Who's the core of the blame - Hannity or Corsi?

 

 

(I'll stay out of the main topic - you all know where I stand. Maybe Science101'll debate you people about that)

Why pick one when both of them misprepresent Obama's position? Corsi wins the prize for getting this wrong first, and Hannity has the distinction of repeating Corsi's version uncritically.

In this particular instance, I would actually argue that Jill Stanek ought to be criticized for falsely confirming that Hannity's account of Obama's comments were "exactly what he said" because she was "reading the text along with you." Stanek either wasn't reading along with Hannity or doesn't understand the distinction between Hannity's account of Obama's argument and what Obama actually argued.

Maybe Science101'll debate you people about that

Nope, no debating here.  I don't debate that topic with people who cry for empathy of fellow man, while supporting the right to abort and not give human rights to the fetus.

Nope, no debating here.  I don't debate...

If you stopped right there that would have been your first true statement!

Hear hear. You'll get no debate from me, Science. Your position is thoroughly compelling.

When we finally win this legal battle to give fetuses rights and legal protection, though, we'll have a few decisions to make. Should pregnant women who miscarry be investigated for murder or manslaughter? Should older women who become pregnant be charged with child endangerment?

Frankly, I'm of the position that implantation failure should be considered a case of suicide by the blastocyst, but I could understand if you don't agree. Either way, the woman should definitely be the subject of a criminal investigation just to rule out the possibility of foul play.

The donor of the sperm is a co-conspirator. If it is a boy "baby" then the man would be punished (if wrong doing is determined in the particular case) twice as much as the woman because he is responsible for "baby" being a boy. Maybe the US could farm out all these  cases over seas. How about Haiti? Sentences could be carried out in Somalia and if instead of the death penalty there is imprisonment required, the could be wharehoused Iraq (they owe us something) The death penalty could be carried out just ny shipping then to North Korea.

Please don't make light of such a serious matter. The father's criminal culpability is totally unrelated to the sex of the fetus. Furthermore, you need to brush up on your biology: the father is responsible for the sex of the child whether it is a male or female because he contributes the determining X or Y chromosome. Science and I are having a very serious discussion here and we don't need your misconceptions about biology clouding the picture.

Speaking of misconception, though... If you want to talk about charging males who use contraception with murder because they have deprived the unconceived of their right to life, well, then I'm listening. If the previable unborn have human rights, I see no reason to deprive the unconceived of rights either.

I know the father has both the x and y chromosome and the mother has xx. The y is responsible for the boy. If you really think your post prior to my reply was serious then so is my reply.Furthermore, I regard your original post as sarcasm personified and at the same time a possibility. If it is a possibility there would surely be other considerations neither one of has taken into account.

(Psst... I'm still being sarcastic... Don't tell Science, though.)

Right, but the father is just as responsible for determining his daughter's sex because the contribution of his X chromosome is no less decisive than the contribution of his Y chromosome to his son.

But this is really of no concern to the important work lying ahead of us of investigating, arresting, and hopefully incarcerating women who fail to bring their fetuses to term. Please stop trying to distract us from the real issues here.

You took the words right out of my mouth which is unsanitary. The right would be responsible for determining punishment and it would be just like them to double the males punishment just like it was when they murdered women for having girls because they thought the women where responsible. If women were worms (some women believe some men are worms and if a man ever becomes "immaculately" pregnant, they will have their proof ), then men would not be needed for procreation (some righties believe this to be true at some point in our past around 2000 years ago). There really was no logic in my saying mens punishment would be doubled if the "baby" was a boy. Then there is not a lot of logic involved when the right formulates and enacts some laws and sentences. Or am I wrong about this as well?

Also, there would be no way our now over crouded court system could ever deal with the influx of these type cases. Farming it out (our  government is good at doing this with contractors) is a viable option. Third world countries would be great as it would increase their GNP and it would be cheaper for the US. So, tell me again how I wasn't being serious and sardonic at the same time, my friend? (sorry for sounding like Mc"C")

Look, I thought you were on board with Science and me in the movement. My post made perfect logical sense, and then you came in with your argument that father's should be held doubly responsible in the case of male offspring rather than female offspring -- as if the father's contribution of his X chromosome to his daughter was somehow less important than his contribution of his Y chromosome to his son! Fathers should be held accountable regardless of the sex of his children.

