Good on Ebay.

I'm not terribly surprised they blocked those items, but I am surprised that such a thing would be considered news. Why? I would think eBay's position on this wouldn't be unusual enough to warrant major covereage. If someone wanted to raise money to defend the kids who brained a peer in Chicago via eBay auction, I'd expect eBay to behave the same.

Murderers don't deserve it.

The proper solution to child murder is to

A) call it with its name;

B) criminalize it;

C) death penalty.

Mass child murder is a societal problem and it can't be solved by shooting abortionists in the street, however satisfying that may feel in the short run, or however many human beings it saves in the medium run.

If someone wanted to raise money to defend the kids who brained a peer in Chicago via eBay auction, I'd expect eBay to behave the same.

Considering how many times PayPal has literally stolen people's money for having less-than-leftist (AKA "racist") beliefs, I wouldn't be so sure.

Personally, Nixon would be ok in blocking the items listed that call for and instruct on how to perform violent acts, as well as products from people who have been convicted of crimes.

However, until Roeder is convicted, he is presumed innocent under our legal system. If it is ok to block him from soliciting funds to defend himself, perhaps William Ayers books and writings, including the Obama biography he ghost wrote, should be immediately banned and removed form the shelves.

Abortion is murder, but, it is not ok to murder to stop it.

Murder is a legal term, so no, abortion is not murder.

And Roeder has practically confessed to the murder. Not explicit confession, but that's only up to the process. There are several witnesses.

Kudos to EBay. They are private property so they can do whatever they want.

Murder is a legal term, so no, abortion is not murder.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 13:43:01

Yes, murder is a legal term, one that could and may sometime in the future be applied to abortion.

And Roeder has confessed? Really? Is that like Sarah Palin is running for President, even though she isn't?

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 14:18:50

Why not? It's a genetically human life, just like me(you are very suspect).

per·son (pûrsn) KEY

NOUN:

A living human.

So please tell us all how 'IT' fails to meet the definition of person?

Uh, not its not, because its not a person, wolf.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 14:18:50

A child in the womb is not a person? Are you being serious here, D-Vega?

It's not a "child in the womb" either.

A fetus is a human life form, but it is not a person, with all rights therein. That would make it murder. No one knows when personhood begins, and that's one reason why abortion is and will always be a legal medical procedure. Not murder.

The confusion over the difference is one reason why nutz use it for an excuse to kill people. The doctor in questions WAS NOT A MURDERER. He was a physician performing a legal procedure.

And Roeder has confessed? Really?

I said "practically", Baud. His defense is not that he didn't do it. At best it would be an insanity defense.

A fetus is a human life form, but it is not a person, with all rights therein. That would make it murder. No one knows when personhood begins, and that's one reason why abortion is and will always be a legal medical procedure. Not murder.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 15:45:59

Personhood begins when it's a) ALIVE B) HUMAN. That's the definition of PERSON, vega. So when it's alive(at conception) and when it's verifyably(sp) human(again AT CONCEPTION) it is a person. There is no gray area, there is no leap to 'personhood.' Once it passes the scientific definition of ALIVE and HUMAN, it is a person. Any attepmt to redefine PERSON, would have redefine LIFE or HUMAN. So which part of those two does the 'fetus' fail to meet?

Posted by bthewolf

2009-10-29 15:53:54

Sorry bthewolf I disagree, a fetus is not a person.

No one knows when personhood begins…

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 15:45:59

So you have no idea when personhood begins, yet you thinking killing it is fine? That is monstrous, D-Vega. If you don't know when it becomes a person, shouldn't give life the benefiut of the doubt?

So which part of those two does the 'fetus' fail to meet?

Self-awareness.

Self-awareness.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 16:06:11

And how do you know that, since you have already stated you do not know when personhood begins.

If you don't know when it becomes a person, shouldn't give life the benefiut of the doubt?

I would. You could. But that's an individual choice.

I would. You could. But that's an individual choice.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 16:07:25

Murder is an individual choice?

And you need to make up your mind. First, it isn't a person, then you say you would give life a chance? So which is it D-Vega?

And how do you know that, since you have already stated you do not know when personhood begins.

Wolf ask "which part of those two does the 'fetus' fail to meet?" but his definition is made-up claptrap because no one knows. That's why the gov't, meaning law, can't make that call. Because on one knows, so the responsibility is left up to the mother, and she has to live with that decision.

It's not up to you, unless you are the one who is pregnant.

I didn't want to have yet another abortion debate, my point is that abortion is NOT murder unless legally classified as such. So when "pro-lifers" make this claim they are incorrect and saying Roeder should go to prison is different than saying abortion is not murder.

If it were murder Roeder could claim he was saving someone's life. But he can't make that claim because there is no legal, or moral, support for such a claim. Abortion is not murder.

Sorry bthewolf I disagree, a fetus is not a person.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-29 15:59:44

By WHAT definition? As I stated in my post to Vega, there IS NO definition of the word person that FAILS to describe a fetus as a person, PERIOD. So unless you have another definition of person, you are wrong.

This is the core of the lefts argument, IF they can redefine PERSONHOOD as a point in development AFTER conception then they can justify murder. But by no stetch of the imagination have they ever succeeded in finding a definition of person that doesn't include ALL stages of life.

