[Athos]

In a revolting display, GOP members Santos (!), Luna, and Clyde are wearing A-15 assault weapons pins on their clothing. Ignoring the horrible connection to the mass murder of little children the pins represent, they are another example of the mind-boggling idiocy of the Republican Party.

And you thought Santos could not do anything nuttier than he has already done. There is no limit to this birdbrain's stupidity.

[jlisenbe]

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It resembles one, but that's as far as it goes. At any rate, the pins they wore could very well have represented genuine military grade fully auto weapons, so I think there are a great many other pins they would have been better advised to have worn. I would not have worn those, but what they did was not nearly as bad as those who wear pro-abortion pins and thus celebrate, as Athos put it, " the mass murder of little children."

This comment ( the horrible connection to the mass murder of little children the pins represent) and the title (GOP House Members Praise Mass Shootings) are both ridiculous hyperboly. I would suggest the entire Congress forget about the AR-15 issue and start trying to figure out how to behave like grown-ups and produce a balanced budget.

[tomder55]

The AR-15 is not an assault weapon. It resembles one, but that's as far as it goes

This is true . It has the same capability of a hunting rifle . But it is made to look like military weapons. All I see is a semi-automatic rifle ;not an "assault weapon "

[Athos]

This is true . It has the same capability of a hunting rifle . But it is made to look like military weapons. All I see is a semi-automatic rifle ;not an "assault weapon "

That will be a great solace to the parents of the slaughtered children.

[jlisenbe]

At least someone weeps for those children. For the hundreds of thousands of "slaughtered children" from abortion, there is only the cheering of liberal dems.

[Wondergirl]

The repubs aren't doing any weeping (or anything else) for the children who WEREN'T "slaughtered".

[jlisenbe]

Yeah. It would be much better in the viewpoint of many if those kids were dead. But cheer up! If you liberal dems have your way, it could still happen.

[Wondergirl]

What are repubs doing to help them and their moms who were talked into keeping them?

[jlisenbe]

You would, I presume, be happier if the moms had been talked into killing them?

[Wondergirl]

Answer my question, please.

[Athos]

Answer my question, please.

Anti-abortionists don't answer questions they don't like.

The issue of abortion is best understood by applying scientific fact to the question. The "pro-life" position (an oxymoron) is based on religious superstition.

Hence, the horrible false equivalence of comparing beautiful, adorable, loved pre-school and K-12 children to clumps of cells. How anyone could make such a hideous comparison is unbearable and heartrending to normal human beings - especially to the parents of the innocent slaughtered.

[jlisenbe]

Answer my question, please.

Sure. It depends on what you are asking. Are you asking what repubs do with their own money to help these women? I don't know. If you mean how much they are using a form of phony charity to force other people to take care of them, then that was settled decades ago. There are many federal programs which provide support, so I'm not sure why you would even ask that.

I think you have a strange argument. You seem to suggest that if someone else is not willing to take care of a woman's baby, then that makes it alright for her to have her baby killed. That's a pretty bizarre point of view. Do you also support that idea for children already born?

It's also a bizarre idea to think that the federal government should be able to force other people to support that woman and her baby. Pro-lifers take a different view. We support many hundreds of private organizations with our own dollars that provide support for these women. These CPC's are located all across the country. They are all supported by pro-life organizations. The pro-death crowd couldn't care less.

I don't know about repubs. It's not my job to explain what they do. I do know that I reject the phony charity that you seem to promote. Forcing other people to help the poor is not charity. Having women kill their babies is not charity. I find that sense of "ethics" in this area to be revolting. Words cannot express how glad I am that I am not on the same pro-death side of this issue that you seem to be supportive of.

[Wondergirl]

Was your oatmeal too hot this morning, JL?

Have you ever wondered, even asked a woman, WHY she wants an abortion?

[jlisenbe]

Anti-abortionists don't answer questions they don't like.

Uhm...just did.

