SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Four police officers and an unknown number of civilians have been hurt in an "active shooter" incident in the US city of Colorado Springs, police say.
Officers were exchanging fire with a gunman inside a Planned Parenthood clinic, police Lt Catherine Buckley said.
It was unclear if hostages had been taken, she said.
The city's Penrose hospital said it had received six patients, but did not say whether they were civilians or police.
The situation was still active and roads were closed, the city's police said in a tweet.
"We do not have the shooter at this point but we do have all of our resources brought to bear," Lt Buckley told local TV.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
"Active Shooter" in Colorado Springs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 107 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You can't have your cake and let your neighbor eat it too.
-- Ayn Rand
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:02PM
Yup. Odds are this is the Tea-Taliban.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:11PM
Or teAl-Qaeda
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:43AM
double-points for getting "teal" in there as well.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday November 27 2015, @11:12PM
Yep. I've been saying it for a while. These people want Sharia law. They just don't want the Muslim branding.
(These are probably also the same useful idiots who helped the Illuminati or whoever change the TEA party from a legitimate multi-partisan grassroots movement into an astroturf movement. Never forget that detail.)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 27 2015, @11:18PM
Oh, I also forgot to add: abortions are only 3% [npr.org] of Planned Parenthood's budget. Posting AC to avoid karma whoring.
All though, looking at the graph in that article, I wouldn't be surprised if the nuts who want Planned Parenthood defunded are also offended by the 76% of the budget for STD and contraception services. Woohoo, bring the Christian branded Sharia law!
On the other hand, sure, let's defund Planned Parenthood and replace it with single payer healthcare instead of the jigsaw puzzle joke we have for health care delivery in the USA.
--kurenai.tsubasa
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:35AM
3% of the budget? Utter nonsense. Those clinics in Texas which were unable or unwilling to meet new state requirements (quite reasonable requirements, after all) for hospital admission privileges where abortions are performed? Would you have us believe that abortion is only 3% of their business? Nonsense. If the clinics ONLY LOST 3% of their business as a result of those laws, then the clinics could almost certainly have continued to operate at a profit.
Those charts are lies. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure - and they manage to make nice pretty pie charts from their lies.
The facts are, abortion is the money maker for PP. They don't make money on contraception. They don't make money on women's health issues. They don't make the money from any other services or procedures that they make off of abortion.
It MAY BE accurate to say that only 3% of "customers" make use of abortion services. If that is what was meant with that statement, then why not say it plainly? For the sake of argument, let me grant that only 3% of the people who go to PP are looking for an abortion.
However - people who visit PP for contraceptives often pay nothing out of pocket. People getting a pregnancy test often pay nothing. People with STD's often pay nothing. Abortions? $600 a pop, by most accounts that I've read.
In-Clinic Abortion Procedures at a Glance
Medical procedures that end pregnancy
Safe and effective
Available from many Planned Parenthood health centers
Costs up to $1,500 in the first trimester, but often less
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures [plannedparenthood.org]
From PP's own pages, it's obvious that federal funds are used to fund abortions - exposing another lie.
What can I expect to pay for a visit at Planned Parenthood?
This depends on the type of health care service you require and your health insurance carrier. If you do not have health insurance, we can offer you services based on our discount fee scale. Our patients find that Planned Parenthood health care fees are very reasonable, especially when compared to other doctors’ offices.
Can I use my health insurance at Planned Parenthood?
Yes! We welcome most major health insurance carriers for billing for female reproductive health services (GYN). You will be asked to present your insurance card and pay your co-pay at the time of visit. Some health insurances will require you to notify them of a change in your GYN provider. Call the health center closest to you using the health center locator at the top right of the page and speak to one of our medical staff if you need assistance.
What if I can’t pay or do not have health insurance?
Planned Parenthood participates in a federal funding program called Title X (10); a program that allows us to supplement birth control, GYN care, and other reproductive health services for women who cannot pay full price for health care services. This program does not pay for abortion care. To qualify, we ask all clients seeking services at Planned Parenthood to present the most recent four week snapshot of your income (such as recent pay stubs or, if you are unemployed, proof of your unemployment benefits or inability to work). This helps our staff determine what amount you can pay under Title X’s discounted fee scale.
