HuskerShark

I absolutely empathize with a woman who gets raped, and if she gets pregnant as a result. That empathy goes away if she chooses to kill the living human inside of her, no matter how difficult that situation may be.

I'm guessing cost and availability are a couple of them. Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them. How's that? Or do you have more excuses? Not excuses. I have no confirmation, I was just guessing. Thanks for the offer, but I'll bet with just a little effort on your part you could easily be put in contact with those that need/want them. How's that? Or do you have excuses as to why you won't own up to your self-righteousness and bluster? Are you habitually dishonest? I've got a lot of irons in the fire, but I'm always charitable whenever i can be. If i come across someone in need such as this, id be glad to help. Yeah...don't strain yourself ... you gotta save your energy to pat yourself on the back More than I've seen you do, big guy.

I'm guessing cost and availability are a couple of them. Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them. How's that? Or do you have more excuses? Plan B pill? Sounds like someone is coming around to the pro-choice side. I've already said that i believe the plan B pill toes the line, but it's a much better alternative than waiting for the embryo to attach to the uterine wall and begin developing.

I'm guessing cost and availability are a couple of them. Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them. How's that? Or do you have more excuses? Not excuses. I have no confirmation, I was just guessing. Thanks for the offer, but I'll bet with just a little effort on your part you could easily be put in contact with those that need/want them. How's that? Or do you have excuses as to why you won't own up to your self-righteousness and bluster? Are you habitually dishonest? I've got a lot of irons in the fire, but I'm always charitable whenever i can be. If i come across someone in need such as this, id be glad to help.

I didn't see the speech. Can you fill us in on what was lied about? Watch it and you will understand. Hopefully...

If that's accurate, women ought to look at the candidates' actual history and see the real story. One candidate hired a woman as a project manager for a huge project in a time when that was not commonplace. The other blackmailed and ruined lives of women who had affairs with her husband and pays women executives currently on her staff considerably less than men. But what do i know?...

I'm guessing cost and availability are a couple of them. Holy crap... If someone on here (a woman) ever gets raped, or you know someone who gets raped, please message me and i will out of the goodness of my heart buy the plan B pill for them. How's that? Or do you have more excuses?

You're right, women are people. So is the baby inside of them. If they choose for that person whether they live or die, that by definition is murder.

For someone who has consensual sex, it was their decision to do so, and they ought to understand the potential result. It's not the woman's life that she's choosing to save or eliminate - it's the baby's. For the woman, it's merely for convenience. Sorry, but if a woman does not want to get pregnant, she needs to exhibit actions that are consistent with that - abstinence or contraceptives. In the case of rape victims, it obviously gets a bit more murky, but there is still no reason to allow murder. There are great stories I've heard of women in that situation who decided to keep the child. Worst case scenario, what's stopping the rape victim from getting the plan B pill and taking it right after the rape to prevent a potential pregnancy?

So are all the pundits going to fact-check Hillary and Pocahontas' Trump-bashing speech?... I watched about 15 minutes of it and couldn't stand the inaccuracies, the political theatrics with no intention or meaning, and Elizabeth Warren's shaky voice, but everything that came out of their mouths up to that point was either a lie or a distorted version of the truth.

What is the standard of proof for something living? Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain. If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming. If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to developNot just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain. It's about cognition. So a vegetative person isn't a human being?Sure they are. And it's not murder to terminate their life. And the reason is?... Because it's not immoral or unethical to end the life of something that has no consciousness. Unless you want to bring notions of religion into it, which have no real place in political morality and ethics, at least in the country. That's not the reason. The reason is because when a person is a "vegetable" they normally have severe brain trauma and are going to die or never wake up, so their loved-ones pull the plug to end their pain and suffering. An unborn baby (barring irregular events) isn't going to pass away. It's a completely separate issue altogether.

What is the standard of proof for something living? Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain. If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming. If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to developNot just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain. It's about cognition. So a vegetative person isn't a human being? Sure they are. And it's not murder to terminate their life. And the reason is?...

What is the standard of proof for something living? Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain. If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming. If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to developNot just a brain. A vegetative person has a brain. It's about cognition. So a vegetative person isn't a human being?

