LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Sarah Palin

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_mabeuse

Biden is going to smear her on bread and eat her up in the VP debate.


shereads said:
No one's allowed to be mean to her. Republicans have suddenly discovered sexism, and they are appalled.
Click to expand...

Actually, if Biden treated Pailin with gentleness and chivalry, THAT would be sexism. :eek: To avoid sexism, they have to shake hands before the debate, go at each other tooth and claw during the debate, and shake hands after it has ended. :cool:
 
Selena_Kitt said:
I think we should take the scientific argument out of it altogether.
Click to expand...

Oh cmon, you can't make important policy decisions on emotion alone. I myself think that in the early term its not sentient when you just take a look at how developed it is.

Saying that we should just "forget" the scientific argument altogether is both a bad idea and anti-intellectual.

Have any of you read freakanomics?
 
KLCK said:
Oh cmon, you can't make important policy decisions on emotion alone.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's probably a good thing I don't make policy ;)

Forgetting the scientific argument is only a "bad idea" and "anti-intellectual" if you're primarily a thinker. There are other ways of seeing the world, you know.

Wait... no, you probably don't know... :rolleyes:
 
Just heard on CNN a quip about Palin's Down's Sydrome baby, Trig, being raised in the VP's residence, the Naval Observatory and what an example that would be for simularly affected children and their parents across the nation.

Then the bombshell, 90% of babies diagnosed with the illness are killed in the womb, even though adoptive parents are lined up.

What a wonderful liberal lifestyle.

Amicus...
 
amicus said:
Just heard on CNN a quip about Palin's Down's Sydrome baby, Trig, being raised in the VP's residence, the Naval Observatory and what an example that would be for simularly affected children and their parents across the nation.

Then the bombshell, 90% of babies diagnosed with the illness are killed in the womb, even though adoptive parents are lined up.

What a wonderful liberal lifestyle.

Amicus...
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between reducing the amount of Downs Syndrome babies by either cure or elective abortion.

If we took abortion out of the picture, would anyone be appalled at a massive reduction of Downs Syndrome births? I don't think so.

Say science found something that they could give women prenatally that would decrease Downs Syndrome births by 90%. Assume it has no side effects (just for the sake of argument...) Would anyone object? Of course not.

Babies are a big responsibility. Babies with special needs are exponentially so. And with health care being what it is in the country, it costs a lot to have a baby with special needs.

Sarah Palin might be able afford it. Most average Americans without insurance find it much more of a struggle. A large percentage of Down's babies die before their first birthday. About one third die within the first year, and one half die as they reach four years. Those who don't have a myriad of issues that can include congenital heart defects, leukemias, obstructive sleep apnea, sleep disorders, psychiatric or neurobehavioral problems, problems with endocrine function, increased risk of celiac disease, respiratory infections, epilepsy, intestinal obstruction... the list goes on.

Adoption is an option, yes, but there's a reason that 90% of these babies are terminated. Most Downs babies are born to mothers trying to get pregnant later in life - and the clock is ticking. I'm sure the pro-life camp sees it as selfish to electively terminate a Downs child in order to try again sooner. But I imagine that's whats happening.

Abortion remains a legal option. And it's up to a mother to decide what she can and can't handle emotionally, psychologically, and financially. It's not up to the state, and I'm sorry, Amicus, but unless you contributed sperm to the equation, it's just not up to you.
 
But, but, ami speaks for God and God's most perfect social system; lassiez faire capitalism ruled by white males.

Are you going to argue with God, Selena? ;)
 
amicus hypocrisy

anything new?

Originally Posted by amicus
Just heard on CNN a quip about Palin's Down's Sydrome baby, Trig, being raised in the VP's residence, the Naval Observatory and what an example that would be for simularly affected children and their parents across the nation.

Then the bombshell, 90% of babies diagnosed with the illness are killed in the womb, even though adoptive parents are lined up.

What a wonderful liberal lifestyle.

Amicus crocodile tears for aborted Down's fetuses should be placed in context of his utter contempt for babies lives. The US system, compared with several other advanced countries, generates an extra
10,000+ babies per year dying at birth or just after. Because many are Black, Ami is especially unconcerned.

In the US, 28,000 babies die each year, and the US rate for infant mortality [7 per 1000 live births] is double that of, for example Japan and Germany. For Black US women the rate is double.

See the material below.

As well, Amicus has contempt for adult humans' lives, as shown by his opposition to federal laws about release of pollutants and poisons into the air and rivers.