Additionally, Planned Parenthood can help you sign-up for other programs that will help pay for your services including Medicaid or the Family Planning Benefit Program (FPBP). Call the health center closest to you and speak to one of our medical staff to see how you can apply.
Cash, credit card, certified check or Medicaid and/or your private insurance are the only ways to pay for abortion care at a Planned Parenthood health center in New York State.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-central-western-new-york/patient-resources/paying-your-health-care/about-our-fees [plannedparenthood.org]
THIS IS WHERE THE MONEY IS AT!! Planned parenthood doesn't make money on distributing condoms. Planned parenthood is a wholesale homicide facility. Like any other assassin, they make their money from killing.
3% my ass. Here are some meaningful numbers:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/09/disentangling-the-data-on-planned-parenthood-affiliates-abortion-services-and-receipt-of-taxpayer-funding [heritage.org]
Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year.[10]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:03AM
Did you even read what you posted, Runaway? You say "From PP's own pages, it's obvious that federal funds are used to fund abortions - exposing another lie." But the stuff you quoted says:
I know you think people don't read what you post, but that's a little over the top, don't you think?
You also say that
Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year.
Good. Abortion is legal. Period. End of story. If busybodies like you would mind your own damn business, we'd all be a lot happier. What right do you have to decide what another person does with their body? None. I'm reminded of one of my favorite Heinlein quotes which applies in spades to you:
As I said, abortion is legal in this country. If you don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled areas. It seems like their belief systems jive pretty well with yours, except for the whole Jesus thing. Then again, they have the same (non-existent) invisible sky daddy as you do, so maybe it's not such a big deal.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Celestial on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:44AM
Slavery was legal in this country at one point. Should the people who disagreed with it have also moved to Saudi Arabia?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:10AM
Banning abortion is much closer to slavery than allowing it is (which increases individual liberties), because banning it violates the right to control your own body. As it is the woman's body, she has the right to evict any fetus or baby, even if doing so causes its death. I am not forced to lend out my organs to save another person's life, so I don't see why women should be forced to do so to keep a person who hasn't even been born yet alive.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:35PM
Not from my perspective.
Savery: The plantation owner's business interests are are given legal precidence over the slaves' right of self possession, including freedom and life.
Abortion: The mother's life choices are given legal precidence over the child's right of self possession, including life.
In your preferred interpretation, the grown ups who acted out and got pregnant made a conscious decision (at least 95% of the time since less than 5% of pregancies are the result of rape) to participate in an activity that resulted in pregnancy more closely align with the slave who had no choice in the matter than with the slave owner who chose to participate in an economic system where they may have felt they had no way to stay economically viable when they were competing against all of the other slave owners had the economic benefits of slavery. The unborn child is the powerless entity who equates more closely to the slave in the slavery-abortion comparison, because they have no say in the matter, but the parents made the choices that put them in this situation. Under your scenario, the slave is the oppressor who puts the slave owner in the situation where he has no choice but to participate in slavery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:16PM
> the grown ups who acted out
Statements like that reveal you to be one of those moral avengers who think pregnancy is a punishment that people deserve as a consequence of their moral failings. You will not convince anyone who isn't already convinced that children are a punishment for the wicked.
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:15PM
So if somebody makes a mistake, they should be allowed to kill somebody to make it better? Bullshit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 29 2015, @04:07AM
> So if somebody makes a mistake, they should be allowed to kill somebody to make it better?
And there you reveal the flaw in your argument. A fetus is not somebody. It is the potential to be somebody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @11:54PM
No, you blithering idiot! The point is that, unless the woman has been raped or otherwise coerced, she and her partner made decisions that got her pregnant. Pregnancy didn't just happen. Is it really too much to ask that you pro-choice folks at least educate yourselves on where babies come from?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:48PM
Abortion: The mother's life choices are given legal precidence over the child's right of self possession, including life.
No, the mother simply has control over her own body, and she isn't forced by government thugs to remain pregnant. You have no right to remain in someone else's body, regardless of how you got there. The death of the unborn is simply what happens when they are evicted.
