinion, but science doesnt' back you up. Kuhse, Shannon and Wolter, etc. When you are confronted you sling arrows, but can't deny the science.

Homo: Like yours. It is all opinion. However, mine is way more rational..no mature brain, the ability for rational thought, to claim that it is human without completed organogenesis is ridiculous, etc.

As for the rest...feel content in your more rational and less arbitrary. I dont' think it is, but good for you.

Your whole argument to me fails on what you consider human. Sorry, but tissue/cells aren't human. You will never convince me, many others, and numerous doctors.

You can continue to post, but i'm not going to respond because you, as always, can't face science, talk down to those that disagree, and present your argument as superior.

[mraynrand]

With what neuro science determines..not all science.

What about the neuroscientists that have the view that the neuronal precursor cells and the precursors to those cells that are critical for the generation of the neruonal structures that generates the EEG are really the important developmental stage, and therefore, life begins long before the EEG forms, at the level of precursor cells.

Aren't you really saying the same thing - that neuroscience will determine, so long as it agrees with your position?

Look, you will find every thing you can to buttress your argument. Precursor cells, etc. dont' produce the EEG. I have given you what i use as the determination. You dont' like it, tough.

I'm not going to continue this as it is pointless. You refuse to accept any science that goes against what you believe. Good for you.

I'm not using science to buttress my position. My position is straightforward: I think that your use of the EEG pattern as the establishment of 'human' is completely arbitrary. It is not a scientific conclusion. You also have said that 14 days prior to gastrulation is the beginning of 'human.' Scientists have opinions that differ, yet you claim you will let science rule on the question of when 'human' begins. Science can't make this ruling, it can only describe the process leading to the generation of a new human being.

You even go further and deny that there is such an event as fertilization, saying it can't be defined, since it doesn't happen 'in a moment.' No one ever said it did. It takes place from deposition of the pronucleus by the sperm to the fusing of both haploid pronuclei to form a diploid cell. Your position is about as backward as 200 BC (or BCE) in that you want to revisit Zeno's dichotomy and arrow paradoxes that were solved by Archimedes (Does the sperm ever meet the oocyte - does the male pronucleus ever meet the female pronucleus - does an arrow reach it's target - can anything actually happen at all - etc.).

Can't you accept that your view on when homo sapien becomes 'human' is an opinion and not a scientific conclusion?



My view is an opinion, but I think it is far more rational and less arbitrary.

1) The most significant point in the formation of a new human is fertilization (conception) because a) it requires an act of volition by (in most cases) two sexually mature humans and b) without feritlization the sperm and oocyte cannot develop into a human
2) Once fertilization happens, in the vast majority of cases, the fertilized oocyte will develop into a new adult, much like you and me, and other humans around us.
3) Other landmarks or developmental stages as determining 'human' are essentially arbitrary, since they tak place along a developmental continuum that requires no outside input, as does the initial act of procreation. Step s like the beginning of gastrulation, the mid-blastul transition, specificatio of germ layers, specification of neuronal precursors, specification of anterior, posterior, dorsal. and ventral structures are all significant, but they are part of the developmental program, much like post-natal developmental events, such as release of neurotropic compounds and hormones. it is just as easy to define postnatal transition points as transition points in the womb. There is no reason to believe that they are any more or less significant in the development of 'humaness.'

Conclusion: Since a new human is essentially formed at fertilization, it makes sense to protect that human, as you would a human at any other point in the life cycle of a human. I know many still want a woman's choice to have priority over the developing human. That is a legal psotion that may not ever be completely overturned, particularly for the very young (several weeks' old) humans, but at the very least we can acknowledge what it is we are doing when we are carrying out an abortion - we are ending the life of a human. To not acknowledge that abortions end the development of a human being amounts to a rationalization for what most view as an unpleasant and/or morally troubling procedure.

You have essentially proven my point. EEG is science...it is the neurological view.

You just don't like that view. So, you dismiss it.

Perhaps you might read The Facts of Life...Morowitz and Trefill.

Fertilization: Again, this isn't mine..this is science. You cling to the most popular public opinion, but science doesnt' back you up. Kuhse, Shannon and Wolter, etc. When you are confronted you sling arrows, but can't deny the science.

Homo: Like yours. It is all opinion. However, mine is way more rational..no mature brain, the ability for rational thought, to claim that it is human without completed organogenesis is ridiculous, etc.

As for the rest...feel content in your more rational and less arbitrary. I dont' think it is, but good for you.

Your whole argument to me fails on what you consider human. Sorry, but tissue/cells aren't human. You will never convince me, many others, and numerous doctors.

You can continue to post, but i'm not going to respond because you, as always, can't face science, talk down to those that disagree, and present your argument as superior.

Of course I think my argument is superior. Why else would I make it.

An EEG is science, but again, how does the EEG pattern you cite PROVE that what is making it is HUMAN. I think you meant Wolpert. How does undergoing GASTRULATION (as he thinks) PROVE HUMAN. See what I'm getting at? Science can measure - it can describe events in human development, but how can it PROVE when developing homo sapien becomes HUMAN. It can't. How can you deny this. Yours and my definition of HUMAN itself differ. Ours are both opinion. Do you deny it? Or do you really claim that the EEG pattern is proof that a blob of cells is now suddenly HUMAN? If so, how is it a PROOF? Please explain.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm done with you...your hubris is astounding.

If i meant Wolpert i would have written that....you just made the perfect example of why it isn't worth discussing.

[retailguy]

I'm done with you...your hubris is astounding.

If i meant Wolpert i would have written that....you just made the perfect example of why it isn't worth discussing.


And then.... he quits. Beaten with his tail between his legs, off he saunters to find a battle that he can win.... leaving still more questions unanswered than were answered. typical.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm done with you...your hubris is astounding.

If i meant Wolpert i would have written that....you just made the perfect example of why it isn't worth discussing.


And then.... he quits. Beaten with his tail between his legs, off he saunters to find a battle that he can win.... leaving still more questions unanswered than were answered. typical.

My god, you are a douche.

[mraynrand]

I love this thread

[HowardRoark]

Lots of good characters used to hang out around here.

[Zool]

The thread title sounds like a movie I watched once. That Alaska chick was hot.

[George Cumby]

I was remotely stationed in AK for a couple of years.

I got laid with surprising regularity.

[mraynrand]

I was remotely stationed in AK for a couple of years.

I got laid with surprising regularity.

That's not too surprising
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YCjyiaHVEOw/S7fcFxz_Y5I/AAAAAAAABg4/TzfPHkzsqeA/s1600/eskimo.jpg

[George Cumby]

Hey, don't knock before you try it! :smile:

[mmmdk]

I'll like to "drill" Sarah Palin...I know it's sick!

[Freak Out]

I'll like to "drill" Sarah Palin...I know it's sick!

Ask Glenn Rice.

[mraynrand]

My god, you are a douche.

Packerrats glory