IF EVER "pro life" was a fraud-- which it is, often-- Amicus is the most glaring example.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.

American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.

Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.
===

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/US-infant-mortality-rate-fails-to-improve-3542-1/
US infant mortality rate fails to improve


Nearly 28,000 babies [in the US] died before their first birthday, according to new infant mortality statistics for 2003 released by the [US] National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

The infant mortality rates showed no significant improvement in 2003 after increasing in 2002 for the first time since 1958.

In 2003, the infant mortality rate was 6.8 deaths for every 1,000 live births, which was statistically unchanged from the 2002 rate of 7.0. Two-thirds of all infant deaths occurred within the first month of life.

"These new statistics are sobering. Essentially there has been no improvement in the infant death rate since 2000. Premature birth is the leading cause of newborn death in the first month of life and preventing premature birth remains at the forefront of the March of Dimes agenda," said Nancy Green, M.D., medical director of the March of Dimes. "We must be more focused upon reversing the stagnancy in the rate of infant mortality, a key indicator of child health, including working to reduce preterm and low birthweight births."

Birthweight and gestational age are two major predictors of infant health and survival. In 2003 birth defects, as well as prematurity and low birthweight remained the leading causes of infant death, according to the NCHS.

The percentage of infant deaths occurring to babies born premature (less than 37 weeks gestation) or with a low birthweight (less than 2500 grams or 5.5 pounds) increased 9 percent between 1995 and 2003, according to an analyses by the March of Dimes.
===

http://www.schs.state.nc.us/SCHS/vitalstats/volume1/2003/section1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Because the abortion issue is such a painful and serious discussion with most, as so many, millions, have undergone the procedure or support it intellectually, it is not an issue I would personally choose to engage in every time it arises.

For most of my professional life in broadcast journalism, and that is now about a half century, I have held and spoken from the same position concerning life and liberty as primary values in a free society.

The abortion controversy began in the 1970's with the Supreme Court decision, as you well know, and you all are aware of the controversy surround the Court as it continued to legislate from the bench, interfering with the functions of government by imposing social legislation in opposition to a wide spectrum of the American population.

If this site were a legitimate forum in which all sides of an issue were discussed and debated and opposing opinions actually sought, the imbalance would not be so obvious.

But this is called the 'Author's Hangout', and the rules of engagement are quite different and opposing opinions on any subject are met with ridicule and rejection as a small activist clique tends to hold sway.

They have intimidated and dominated the entire spectrum of discussion for as long as I have been here, effectively squelching any opposing opinions by trolling and name calling.

It goes further than that, just in the past week, I have received two 'Feedback for Amicus' emails that usually reflect readers thoughts and opinions on posted stories. They were not, rather political criticisms of forum encounters as I have not posted a new story in some months. I stopped adding new writing some time ago because members of the forum were trashing and one bombing my submissions on a regular basis.

I am not complaining, not at all, this forum is what it is and one either participates or does not, knowing that.

I will continue to advocate those things, those truths, I hold to be self evident and axiomatic, and the primacy and value of human life, each and every human life from the instant of conception, is one of those truths I live by and defend.

For those who do not know, I do not claim a religious base or depend on divine interpretation of moral and ethical questions, I maintain that human actions have a rational base and arise from natural observations of the species and the actions that benefit human life.

Selena, and many others, present a logical argument with a faulty premise. That premise is that they have a moral right to take another human life for causes they determine sufficient.

They scream outrage at a pro life person who must disregard the circumstances of conception, be it rape, incest or even discovering a 'Down's Syndrome baby. The circumstances, by definition are secondary, and the primacy of life is the primary, fundamental value in any human ethical and moral system.

When the mother's life is threatened by the existence of the baby within her, then it becomes a question of which life is primary and that is an easily answered question and the baby is sacrificed.

Even so, the sacrifice of a human life, even for cause, is not an event to celebrate but one to mourn, as we all mourn for each innocent life lost to whatever cause.

This is neither a difficult or a complicated moral position to understand and protecting human life is seen as a virtue and a value among almost all humans at any period of our human history.

I am not personally immune or unfeeling to those who hold an opposing position and have taken human life for less than just cause, but emotions and feelings have no place in the arena of human life. Cold reason and rational thought and adherence to a rational, moral and ethical code is the defining quality in humanity that sets us apart from the animal world and the uncivilized world.

I seldom call upon personal or anecdotal references to make a point and will not at this time either. However, one should always accept the possibility in all encounters that personal experience plays a role in an individuals moral concepts.