You do raise a perfectly valid point about prison overcrowding, though. Upon reflection, I submit that we simply can't allow for the possibility that a woman might destroy the life of her fetus through acts of negligence or malice. Upon discovering that a woman is pregnant, we should move her to a hospital where she should remain unconscious for 9 months, be fed intravenously, and have her pregnancy monitored and managed carefully by a team of physicians to ensure that the baby she carries is not harmed. The fetus has rights, after all.

Read my previous response to one of your posts. We have gone much farther than just a fetus having rights. We are including eggs and sperm. Any ideas on storage? I am aware of thezygot, embryo , blastocyst  and fetus thing and it takes 2 to tango senario. You will just have to read my previous posts. I am enjoying yours and with everyone elses help I think we can find an equitable solution. My only question now is: Can a blastocyst qualify for a passport just because a fetus can? I think there might be some court cases envolving embyos and zygotes if they do. We are going to need more lawyers and judges for sure as this thing is going to get ugly (like the bush/Gore thing) faucks news will keep us missinformed though.

You're absolutely right. When Science and I began this movement just a few posts back, we were fighting for fetal rights. And now look at how far we've come: protecting blastocysts and sperm and eggs! It's all happened so fast, sometimes I forget how much progress we've made.

Your question about blastocyst passports is indeed vexing, not just because of legal considerations, but because obtaining passport photos would be exceedingly difficult. But foresight is important, and perhaps we should now be investing in biotech research for the development of nanopassports that the blastocyst could carry and show to security officers at the airport.

Clearly this project is going to require a lot of money, energy, new laws, and massive societal change in how we think of life, citizenship and personhood. I'm starting to question whether or not I can square my pro-pre-conceived-life values with my commitment to a political philosophy that valorizes limited government. Hopefully I'll be able to reconcile this philosophical conflict the same way I reconciled my fiscal conservatism with my decision to support a costly preemptive war and an indefinite military campaign.

The photos would be "encoded" using enzymamatic-matrix-activity. Now that I made that term up I need to get busy developing the protocols for the develpment of the "embeding" technology and the information retrieval system. I need funding and am going to make a plea to insHANNITY for financial assitance. Ask "Science" to donate, if you would. I am sure the righties can figure out how to emplement all of this while cutting taxes for the rich and using less government than we have now.. I am going to recomend to insHANNITY we adopt a fun tax. This can be emplemented with a penometer and a vagometer. Movements (measured in strokes) will transfer to a dial and one will be taxed according to the number of incriments attained on the dial. I want a job installing the vagometer which leaves you to install the other one. O'really can go around reading them with oversight by science.

It just came down from Coulter. She wants placental rights. For the first time in my life, I am stunned.

Speaking of misconception, though... If you want to talk about charging males who use contraception with murder because they have deprived the unconceived of their right to life, well, then I'm listening. If the previable unborn have human rights, I see no reason to deprive the unconceived of rights either.

Hear, hear...I've already given names to all of my sperm. (Bobby's my favorite.) I look at each one like a little POW, aching for freedom...so that they can grow up one day, cheat on their wives, marry rich young babes, run for president...and have so many damn houses they can't even count them.

You, Irony, are a Great American. I think we can all agree that our national security depends upon the rigorous care and absolute security of our precious bodily fluids.

Exactly! That is why I propose "save that sperm" and save that eg" community drives. Warehousing can be determined later like Nuclear waste. (teh back yards of republicans would be a good starting point though). My "point" about doubling the males punishment if it is a boy is , granted, obscure and esotiric. But then,  so is this entire discusiion!

I think l speak for everyone when l say........................

 

EEEWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

When was the last time Sean Hannity did NOT distort anything Obama said?

When Barack Obama said, "I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message."

 

I don't think Hannity's distorted that statement.

I have to agree with the former POW, John McCain, when he said there is evil in the world that should be defeated...it resides at FOX News.

Just FOX News?

I think its starts with the speaker of the house....

When the Speaker was Newt Gingrich.

I agree with you there.

Imagine that - Hannity tried a lie about Obama's position and twisted his statement, courtesy of a lie that Corsi promulgated.