In your preferred interpretation, the grown ups who acted out and got pregnant made a conscious decision (at least 95% of the time since less than 5% of pregancies are the result of rape) to participate in an activity that resulted in pregnancy
I don't care about how conscious their decision was, or how powerless the fetus/baby is. I also don't base my beliefs on a few rape cases. What I care about is the fundamental right to control your own body and nothing more. Were the baby not in the mother's body, there would be no issue here, but it is.
Under your scenario, the slave is the oppressor who puts the slave owner in the situation where he has no choice but to participate in slavery.
No, the oppressor in my scenario is the government and society.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 29 2015, @04:10AM
> The death of the unborn is simply what happens when they are evicted.
I don't think it is possible for you to be more tone-deaf.
You are both blinded by your respective ideologies and not only are you unable to hear each other, anyone who isn't a nutjob won't hear what you either of you have to say as well.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 29 2015, @05:25AM
I don't think it is possible for you to be more tone-deaf.
I know exactly what I'm doing, what I'm saying, and what effects it will likely have.
You are both blinded by your respective ideologies and not only are you unable to hear each other, anyone who isn't a nutjob won't hear what you either of you have to say as well.
So 'sorry' for (presumably) taking a position you don't agree with.
Actually, since you don't agree with me, you must be blinded by ideology. You can't possibly have any genuine opinions of your own, so you must be blind. Anyone who isn't a nutjob won't listen to your smug content-less drivel. Most likely, you will be "unable to hear" me. I'm the Voice of Reason, after all; you may have thought that was you, but it's actually me. Now, crawl back into your tone-deaf bubble world; it's a fitting place for you closed-minded ACs.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:21AM
Slavery was legal in this country at one point. Should the people who disagreed with it have also moved to Saudi Arabia?
It's not a very good analogy (as Anal Pumpernickel pointed out [soylentnews.org])
Even so, Saudi Arabia didn't exist back then, but in principle, yes.
An alternative would be (as was done WRT slavery) to amend the constitution. It only takes approval by both houses of Congress and ratification by two thirds of state legislatures.
And before you get on to the Civil War, I'd note that the Confederate states (those who supported slavery -- which was, as you pointed out, legal) struck first (Fort Sumter [wikipedia.org]) and seceded from the U.S. while slavery was still the law of the land.
The Thirteenth Amendment [wikipedia.org] abolishing slavery in the U.S. was not ratified until eight months *after* the Civil War ended.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:24AM
"This program does not pay for abortion care. [emphasis added]"
And, the fact remains, without those federal funds, PP would have to bar the doors on all of their clinics. Those funds INDIRECTLY fund abortions. I don't give a rip how imaginatively the accountants move the funds around, federal funds provide abortions.
"Good. Abortion is legal. Period. End of story."
Keep telling yourself that. There are abortion cases in the courts now. Remember Doctor Kermit? Maybe you should visit him in prison, and reassure him that abortions are legal.
"If you don't like it, move to Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled areas."
Don't quit your day job - you're not going to make it as a comedian.
The ONLY difference between abortion and infanticide is a breath. One single breath. If the child is given the opportunity to draw one breath, then that child can and will scream when you stab a syringe into the back of his neck, to suck his brains out. One breath.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:43AM
The ONLY difference between abortion and infanticide is a breath. One single breath. If the child is given the opportunity to draw one breath, then that child can and will scream when you stab a syringe into the back of his neck, to suck his brains out. One breath.
Not so much. I invite you to educate yourself [wikipedia.org] (if you can open your mind enough to do so). From the link provided:
And even if you are a fanatic [brainyquote.com] and have all this love for these unborn children, how many children whose parents can't take care of them and/or live in places where they are forced to carry children to term have you brought into your home, adopted and raised as your own? If the answer isn't more than zero, you can't really care all that much, can you?
And since a large number of pregnancies end in miscarriage (that is, an abortion) without any intervention, should we prosecute everyone who has a miscarriage?
If you think termination of pregnancy is wrong, more power to you. If that's the case, I strongly recommend that you don't terminate your pregnancies. Beyond that, you have no right or moral authority to tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do with their own bodies.
As I pointed out here and in a previous post, if you feel that strongly, adopt unwanted children and campaign for a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. Otherwise, keep your nose out of other people's uteri.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:01AM
"Abortion is the ending of pregnancy by removing a fetus or embryo from the womb before it can survive on its own."