For those who do not understand or comprehend the argument presented above, I leave you with a brief axiom, a truism in life.

It is a moral crime, a wrongful act, to take an innocent human life without just cause.

Amicus...
 
amicus said:
[...]When the mother's life is threatened by the existence of the baby within her, then it becomes a question of which life is primary and that is an easily answered question and the baby is sacrificed.

Even so, the sacrifice of a human life, even for cause, is not an event to celebrate but one to mourn, as we all mourn for each innocent life lost to whatever cause.

This is neither a difficult or a complicated moral position to understand and protecting human life is seen as a virtue and a value among almost all humans at any period of our human history.[...]

It is a moral crime, a wrongful act, to take an innocent human life without just cause.

Amicus...
Click to expand...

FUCK! I hate it when I have to agree with you!
 
amicus smoke, as usual

all the pretend outrage over the "moral crime" [excuse the illiterate phrasing] of abortion, should NOT obscure amicus' contempt for human life. he scarcely holds it as 'highest value,' as opposed to his Falwell-like moral agenda for the US and world.

his statement This is neither a difficult or a complicated moral position to understand and protecting human life is seen as a virtue and a value among almost all humans at any period of our human history. is utter hypocrisy:


Examples:

Amicus would favor eliminating all federal laws about mine safety.

Amicus would favor elimination all federal laws about release of toxins into rivers.

Amicus would get the fed out of banking regulation-- not direct loss of life, but of 'life savings' etc. Amicus opposes the federal insurance of your savings accounts FDIC.

As far as babies, Amicus opposes dissemination of birth control info to teenagers in the schools. Amicus opposes the right of a 16 year old girl to get the 'pill' without her parents' knowldege or consent. THE EFFECT of amicus' agenda is to increase births to teen moms, which places a large proportion of babies at risk.

Amicus opposes federal, and probably state programs, to offer free services to pregnant moms, esp. teen ones.

Amicus is UN supportive of US constitution, the amendments since the BR, and parts of the BR.
For example Amicus opposes the 1960s civil rights legislation [pursuant to 14th amendment rights] which allow federal prosecution for murders of voting rights' workers.

For example, Amicus, contrary to the IV, V, and VIII amendments, favors torture of suspected terrorists.


Amicus opposed Headstart and all programs to aid the younger children of poor and esp. Black families.

Amicus is rather pleased with the extermination of US native persons, whom he regards as barbarians.

Amicus has nothing to say of millions of iraqi civilian deaths, refugees, etc., and opposes any special allowances for their entering the US as refugees.

The points are too numerous to continue. While talking of "the individual", in actual practice he encourages or condones the deaths of thousands of them every year.
 
Last edited:
amicus said:
the sacrifice of a human life, even for cause, is not an event to celebrate but one to mourn, as we all mourn for each innocent life lost to whatever cause...
Click to expand...

Very true. I'd even take out the "innocent" in that phrase.

But it continues to be the case that abortion is a legal option for women in this country, and in fact, has always been an option, even before federal or state government decided they needed to legislate such a personal decision.

I'm happy to respect your choice to not terminate (if you actually have that choice available to you, being of the feminine persuasion...) I expect the same option. Choice.

It is a moral crime, a wrongful act, to take an innocent human life without just cause.
Click to expand...

"Just cause" is the optimum word there, isn't it?
 
"just cause"

//It is a moral crime, a wrongful act, to take an innocent human life without just cause. //

amicus interpretation of "just cause" here, follows Falwell, Robertson, the Pope, etc.; THEY SAY, the only "just" claim of the mom is for her life to be spared. it's NOT just for her to want to avoid pregnancy from the rape of her step dad.

the inclusion of the word "innocent" is to allow amicus to call for the execution of 15 year old Black boys convicted of murder. as well of course, he favors the massive application of capital punishment for adults. here he is close to Falwell, and not the pope.
 
Last edited:
Many posters on this forum hold similar views to those posted above, but are too ashamed to identify the nature of their 'beliefs', more cowardly than deists who pray to a non existent god.

This poster, however, is an admitted and avowed, socialist, fascist, communist, dictatorial advocate to whom any means justifies the end results.

And I combine those, 'ism's', above as one and the same as the common denominator is human slavery over freedom, like quiche, they are all the same with a slightly different repugnant flavor.

While modern civilized man strives to achieve human freedom and liberty, these communal types display a hatred of the individual and individual rights and liberties and favor instead, a communal, common good philosophy, which by definition, relegates the individual human life to slave status existing at the whim of those who rule.