Imagine that, Tommy. There was a distortion of a fact concerning abortion by a rightie, and a repitition of that fact by another rightie. It wasn't a discussion of the moral or ethical issues surrounding abortion, discussions that would include opinions. It was a lie about Obama, to make him look worse than he really is, and that lie forwards the conservative agenda.

Under Illinois law...killing a previable fetus is murder...unless it's killed by an abortion doctor.

Obama's position is easy to understand...he's pro-abortion. That's one reason why I won't vote for him. However, Hannity, continues to demonstrate why he is untrustworthy as a source of information...as detailed here by mmfa.

But be of good cheer, liberals. His audience consists almost solely of republicans who will never vote for Obama and just want their daily dose of raw meat...and masochistic democrats watching for their daily dose of outrage. 

His untruthfulness, in the end, will not sway many voters because most members of his audience have already made up their minds.

Obama's position is easy to understand...he's pro-abortion.

Wes, it can't be too easy cause you got it wrong! Obama's PRO-CHOICE!

Pearlene, I usually don't get involved in the long threads here but since we seem to be the only ones here, I must admit that trying to convince some of these people that Obama is Pro-Choice is way beyond them.

But Pro-Choice discussions won't appear for a while...AP has informed the world that Biden is the VP. So the hate-mongers will be on the Biden hunt. Wussie will undoubtedly be waiting for an article of misinformation to appear and pounce on Sen. Biden. Wonder when the first anti-Biden ad will appear? But who knows John McCain as well as Sen. Biden. Should be interesting. 

.

Cavuto had the poli-sci prof. from Viriginia (Sabado sp?) on this morning.  They had a live shot of Biden's house before cutting to the prof.  Cavuto's first question was not about Biden, but about the size of his house.  What a tool!    

POW (I love using that!), McCain already has an ad out.

 

pearl,

Call it whatever you want...it doesn't change the fact that Obama supports an agenda of almost unlimited abortions...hidden deftly under the guise of the "mother's health".

I don't support a total ban of abortions. There are many cases where it is a viable medical procedure...but I disagree with Obama...the right of a mother to "control her own body" is not limitless. 

I don't see such a huge difference between your position and Obama's as it seems you do.

Well, there would be a large difference. Mostly in defining the "health of the mother".

His definition would include virtually everything as justification for an abortion...including things like depression or anxiety. I don't. 

Once you have decided to allow exceptions, you are just splitting hairs as far as I am concerned.  It really isn't as stark as some portray it.  Both sides would prefer to have less of them to begin with.  To bad they can't get together and approach that part of the problem.  It isn't going to just go away because it is criminalized.  I don't know when society is going to learn that lesson.

Well, there would be a large difference. Mostly in defining the "health of the mother".

I see. Your definition would be like "torture." The health of the mother is not threatened unless there is organ failure

"Physical pain amounting to a threat to the health of the mother must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. For purely mental pain or suffering to amount to a threat to the health of the mother (under U.S. law), it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years. . . . We conclude that the statute, taken as a whole, makes plain that it prohibits only extreme acts.''

Your name isn't John Wesley Yoo by any chance, is it?

Call it whatever you want...it doesn't change the fact that Obama supports an agenda of almost unlimited abortions...hidden deftly under the guise of the "mother's health".

I find a lot of folks on the pro-life side seem to enjoy painting a picture of women having unlimited. unprotected sex and then 4 weeks later scheduling a abortion, after they get their hair and nails done. THAT is why it's hard to take the pro-life side seriously. It is a gut wrenching decision to terminate a pregnancy, filled with self doubt before and after. There is continued anguish long after the abortion even when women know deep down in their hearts it was the right decision.

I can't think of any right more important than the right to make your own r health decisions, mental and physical. Who is a better person to decide what's best for you? I have the right to decide if I want 44DDD breasts but I don't have the right to decide a life altering decision? I have the right to decide whether I want a life saving heart transplant but I don't have the right to decide if I want to make a lifelong commitment to raise another person? THAT doesn't make sense.

I don't support a total ban of abortions. There are many cases where it is a viable medical procedure...but I disagree with Obama...the right of a mother to "control her own body" is not limitless.

