believer;938128 wrote:Religious zealots? Yet another easy cop out.

Why not just accept there is a rather large group of Americans who are stunned, appalled and disgusted that a supposed enlightened society seems perfectly OK that it has killed 50 million unborn since 1973 for purposes of convenience?

I Wear Pants;938167 wrote:What kind of juice? I love juice, do they offer cranberry juice? If so I may change my outlook on the death penalty and sign up myself. (You'd all like that, get to kill someone and I Wear Pants gone? Proof God exists!)

sleeper;938171 wrote:Like I said, don't like abortion? Don't have one.

OneBuckeye;938117 wrote:"We are a community group, we do not have leaders, we are a leaderless movement," said organizer Rebecka Hawkins. "So your [tent] assignment would be your own choice of what you wanted to do."

believer;938349 wrote:While everyone gets their panties in a bunch for the thousands of lives lost fight the War on Terror, we hear crickets when it comes to the 50 million innocent unborn human lives lost under the seemingly innocent moniker "Pro-Choice."

This country is nuts.

pmoney25;938441 wrote:so logic would seem to say that you technically do not begin life until your brain starts to function?

believer;938349 wrote:While everyone gets their panties in a bunch for the thousands of lives lost fight the War on Terror, we hear crickets when it comes to the 50 million innocent unborn human lives lost under the seemingly innocent moniker "Pro-Choice."

This country is nuts.

FatHobbit;938462 wrote:I'm not really certain what separates a zygote from an unfertilized egg. Women lose unfertilized eggs every month. If only someone would provide sperm we could save all the eggs. Eggs are people too!

I Wear Pants;937940 wrote:Wasn't aware that anyone is forced to get an abortion.

majorspark;938005 wrote:Its mind boggling that IWP us unwilling to lay a glove on the most heinous killer because of of the very remotest of chances that an innocent life could be taken. Yet he is 100% sure life in the womb is a zygote that can can be killed anytime. These heinous represent more of a zygote than an innocent baby in the womb. I only wish we could off these heinous criminals with the same procedures we use on babies in the womb.

jmog;938519 wrote:Then you must have failed biology in HS if you don't know what separates a zygote from an egg.

FatHobbit;938550 wrote:I know why they are different. I just don't understand why someone would think one is more alive than the other.

jmog;938580 wrote:Brain waves, heart beats, full genetic information, doesn't take much thought as to why some people would think there is a difference.

Chris Christie weighed in on the Occupy Wall Street protesters yesterday asserting that they "come from the same perspective" but have "different solutions."

"What they are saying is, that 'Government is not working for me anymore, government is not being fair and government is not helping me the way it should,'" he added.

Christie said that he didn't agree with the solutions of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but said, "I understand why they are angry."

This is a bit of a disappointment for conservatives, who look to Christie for angry "YouTube moments" deriding liberals.
Christie's attempt to equate the two movements will draw a lot of fire from conservatives, who bristle at any comparison of Occupy Wall Street to the Tea Par tyty

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's attempt to liken Occupy Wall Street protesters to Tea Party activists demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of both movements.

In a video from a town hall meeting, which my colleague Charlie Spiering posted below, Christie responds to a question on the Wall Street protests by arguing that, “I think if you look at the Occupy Wall Street folks and the Tea Party folks, that they come from the same perspective, they just have different solutions. ”

But in reality, the two movements offer different solutions precisely because they come from different philosophical perspectives.

The general thrust of the Tea Party movement is a belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility. Tea Partiers want government to take as little of their money as possible and provide as few handouts and subsidies as possible.

By contrast, Wall Street protesters are more focused on income inequality, and they believe that government should play an active role alleviating this problem by imposing a bigger burden on wealthier Americans and offering more services to the poor.

Christie insisted that both groups are the same in that, "What they are saying is, 'The Government is not working for me anymore. The government is not being fair and the government is not helping me the way it should.'"

But this suggests a fundamental ignorance of the Tea Party movement. Tea Partiers don't want government to help them, they want government to leave them alone.

There might be superficial overlap between the two groups. For instance, you may find signs at either rally opposing the Wall Street bailout. But the Wall Street protesters who oppose the bailout do so because they think the government should have bailed out other Americans, such as homeowners, instead. Tea Partiers are opposed to the whole idea of using taxpayer money to reward people for their reckless behavior, regardless of their wealth.

To suggest that the two groups have the same perspectives is to say that conservatives and libertarians who supported market-based health care and liberals who advocated a fully socialized health care system came from the "same perspective" when they both opposed Obamacare.

FatHobbit;938591 wrote:A zygote has brain waves and a heart beat?

jmog;938637 wrote:Personally, I am not 100% sure where life begins.

I 100% believe if it has a heart beat and brain waves it is alive, so abortion after that point should be illegal.

However, I do not know for sure if life begins there or if it would truly begin at inception, because I do not know the answer to that right now, as we speak I am pro life from inception. I would rather be "safe than sorry" when it comes to killing an innocent "life".

If science can prove when life exists and it is after inception, then I maybe ok with early term abortions and the "morning after" pill.

I said maybe, because morally I would still be against it.

believer;938349 wrote:While everyone gets their panties in a bunch for the thousands of lives lost fight the War on Terror, we hear crickets when it comes to the 50 million innocent unborn human lives lost under the seemingly innocent moniker "Pro-Choice."

This country is nuts.

believer;937981 wrote:While I certainly understand and respect your thinking here, it still doesn't justify the eventual results of your convictions. It might make you feel good at the time that you voted for the candidate who best fits your views on how America should be, but the end result is that you allow, by default, the candidate who will rape you more to proceed with the dirty deed.

My hope is the eventual Republican candidate will offer Paul a prominent position in his or her administration in exchange for his endorsement. That's a far, far better scenario than subjecting ourselves to 4 more years of ineptitude beyond imagination.

"What they are saying is, that 'Government is not working for me anymore, government is not being fair and government is not helping me the way it should,'" he added.Christie said that he didn't agree with the solutions of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but said, "I understand why they are angry."

I Wear Pants;939014 wrote:What he said was correct.

"What they are saying is, that 'Government is not working for me anymore, government is not being fair and government is not helping me the way it should,'" he added.Christie said that he didn't agree with the solutions of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but said, "I understand why they are angry."

What is really to disagree with there?

I Wear Pants;939014 wrote:What he said was correct.

"What they are saying is, that 'Government is not working for me anymore, government is not being fair and government is not helping me the way it should,'" he added.Christie said that he didn't agree with the solutions of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but said, "I understand why they are angry."

What is really to disagree with there?

I Wear Pants;939014 wrote:What he said was correct.

"What they are saying is, that 'Government is not working for me anymore, government is not being fair and government is not helping me the way it should,'" he added.Christie said that he didn't agree with the solutions of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but said, "I understand why they are angry."

What is really to disagree with there?