It is a simple choice, really, respect and cherish each and every human life and identify yourself as an advocate of human liberty and freedom, or sacrifice the individual for the greater good of the whole.

One wonders, with such examples as Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and China, Communist Cuba and Fascist Italy, what it is about these slave societies that these posters find attractive?

Our resident psuedo intellectuals are sure they can outsmart the muddling leaders of such slave nations and exist off the bounty of confiscating the meager wealth of the poor.

What they are blind to is that every dictatorship of the type I describe, instantly places the psuedo intellectuals, the teachers, the artists, the bohemians, the deviants, in a field with a hoe in hand, or in a factory to make toilet paper for the rulers.

Slave societies have no need of 'brainpower', no need for art or music outside that approved by the state.

It really is amusing, isn't it?

Amicus...
 
note re amicus

there's blather about commies and fascists and weird's eye view of history.

note amicus does NOT address any of the dozens of threats to individual life, and to babies lives and health, that i have mentioned.
 
"..."Just cause" is the optimum word there, isn't it?.."
Click to expand...

~~~

Yes, Selena, et al, it is the operative word.

Not limited to this discussion, but offered as an intellectual exercise to any and all who would care to participate, 'just' is a most interesting word.

Once upon a time, I love that opening, I decided that etymology was the next step in understanding language in general and individual words in specific.

The evolution of abstract concepts, such as 'justice', has a long history that can be traced back to the very first recorded histories of people with language.

Man has always sought to understand those concepts beyond the physical, 'metaphysical', concepts and abstractions, as they apply to so many aspects of existence that one cannot place hands upon as a concrete, physical object.

While thousands of languages still exist and thousands more have gone extinct, there remains a conceptual similarity between each and every one as men (and women) for you sticklers, have sought to comprehend the nature of our existence, our perceptions and our ability to communicate abstract concepts with each other.

Every social unit of men since the beginning of time have contemplated what a 'just and moral' action is and why.

We are no different, and unlike Jean Auel's concept of instinctual knowledge, a new generation, beginning tabula rasa, has to begin all over again acquiring the knowledge and understanding of language, words, concepts and abstractions.

Only a small percentage of humans ever even attempt this task and many of those who do, get it wrong.

So...good luck...if you choose to undertake this quest of understanding that 'operative' or in your word, 'optimum', concept of 'just.'

Amicus...
 
blah blah

the novels of auel and rand. history.

is it just to deny a mid teen access to birth control info and methods, and then denounce her pregnancy as 'irresponsibile.'

is it just to deny state aid to her during her pregnancy to make sure her kid survives?
 
I cannot believe that you guys are letting Ami control this discussion. It's very probable that he doesn't believe a word of what he says, but takes delight in stirring the forum into frothing rage.

He's said that he retends to be a wild-eyed liberal on conservative forums. So, he must --presumably-- understand liberal arguments, the very same ones he effects to misinterpret and belittle here. And he may just as easily be pretending to be an ultra-con for our entertainment.

There are far better ways to be entertained, and far more productive modes of argument available, aren't there?

http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/ contains opinions from over one hundred thousand women. Please publicise the site, and add your voice.
Sarah Palin is the classic example of a woman being used by those in power to remove power from women. If a man, with the same abysmal record against women's and children's issues, against environmental issues, in support of teaching creationism in schools, and with a complete lack of sophistication and international experience, had been named the vice presidential candidate (as McCain's running mate, potentially the oldest president ever elected), there would have been an undisputed national outcry for his fringe and retrograde stances. It is as if, because Sarah Palin is a woman and a mother, she is above being criticized for her anti-woman and anti-child legislation and People magazine can focus on the feel-good aspects of her supporting her pregnant daughter and loving her autistic child. That's all very sweet, but it is irrelevant to the role she is seeking to fill and it can't make her horrific political profile any more palatable. I am disgusted and yet not surprised to see a woman used against women. Divide and conquer has been an effective strategy since the beginning of time.
- Iliza A., 39, San Francisco, CA
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ShelbyDawn57
The edit I thought I made but didn't
Replies
8
Views
150
MillieDynamite
MillieDynamite
joy_of_cooking
workshop this plot with me? serial killer picks the wrong girl
Replies
19
Views
279
TarnishedPenny
TarnishedPenny
H
How to write he's got a big dick
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
TheGreatOz
T
O
Suggestions to improve my writing
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
FidelityBoss
FidelityBoss
HordHolm
Pirate Archetypes
Replies
13
Views
326
TheRedChamber
TheRedChamber
Back
Top