That definitions is far to simplistic. It was intentionally made simplistic to disguise the suffering involved in an abortion. Those babies, especially late term babies, SUFFER PAIN. As I said, a single breath separates a "fetus" from an "infant".
The rest of your post is meant to be taken seriously? It's better to be murdered, than to grow up poor, or unwanted? The fact that I can't adopt a million babies makes me a hypocrite for opposing abortion? Really?
I'll make a deal with you. I'll keep my nose out of other people's uteri, when those other people stop taking tax money to fund their abortion centers. No matter how many accounting games are played with PP's money, the fact remains that PP would go under without federal funding.
Planned parenthood and the prison industry are pretty equal as near as I can see. One kills babies, the other imprisons people for profit.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:32AM
I would just say that we should agree to disagree, but your way would inflict suffering on millions. I can't abide that.
That definitions is far to simplistic. It was intentionally made simplistic to disguise the suffering involved in an abortion. Those babies, especially late term babies, SUFFER PAIN. As I said, a single breath separates a "fetus" from an "infant".
Fine. Kill the babies! Rip their heads off. gnaw on their tasty little bones. Hooray!
The rest of your post is meant to be taken seriously? It's better to be murdered, than to grow up poor, or unwanted? The fact that I can't adopt a million babies makes me a hypocrite for opposing abortion? Really?
Yes, quite. Not even one, huh? You obviously only care about your political ideology and don't give a rat's ass about the suffering of children. I bet you support the death penalty too. That's hypocritical.
I'll make a deal with you. I'll keep my nose out of other people's uteri, when those other people stop taking tax money to fund their abortion centers. No matter how many accounting games are played with PP's money, the fact remains that PP would go under without federal funding.
No deal. The Federal government should be funding *all* forms of family planning *including* abortion. It's dinosaurs like you in Congress who exult in the suffering of countless women. it's disgusting.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:20AM
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/11/pro-choicers-heres-why-you-cannot-support-abortion-while-opposing-puppy-murder/ [themattwalshblog.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:43AM
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/02/11/pro-choicers-heres-why-you-cannot-support-abortion-while-opposing-puppy-murder/
What a bunch of bullshit.
Fetuses are not "innocent humans". Fetuses are *developing* life forms, completely dependent on the sentient person gestating it.
If that sentient being does not wish to carry that fetus, it has the right to have it removed. Period. I don't have a uterus, so I have no say in that, ever.
Even if I did, the only uterus I'd have control over would be my own.
If you don't like that state of affairs, perhaps you should go somewhere where women are treated as property. Each woman makes her own choices and doesn't need you or anyone else making them for her.
I'm not going to change your mind and your irrational, paternalistic drivel isn't going to change mine.
In reading your posts and interacting with you here, you're obviously reasonably intelligent and, for the most part, seem to be a decent human being -- but not this. On this issue you're flat wrong and because of people like you, millions of women suffer needlessly. Shame on you!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:01AM
No woman has a "right" to demand that I pay for her abortion. Tax money supports Planned Parenthood. Without tax money, Planned Parenthood would close most, if not all, of it's clinics. A woman may decide to do whatever she wishes with her body, but she can do it at her own expense. It's really that simple.
Defund Planned Parenthood, and properly enforce the law that says no federal funds will be spent on abortion, and I'll be a whole lot happier.
I do note that you stipulate a right to govern her body. Getting an abortion is seldom a health issue. If and when it does become a genuine health issue, that is, pregnancy seriously threatens the mother's life, then I am willing to subsidize whichever procedure(s) are necessary to save her life.
I have performed triage. I understand the necessity to decide who survives sometimes. In an instance where either the baby or the mother survives, then the mother takes priority - UNLESS the mother herself says differently.
You might want to read my most recent journal entry. I went in search of a blog that I read a decade ago, couldn't find it, so dredged up my re-posting of that blog. There's another that I'm searching for . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:46AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:51PM
THIS, plus I am sure he is perfectly fine with his tax dollars going towards purchasing all those bullets and missiles and bombs with the potential to kill every baby on this planet 20 times over. What a self-righteous hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:05PM
No problem: your tax gets spent on various pork barrels. It's the entire NotSanguine's tax that is used for PP.
