How many people have WE killed?
 

Its hard to comprehend how many people we've probably killed in the first week of this war. I'm sure its in the 10's of thousands already. US deaths in other wars are below and at the end the worst of our killing sprees.

TIME FRAME WAR DEATHS (US) COSTS

1775-1783 American Revolution 4,435 $101,100,000


1812-1815 War of 1812 2,260 $90,000,000


1846-1848 Mexican War 13,283 $71,400,000


1861-1865 Civil War 558,052 $5,183,000,000


1898 Spanish American War 2,446 $283,200,000


1914-1918 World War I 116,708 $18,676,000,000


1939-1945 World War II 407,316 $262,259,000,000


1950-1953 Korean Conflict 33,651 $67,386,000,000


1957-1975 Vietnam Conflict 58,168 $150,000,000,000


1991 Gulf War 293 $61,100,000,000


1973 to Present Abortions 35,000,000 (35 MILLION)

:1orglaugh

Pro-life propoganda is so funny...

how did abortions get in there?

You laugh at the millions of babies that have been butchered??

Have you ever watched an abortion in person. Try it sometime and you might have a change of opinion.

Around 70% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion anyway. Go whine to nature for murdering the widdle iddy biddy baybees.

fetus = people is nonsense.

The Abortion Issue is our number one war. And it is a war. More Americans have been killed in the abortion war than anything else.

A fetus is a living being. Hate to break the news to you.

http://moon.ouhsc.edu/jspitz/wobfrm/fetus.jpg

:1orglaugh

The Constitution defines a person as someone BORN in the United States.

70% ?

Please look up "equivocation fallacy" and "straw man argument"

I never said it wasn't a "living being." But the fact it is a living being does not automatically make it worthy of the protections afforded a post-natal human being.

Nice way to dance around the issue with vague, fuzzy generalizations.

American College of Gynecology says 50%-70%. Most before the woman realizes she is preggers.

http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/new-actual-abortion.jpg

This one would have grown up to be a TGP poster.

Support NARAL today!

I never did understand how people (specifically liberals who are usually for "saving the children", etc.) validated abortion. But whatever...

Its rather simple. An adult womans right to bodily integrity (ie. not being a biological slave to a parasitic organism like a fetus for 9 months) trumps the fetus "right" to be carried to term.

The strongest pro-choice argument (imho) is to admit that abortion is a form of killing, but that the womans right to be free from what is basically biological slavery gives her the right to kill. Someone being held in some sort of physical captivity against their will is generally held to have the right to kill to obtain their freedom. Abortion is no different.

Just because its a "human life" -- as the pro-lifers like to chant, thinking it gives them instant victory -- doesn't mean there are no possible justifications for ending it

This is why 99% of pro-lifers tend to avoid real arguments in favor of hysterical "They're killing the widdle baybeeeezzz!" emotionalism and posting disturbing pictures. They aren't capable of debating the real issues.

It's called DON'T GET FUCKING PREGNANT BITCH.

Go tell it to the other morons.

:1orglaugh

A fine example of what I was trying to illustrate at the end of my last post.

I love the term pro-choice. Oh really, you're pro choice? Let's say I choose to murder someone because they have $20 I could use. You support that? What if I choose to burn your house down? You can CHOOSE to do anything, so pro CHOICE is really a stupid term.

Yea real fucking bright. Is it too much common sense for you to understand that if you don't want to be "a prisoner" for 9 months to not get pregnant? Fucking ignorance.

Obviously.. blindingly obviously.. within the context of the issue, choice means the right to decide whether to carry a baby to term or not.

Kill yourself now, moron.

Well, we all die so is murder is therefor okay?

Life begins at conception. Whether a fetus is a "person" is legal matter. The definition of "person" is not handed to us on a silver platter, whereas DNA tells us what is homo sapiens. THAT much is at least scientific fact.

So basically women have to avoid sex (no infallible method of birth control) because you don't like abortion. Because you say so.

:1orglaugh

Yeah, real fucking bright...

"Just because its a "human life" -- as the pro-lifers like to chant, thinking it gives them instant victory -- doesn't mean there are no possible justifications for ending it "

Now, do any of you people have a real argument? This thread is getting lame...

No they can do whatever they want. If they get pregnant they need to grow the fuck up and deal with it. It's called life, get over your fucking self and realize what you are saying.

Humans are disappointing to say the least.

I don't think you've read the Consitution too well. Your statement imples that people born in other countries are not people.

:1orglaugh

Hey I'm for abortion, any girl that lacks so much intelligence that they would have one shouldn't be spreading their genes.

Isn't it terrible when you know you are right about an issue, yet you have absolutely no coherent argument to support yourself? Its called pigheaded ignorance.

Its so frustrating it could almost make one resort to idiotic sloganeering... hmm.. might explain a few things.

You aren't going to disappoint me by not posting some gross pictures along with your juvenile ranting to make your point are you?

Oh, yeah, I remember when Nixon announced we had "won" the War in Vietnam, too.