I admittedly don't know a lot about Brexit so I'll mostly stay away from it other than offer this commentary: typically in large, multi-national agreements like that, all it ends up being is the larger, stronger countries like Britain, Germany, and France essentially subsidizing the smaller, weaker nations. So i can understand why Britain would want to leave. Secondly, regarding your first paragraph, if people are offended by him saying that certain economic conditions help him financially, that's some weak, poor-minded bullsh*t. There's nothing wrong with him saying that.

I'm not familiar with Bush's relationship with the Saudis, but I'd say that during my lifetime in general there has not been a successful presidency. I give no damns what party a candidate comes from. Bush was a failure mainly due to Iraq and Afghanistan. That was a failure of epic proportions. And one catastrophe that hardly gets mentioned of his was NCLB. That bill single handedly has deteriorated our public education system and made the material arbitrary.

What is the standard of proof for something living? Do you think an animal (human or otherwise) needs a beating heart for the rest of the body to be considered alive? It doesnt. It can live (not very long, mind you) without a heart. But It can live longer without a heart if there is some other way to deliver oxygen to its brain. If the brain is dead, a beating heart doesnt mean anthing other than the heart tissue is still spasming. If the brain is the prerequisite for a living being then the fetus is a living being even sooner by your definition since the brain and spinal cord are the first thing to develop

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with. Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.(facepalm) Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people. Oh I underatand the issue perfectly. You just don't understand what you're saying. All tax money is used for things that people can't afford on their own. The police help everyone including poor people. As do road repairs. As would help for parents of newborns. I guess you're only agains things that ONLY help poor people. 'Cause they just don't deserve it. I'm pro-life but the Republicans are completely ass-backwards on their philosophy about it. You want people to help their babies? Don't be such jerks to people of need. No, you really don't, but just to hopefully educate you, I'll bite. There is a difference between government socialist programs and government taxation to build infrastructure. Yes, helping the poor is a good thing to do, but the government should not be Robin Hood. People should have the freedom to choose to give money to the poor or not. And if people choose not to give money, should we just let them die? Terrible case of hyperbole.

I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies. When do you consider them "unborn babies?" Conception or a certain amount of weeks? At the time of conception, it is a baby. In other words, once the sperm fertilizes the egg. Wrong. It's a human lifeform, it's not a baby. Ha! Unreal...

No baby is "viable" outside the womb. Take a baby at birth and leave it alone in the wild. It isn't going to survive, not without outside intervention. The "viability" argument makes zero sense to me. So perhaps "viable" is too loose a term for you. But breathing on it's own, body functions without assistance from machines or extra measures. Obviously basic care from a parent or caregiver is needed for any infant. As a generality, any fetus needs lung development to be considered "viable". I think the very earliest this has happened is about 21 weeks. A developing fetus that isn't "viable" is not the same thing as a person whose organs are shutting down and has a Do-Not-Resuscitate order. Even though the baby isn't developed yet, that doesn't make it not a baby.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with. Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.(facepalm) Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people. Oh I underatand the issue perfectly. You just don't understand what you're saying. All tax money is used for things that people can't afford on their own. The police help everyone including poor people. As do road repairs. As would help for parents of newborns. I guess you're only agains things that ONLY help poor people. 'Cause they just don't deserve it. I'm pro-life but the Republicans are completely ass-backwards on their philosophy about it. You want people to help their babies? Don't be such jerks to people of need. No, you really don't, but just to hopefully educate you, I'll bite. There is a difference between government socialist programs and government taxation to build infrastructure. Yes, helping the poor is a good thing to do, but the government should not be Robin Hood. People should have the freedom to choose to give money to the poor or not.

I think it's a baby really, really early on. Like, so early that I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong for your "from conception" stance. I've heard lots of arguments for & against, lots of science about heartbeats and pain and thumb-sucking and viability, and frankly I don't know what's right. But I believe it's a baby, a real person, real real close to conception, if not right at. What I can't tell you is what I know. Because I know nothing. Which is what makes the abortion argument so hard. I could argue for and against it with about the same level of facts & fervor. And the reason we're still debating this in 2016 is that nobody really knows the truth. It's all what we believe. Fair enough.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him. Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate." Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse. Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare. And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?" The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice. It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it. So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right... Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs. That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with. Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it. (facepalm) Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people.

You all realize that there have been babies born as much as 4 months premature that have survived, right?

So people honestly think it's not a baby until birth or...

I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies. When do you consider them "unborn babies?" Conception or a certain amount of weeks? At the time of conception, it is a baby. In other words, once the sperm fertilizes the egg.