Happy now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:40AM
(Score: 2) by K_benzoate on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:37AM
It's all murder to them. So "only 3%" going to abortion is as repugnant to them as 100%. The only acceptable amount is precisely 0% because every abortion is a murder, and murder is never acceptable. They believe abortion is literally equivalent to murder. Since a zygote and yourself both have a soul of equal value (to God) killing a zygote or a phoetus is morally equivalent to killing a new born baby, or an adult. This is the sort of wacky conclusion you are forced into once you start down the path of dualism.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:08AM
These USAian Sharia nutballs are prosecuting women who dared to have a pregnancy end in stillbirth. [google.com]
...and as significant thinkers have said, "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday November 28 2015, @10:09AM
Sorry, gweg_, I have to take umbrage with that quote about men getting pregnant. If men could get pregnant, abortion would earn a capital punishment!
Yet, too much of our gender nonsense is caught up in the idea of who can get pregnant and who does the impregnating. You fail to consider the Western acceptance of genital mutilation. A man's body is expendable. A man's life is expendable. (I think they made a few movies about Expendables, the first and third were good, but I digress.) If men could get pregnant, we'd beat him and whip him and beat him some more until he took responsibility for whoever he slept with that caused the pregnancy.
Hell, if men could get pregnant, more powerful men would use that as yet another excuse to force them into slavery. I'm not questioning the right of abortion. I'm merely questioning the gender lunacy.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday November 28 2015, @10:14AM
Ach! I misspelled your name! My apologies.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:38AM
On the other hand, sure, let's defund Planned Parenthood and replace it with single payer healthcare instead of the jigsaw puzzle joke we have for health care delivery in the USA.
Actually, I see a big problem with single-payer, which I hadn't really thought of before, thanks to this comment of yours. I'm a supporter of single-payer healthcare, however it has occurred to me now that by putting it in the hands of the Federal government, it now becomes politicized, so your treatment and what services you have access to could be very much affected by our elected leaders. In a nutshell, good luck funding abortions with it (even for rapes or cases where the mother's life is endangered), because various political leaders will rail against this and throw wrenches into the system over it. This could happen over all kinds of things that various religious people don't like, and it could change every couple years as new leadership gets elected.
Maybe we shouldn't have Federal-level healthcare at all, and should do it at the state level instead. Over in Europe, there's no EU-wide healthcare system; each country has their own separate system.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:09AM
In Canada, health care is indeed primarily a provincial, not federal responsibility [healthycanadians.gc.ca]. Although the provinces do receive a portion of their healthcare funding from the federal level, and the feds set and administer the national healthcare principles that provinces adhere to.
Using this model, this at least allows for the possibility that some states can fund abortion while others choose not to.
In Canada the concept of pro-choice is either sufficiently ingrained, or we have enough disdain for religion telling us what we can and can't do, that even the far-right Conservative government we just voted out didn't dare touch the subject directly (they did have the gall to defund NGOs working with reproductive health abroad if they advocated any contraceptive method other than abstinence, though). We do have our whackos though, including those that dropped pamphlets with graphic abortion imagery into people's mailboxes.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Celestial on Saturday November 28 2015, @02:40AM
It's actually more like 33%, but even if we go with your figure of 3%, 3% of murder is still murder. Any amount of murder is abhorrent and should not nor cannot be tolerated.
(Score: 1) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 28 2015, @04:22AM
Depends on who does the murder in your worldview I suspect...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday November 28 2015, @05:30AM
Why? The key word is murder. All killing is not murder. I'd happily pull the trigger on every member of ISIS and sleep soundly. There are plenty of situations where I'd drop bombs on a city knowing civilians would be in the target area. I wouldn't point a weapon at a known non-combatant and certainly wouldn't pull the trigger. Orders be damned. For the sake of argument we will assume you are in agreement on those ground rules and therefore know the difference.
So, under what conditions would you murder a child? Knowingly end a child's life who was not harming you and had no ability to harm you and yours. Murder of the innocent.
I'm not talking about the very rare life of the mother situations. Some decide to soldier on and risk death and that should be their choice but most civilizations recognize a Right to self defense so that is also morally acceptable. I'm talking about the other 99.9%.