War, in fact, proves that there sometimes are reasons for ending or risking life, but they are usually pretty extreme, not inconvenience. So, I'm not totally unwavering. If the mother's life is at risk for sure, then I think an existing life with an understanding or its mortality gets precedence over an undeveloped one. So, you see, I'm not a pro-life militant of any sort. Just someone who believes in a rational approach to choices, and the idea that a fetus is not a life doesn't pass the giggle test. That it is not a person is a more substantial argument, because it is a matter of legal definition, not scientific fact. It's a scientific fact that a fetus is a human being (its DNA tells us that). Whether it is a person and what rights attach to it and what duties attach to us is a matter for the lawyers.

No, because it also defines general human rights as those belonging to persons born.

The inconvenience of being robbed or having your property stolen / vandalized or your home invaded is sufficient legal grounds for deadly force in many states.

Okay, then instead of rejecting my posts out of hand, answer them in the same logical terms. I'm not afraid of facts or logic, whereas you kind of announce that the other party is stupid and waltz out without even attempting a significant rebuttal. Go reread my posts, which are not sloganeering, and answer THEM, because so far you are ignoring any real argument presented to you.

hehe, read it again. I was replying to Stocktrader :winkwink:

I think that in order to keep women from becoming pregant, we should make them wear clothes that cover every inch of their bodies. They shouldn't be allowed to leave the house without a male escort, and if they are caught consorting with any man not thier husband they should be stoned to death.

by god then we'll have some good republican women in this great country!

Or how those same people want to save the whales, the trees, and the spotted owls. But killin' a few unborn babies is a-okay!

Very creative. You have the most moronic arguement I have ever seen about any subject in my life. Biological Slavery? Get real. You are a complete idiot and you can have fun argueing with yourself. Go have a kid and then think about how you would feel if your wife/girlfriend had killed it because she was a stupid, lazy, self-centered bitch. You are a poor excuse for a human being.

oh yeah.. they should be segregated during menstruation to keep from contaminating men as well.

and men should be killed for masturbating. After all, each one of those little spermies is 1/2 a person!

Well, are you going to draw some sort of parallel, because this is no argument. It might be a setup to an argument, but it's not an argument. This is premise A, we stand in need of premise B and the conclusion.

I know. That's why I said to go rearead MY posts. You are particularly dense, aren't you?

we believe that we have no right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with their own body. Men either, when it comes to it. We believe in each person's ability to govern their own actions. We don't need a tyrannical state to tell us what to do.

why don't you damn conservative pornographers just kill yourselves? There's no doubt that if you weren't making your money from porn you'd be calling to have pornographers put in jail.

you're so comical!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Okay... so let's legalize all drugs, let people jump off bridges and commit suicide, let them cut themselves up, etc. A woman should be able to do what she wants with her body, yes. But not whatever she wants to the little body inside of her.

Good. Thank God you won't be telling me I can't drive SUVs, cut down trees, and eat veal.

Now I just need to work on the others...

you mean the collection of cells inside her body.

yes, let's legalize drugs. Yes, let's let people kill themselves if they want to and they're sane. if somebody wants to cut themselves up they're free to do that as well. Some people derive sexual gratification from it.

if I'm not hurting you, you have no fucking right involving yourself in my affairs.

My concern is with the ethical aspect, and the "right to do with your own body" thing doesn't come into play there because an argument no matter how fiercely and correctly presented does in no way force anyone to do anything.

We have the First Amendment, too, don't forget, so any subject is open to an open and free discussion, including what another person does with their body.

On the other hand, the state can tell people what to do with their bodies: to clear out of an area in the case of a riot or insurrection, to halt one's body long enough to be questioned by an officer, to take up arms and go to war or else go to jail.

This right to do what one wishes with one's body is a slogan, not a constitutional right, and The Constitution is where our legal rights come from.

Eating veal is an exercise in cruelty, and if you can't do without veal or foie gras to help make that not happen then you're so selfish that you're worthless, or you just completely lack empathy. You can drive an SUV if you can afford it, I don't give a fuck. You CANNOT destroy the environment we ALL have to live in just to line your pockets, unless you're sharing the $$.

I would believe your "collection of cells" line if I hadn't seen evidence of a heart beat. Once a heart starts beating you can't argue that a fetus is alive.

The legal "gray area" is over whether that collection of cells enjoys Constitutional protection. Science tells it via DNA that it is a different individual from the mother. Beyond that is the province of the legal system.

except all the instances of messing with another's body that you cite have to do with preventing that person from harming another person. When you're telling a woman she HAS to have a kid, you're stepping into her space and you have no right to be there without being invited.

As you can see by a quick scan of this thread, the other party is indeed stupid.

The basic philosophical justification for abortion is that the womans right to bodily integrity.. not having to host a parasitic organism for 9 months for example.. trumps any "right to life" a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo has.

Not a single person has attempted to deal with that. Its something that many people understand instinctually, and the reason that - at least within 1st trimester limits - the American public overwhelmingly supports legal abortion.

So, lets review. The other side is stupid A. because they can't argue the real issue. B. because they don't realize they cannot win with childish slogans, nasty pictures, and hysterical emotional ranting. and C. Many of them waste a good portion of their lives flagrantly displaying their stupidity in public.

Its like me trying to argue quantum physics by jumping up in the middle of some symposium and shreiking at the top of my lungs that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle should be rejected because I hate it, and, despite not having any real reasons why, I just know I'm right, dammit!

you can make a heart beat in a petri dish. Is it alive?