The issue of abortion is best understood by applying scientific fact to the question. The "pro-life" position (an oxymoron) is based on religious superstition.

There is not one ounce of science supporting the pro-death position.

Hence, the horrible false equivalence of comparing beautiful, adorable, loved pre-school and K-12 children to clumps of cells. How anyone could make such a hideous comparison is unbearable and heartrending to normal human beings - especially to the parents of the innocent slaughtered.

You mean this 16 week "clump of cells"? Talk about a hideous comparison, you just made it. It's just a sick comment birthed by complete ignorance. That the two of you would support the violent destruction of such a beautiful, defenseless, innocent child is just beyond the pale. As I said before, words cannot express how glad I am that I am not on the same pro-death side of this issue that you are supportive of.

And in case you want to suggest that the pic is inaccurate, I would suggest you get off your backside and search the web for yourself. It is completely accurate.

[Athos]

11111

[jlisenbe]

So as it turns out, it's the pro-abortionists who don't answer questions they don't like.

[Athos]

The issue of abortion is best understood by applying scientific fact to the question. The "pro-life" position (an oxymoron) is based on religious superstition.

This is a picture of an egg being fertilized. Does this look like a viable human being? Pro-lifers think it does.

https://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/we...ut-quality=100

[jlisenbe]

This is a picture of an egg being fertilized. Does this look like a viable human being? Pro-lifers think it does.

You are wrong in three ways.

1. Pro-lifers do not consider a non-fertilized egg (as in your pic) to yet be a separate human life. Science doesn't either, so your example is inadequate for your cause.
2. You have muddied the water by slipping in the "viable" adjective. "Viable" is generally taken to mean able to survive outside the womb. That is now set at about 24 weeks, but the problem with using that is that the age of viability is presently lower than in the past and will continue to go lower as technology improves. It seems awfully cold to allow the current state of technology to determine human life.
3. The viable standard is also a really slippery slope. A newborn is by no means able to survive on its own, so is it OK for it to be killed as well? Where do your excuses for killing children end?

You have neglected to address your fallacious assertion that the developing fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells", a statement so obviously misleading that it is amazing you would put it forward, and one which the pic I included shows to be absurd.

[Athos]

Well, by popular demand, I'll make an exception and read your post and reply.

1. Pro-lifers do not consider a non-fertilized egg (as in your pic) to yet be a separate human life. Science doesn't either, so your example is inadequate for your cause.

Your familiar reading comprehension difficulty rears its ugly head again. Why am I not surprised? "BEING FERTILIZED", I wrote. BEING. That means in the process of, soon to be, not just yet, almost there but unavoidable.

2. You have muddied the water by slipping in the "viable" adjective.

That was for your benefit. In any case, it's irrelevant. Take it or leave it. Makes no difference here.

It seems awfully cold to allow the current state of technology to determine human life.

Yet you are promoting that very thing in your #2 point.

A newborn is by no means able to survive on its own, so is it OK for it to be killed as well?

That's not the meaning of viable in this context as you should know.

Where do your excuses for killing children end?

Where do your excuses for comparing children hideously killed in a mass shooting, comparing them to the issue of abortion which is overwhelmingly approved by the majority of Americans, end? That is about the sickest thing you've ever posted, and you've posted some really sick things.

You have neglected to address your fallacious assertion that the developing fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells", a statement so obviously misleading that it is amazing you would put it forward, and one which the pic I included shows to be absurd.

It's that reading thing again. The picture is not even at the stage of a clump of cells yet, that comes later. You seem very confused about the process of gestation. Of course, a stage is a clump of cells. In your haste to make a point, you fall into the trap of letting your emotions replace your thinking.

Unless you come up with something worthy of a reply, I will now depart from this exchange with you. As always, I've enjoyed replying to you and, most of all, teaching you, always hoping you will read carefully and consider.

[Wondergirl]

Why do women get abortions?