Progressive 'ethics experts' are already laying the groundwork to 'expand abortion' to the 2nd birthday. Are you ok with that? Is your morality so flexible that when 'they' tell you the new moral code you will salute smartly and carry on? Or is that the line you wouldn't cross, the one where you grab the nearest 'sporting goods' and get ugly?
Our current POTUS believes abortion immediately after birth (especially botched abortions) is moral. Baby is breathing air and screaming, just stick it in a closet until it stops? You ok with that? Or how about how Kermit Gosnell dealt with those problems, quick snip with a pair of scissors on the spinal column and the kid shuts the fuck up. Are you ok with any of that? Kermit went to prison but perhaps the courts just weren't enlightened enough?
How about right before natural birth? Perfectly formed child who would be delivered naturally in a few more hours, a child who would live a perfectly normal life without so much as a neo-natal ICU bill. Or a 'doctor' could dismember it and pull it out in salable stock keeping units. You ok with that? Technically that is sorta legal, PP does it at least.
Ok, how about the current battle lines at around twenty weeks. A lot of folks know somebody born that early these days when medical science has advanced so far. So is it ok to murder that child? Are we still talking about murder? The 'pro choice' side says no, but on what moral basis other than pure politics? If the mother doesn't want it, deliver it and put it up for adoption. Yes some premature babies die but a chance of life is certainly better than being parted out to the biotech industry, right? Or at that late stage is she obligated to carry it long enough for a reasonably safe delivery? Do you have answers to those questions that you can defend?
Bottom line is America has murdered a lot of children. Even if we don't count the early ones, we have wiped out a hell of a lot of perfectly viable children. And I call out America specifically because most of Europe doesn't allow late term abortion; funny the usual prog suspects aren't calling for us to follow Europe's example on this one. We might not quite be in Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot territory quite yet but we apparently have no intention of stopping. If we aren't on a top ten list of death by political action list yet we will be so maybe we should be thinking about how we want history to remember us.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 28 2015, @06:31AM
here are plenty of situations where I'd drop bombs on a city knowing civilians would be in the target area.
Then you, sir, are a war criminal, in thought if not in deed, and I hope and pray that you are never in a position to do more. Why would you be willing to bomb innocent Americans, just because they happen to live in Texas? This is a violation of the laws of war, the laws of armed conflict, and the laws of humanity. I can only hope you remain a mindless conservative on the internets, and so never have to suffer the actual liability for your criminal thoughts. Oh, and you were damn lucky your parents didn't abort you, because if they had know then, what we know now, .. . . . Nah, still not enough, without the actual war crimes. In the meanwhile, I will just pity you, you mindless coward.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 28 2015, @07:54AM
Try watching some History Channel sometimes dummy. Lots of airmen flew missions over hostile cities and did their job. They knew those factories had a lot of 'civilians' working in them, some might have even known about the forced prisoner labor the Axis were using. The also knew a lot of bombs were going to fall off target. They did their job because it had to be done. Because a lot of people were depending on not having to face the war materials those factories were cranking out. And yes that even included firebombing a few entire cities off the map. Not to mention the crews who dropped the big ones and ended the damned war without the horrific loss of life an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have involved. Maybe you are the sort of asshole who wouldn't thank one of those guys for their service, I'm certainly not.
I'm glad we aren't having this conversation in German. That means that morally I have to be willing to do it if the situation again called for it, otherwise I'm just happy other people did something I wouldn't do and that would be wrong. How about you? If you drew the Enola Gay would you fly the mission or refuse and accept the consequences?
Eventually we will get into another total war like that. History hasn't ended, the horsemen will ride again, probably sooner than most people think. And with luck idiots like you will remain free because we will still have people willing to do what it takes to win.
As for bombing Texas, probably not. Only got the joy of living in Texas for a few years but I'm only a few miles across the border. More likely I'd be on the Texas side if the poop hit the fan. If you have ever lived there you understand, if not you probably can't. Would I press the bomb release over NY to save Dallas or Houston? Damn right. So lets not have a rematch of the War of Northern Aggression, K? 'specially seeing as your side is full of pansies like yourself..... just sayin. :) Ain't like we don't have plenty of external enemies to worry about at this particular time.