If you start with the premise that women are scheduling abortions in between hair appointments, then I can understand why you'd feel the way you do. I on the other hand understand through first hand experience (my daughter) how very very difficult making a decision to terminate a pregnancy is. I understand that no one can ever make that decision for you, therefore no one can force you to make another decision like having a child. 

And by the way, pro-life folks use that term to strengthen their position and call pro-choice folks pro-abortion to weaken our position, so it's make a BIG difference to me what you call me. I am PRO-CHOICE, NOT pro-abortion.

Does that mean the Hannitization of Amercia has run out of zombies? Why can't I join..I am the POW.

I  recently met a two former Hannity listens/viewers who said they were tired of his "obsession", thier words not mine, with Sen. Obama. What really bothered them, a fine Christian couple, was Seannies' constant referral to Obama as the Messiah, the Chosen One, etc. They felt that Seannie was using thier religious beliefs as a weapon against the guy. And this is one of the reasons that the Con Talkies are helping the real cause of the Democratic Party. But Seaniie the Sissy is getting rich because of his zombies and Obama Bless him, he is doing well for a man with no talent.

Sissy-boy Hannity is already on the job, going back to Biden's support for the war and kind words about grampy McSame  as flip=flop fodder. Nothing like learning stuff and evolving to get on the bad side of wingnuts.

Big fat kudos, to Vysotsky and the others for the satire of the "pro-life" Crusaders.None of them will understand it, but that doesn't mean it was wasted.

I'm getting on board with sperm and ovaries being granted full human rights.Now all I need to decide is what qualifies as Weapons of Mass destruction. The pill? The Sponge? My right hand? Mr. Monthly Visitor (Code name "Bill")? Catholic girls mouths? All of the above?

Understand? Do you mean I (we) don't understand the sanctity of human life as opposed to the "use and discard" approach our evolved species has toward the life of other species? I would love to see the day when abortions are obsolete without the ramifications pre Roe v Wade. Are you refering to the destruction of a unique soul when an abortion takes place? Clearly, there is nothing remarkable on the face of it, about the human body (water, minerals and protein). Is it possible that that soul could transmograficate its way into another "transporting vehicle" (body). Who amongst us knows. pro lifers are also pro choicers. We are just humble enough to know we don't have all the answers and if I don't know for sure, how can I impose my unsubstantiated beliefs on others? Live and let live and choose. The alternative to Roe v Wade would be to digress back into the dark ages of illegal abortion which was for the reason R v W became law in the first place. The right does not want sex ed or free condoms. Anyone have workable alternatives to abortions that still give a woman the right to choose? 

I think I see where you're going, DJasper. We need to have our top scientists isolate the soul.That's the one nit-picky detail the baby-killing fanatics have on us.Once we have a "blueprint" of the soul, the case will be closed.

And if the "scientists" can't handle the job, we should be able to back into a diagram through the data provided by the Bible.

Better yet, just sell the damned thing.

A very sunburned guy with a tail who looks a lot like Dick Cheney bought my soul for $19.99 and a six pack of Bud.

That guy just offered me $29.95 as I don't drink. The wierd thing was when gwbaby bush dropped this guy's pitchfork (he was polishing it). This red guy yelled at babybush: " how come I have to show and tell you what to do and what not to do? When are you gonna grow up and get a mind of your own?" I took the money and got the hell out of there as family arguments are not my thing.

Which "bible"? Do you mean the Coran or the King James Version or the King James version of the bible (there is only one version of that and it is stored in the gwbush library)? All we have to do is channel King James and ask his advice which could be final. That would be the easy way. What a "can of worms"

I mean the King James version of the Coran. I really screwed that up and am sure I will hear from those that agree -blaspheme. My reply would be: opinions are cheapest commodities on earth which is why I don't have any. I go by astute observations only.

If Senator McCain is a real man he will personally and publicly disavow and condemn Sean Hannity and the group of other commentators who are calling Obama a baby-killer.

Anyone who served in the military during the Vietnam War,

and who probably had to endure such spiteful chiding by civilians on their return home, should have some sensitivity no room in their intellect and heart for this kind of smear.

I wonder how McCain feels, or would feel, about being called a baby-killer.

If McCain does not condemn this kind of speech by Hannity then McCain has a shameful character flaw.

Anyone that believes what HANNITY  says is FAIR, BALLANCED,OR OBJECTIVE  is living in fairy tale land.