And yea I'm just fine with killing ISIS. They rape children, crucify people and such. They commit crimes the Nazis at least had the sense to do in secret and they post the video to YouTube themselves. Ain't a one of em I want being allowed to return to civilization so they need to die. Those folks done gone rabid and there is only one solution to that problem, put them down. That is just a hard reality and the sooner we as a world face up to it and put an end to their madness the lower the total body count will be. Meaning every death between now and then should be equally credited to both ISIS and the Progressives/Socialists of the world.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 28 2015, @08:06AM
War criminals. Why do you think the "greatest generation" did not talk much about what they had done? They knew, unlike an armchair warrior like yourself. Vietnam vets never were called "baby-killers" by hippies, as Trump-style revisionist history holds, no, they accused themselves, and America did almost nothing to help them. The American vets from the latest American Imperialist Wars have similiar issues. Some of them are talking about it. Never again?
And, it is nice to get to know you, jmorris. But at the same time, kind of creepy.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday November 28 2015, @03:01PM
Why do you think the "greatest generation" did not talk much about what they had done?
Because it was horrible? That is why we thank them for their service instead of saying "Aw fuck dude, you got all the fun!" Which is why civilization depends on finding such as they every generation, those willing to accept the duty of doing whatever is required to make sure the generation after them is part of the same civilization. When that doesn't happen Mother Nature says "Next!" and another civilization gets a turn. So bottom line, are you glad Western Civ won the last round of survivor and the Axis were voted off the planet? And which side are you rooting for in the coming round? More important perhaps, are you wiling to go all in, stop being a spectator and suit up if the crap hits the fan? Because the Bear is loose again, the Dragon is watching for an opportunity and the Muslim Bros are making a bold play. Somebody wins, many will lose. Or perhaps we get lucky and somebody sane takes power in the West before all Hell breaks loose and finds the wisdom to chart a path through the next decade that doesn't involve a billion plus dead. Stranger things have happened.
That sane path probably involves killing a few tens of thousands now to put out the fires in the Middle East before it explodes into mega violence. Specifically killing each and every member of ISIS we can put a crosshair on and making Iran's Nuke program 'perfectly safe' in the Douglas Adams sense. Were we to do that, and in a splashy and no fucks given enough way, the Middle East would calm back down as the Muslim Bros realized their dream of a restored Caliphate wasn't happening this generation, Putin would see we were no longer in a mood for foolishness and China realize the window for expansion opportunities had closed. It would restore certainty to the world, which is what is greatly to be desired. Uncertainty invites adventurism and with modern weapons that gets lots of folks dead.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 29 2015, @12:12AM
That sane path probably involves killing a few tens of thousands now to put out the fires in the Middle East before it explodes into mega violence.
Yeah, because that whole world police thing has worked out the last thousand times we've tried it. Well, you know what they say: If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again. I can't wait for the government to blow even more taxpayer money on pointless wars.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday November 28 2015, @10:24AM
Oh, the horsemen are just saddling up!
This is the endless human tragedy. We kill, then they kill, then we get nukes, then they get nukes, and we a have a bit of a cold war, with consequences to which our friendly local philosopher from Samos eluded.
They commit crimes the Nazis at least had the sense to do in secret and they post the video to YouTube themselves.
I find this disturbing as well. Why do they broadcast it so? Are they serious?
I guess I'm awake at such an odd hour because I can't find them serious. Gas prices are at a low I haven't seen since I returned to Western civilization, since at least 2002. Daesh is known for making a profit by selling oil. That why I must repeat: the horsemen are saddling up, and this time it may be for the last time.
Maybe I've been playing too much Fallout, but my mentat computer is going crazy. Something big will happen, and soon. I just checked Google News and nothing yet. We'll see, I suppose.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 28 2015, @12:46PM
Then you, sir, are a war criminal, in thought if not in deed
So what? It's pretty clear that the term, "war criminal" has no serious meaning in your hands.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 28 2015, @01:09AM
i get that the tea party offers an easy scapegoat for religious neocon whackos whose political ideologues keep losing their seats to tea party candidates, but your accusation only shows that you have absolutely no fucking idea what the tea party is or why it is beating the shit out of right-wing neocons and left-wing socialists alike