For the left its mental gymnastics, coupled with bad semantics, and moral ambiguity to find a loophole that allows them to murder a baby.

Murder is an individual choice?

It's not murder, Baud. You want to play stupid games, go to facebook.

And you need to make up your mind. First, it isn't a person, then you say you would give life a chance? So which is it D-Vega?

Those are not contradictory statements. I would, but its up to the individual. If another indiv makes that choice, then it may be a horrible choice, but IT IS NOT MURDER. End of story.

Nonsense, wolf. A day old fetus is not a person.

I didn't want to have yet another abortion debate…

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 16:12:44

…because you have no leg to stand on and you are inconsistant in your pronouncements.

What is inside the womb is a person. Of that, there is no doubt. The woman is not the only person involved in this decision, unless she found a way to become pregnant without the use of male sperm. And there is also another, completely unique person involved here, and that is the child.

You don't know when a fetus becomes a person, but you have no problem allowing it to be killed at the whim of another person. That is beyond hideous, D-Vega.

But back to the subject at hand. Roeder has been charged with a crime and is innocent until proven guilty. PERIOD.

Nonsense, wolf. A day old fetus is not a person.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 16:15:53

You have already said you do not know when personhood beginf, now you are saying you do.

Stop lying, D-Vega!

Wolf ask "which part of those two does the 'fetus' fail to meet?" but his definition is made-up claptrap because no one knows.

That's pure BULLSHIT vega, no part of definiton is claptrap I pulled it straight out the DICTIONARY

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/e…

So the only person making shit up is YOU.

That's why the gov't, meaning law, can't make that call. Because on one knows, so the responsibility is left up to the mother, and she has to live with that decision.

It's not up to you, unless you are the one who is pregnant.

No the law has just refused to take a logical approach to the VALUE of EVERY SINGLE LIFE. The law has given extra rights to a pregnant woman that it cannot and WILL not give to any other class of person.

The refusal of the law to stand up for the rights of those who cannot defend themselves is a legal and moral abomination.

I didn't want to have yet another abortion debate, my point is that abortion is NOT murder unless legally classified as such. So when "pro-lifers" make this claim they are incorrect and saying Roeder should go to prison is different than saying abortion is not murder.

If it were murder Roeder could claim he was saving someone's life. But he can't make that claim because there is no legal, or moral, support for such a claim. Abortion is not murder.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 16:12:44

Then next time maybe you would be better off keeping your OPINION to yourself. So far you have FAILED to support your contention. You have claimed that a fetus is not a person, but you have not provided any legal, scientific, or moral definition of person that agrees with the linch pin of your argument.

So I'd say the claptrap here si coming from YOU.

Baud is being an idiot again.

…because you have no leg to stand on and you are inconsistant in your pronouncements.

Just because you can't understand it, doesn't make it inconsistent.

What is inside the womb is a person. Of that, there is no doubt.

Prove it. Of course there is more than a doubt. It's why this is one of the most controversial political issues of all time. Don't think because you assert nonsense that is makes it so.

The woman is not the only person involved in this decision, unless she found a way to become pregnant without the use of male sperm.

Irrelevant. This is your definition of proof?

And there is also another, completely unique person involved here, and that is the child.

It's not a child. No matter how many times you say.

You don't know when a fetus becomes a person, but you have no problem allowing it to be killed at the whim of another person. That is beyond hideous, D-Vega.

I would personally, but otherwise it's not my business anymore than someone pulling the plug on grandma.

But back to the subject at hand. Roeder has been charged with a crime and is innocent until proven guilty. PERIOD.

He has been charged, is obviously guilty, and has no plans to defend himself in terms of him not committing the act. That means guilty by special circumstances, or guilty by reason of mental defect.

MY POINT is that the doctor was not committing murder. Roeder is the ONLY ONE here who MURDERED an innocent person. End of story.

Nonsense, wolf. A day old fetus is not a person.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 16:15:53

PROVE IT, find me definition of person that proves me wrong, you've stated this several times in this thread, and provided ONLY your opinion. Until you can support that position with SOME proof, you are WRONG.

Don't think because you assert nonsense that is makes it so.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 16:35:51

You mean, the way you say you don't know when personhood begins, then turn right around and say you KNOW that a 1 day old fetus is not a person? You don't know anything D-Vega, and your obvious lies about aborotion are why you don't want to have a discussion that YOU started. You must work hard at being such a dumbass.

And until Roeder have been convicted in a court of law, he is not guilty of ANYTHING. I know how you on the Left love to convict based upon what you want to happen, but in this country 'Innocent until PROVEN Guilty' still stands. Obvious guilt is meaningless. O.J. Simpson is OBVIOUSLY guilty, yet he is walking around free.

I would personally, but otherwise it's not my business anymore than someone pulling the plug on grandma.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 16:35:51

"I would personally own slaves/sell drugs to children/rape sheep, but otherwise it's not my business anymore than someone pulling the plug on grandma."

You are a fool, D-Vega!

That's pure BULLSHIT vega, no part of definiton is claptrap I pulled it straight out the DICTIONARY

There is about nine definitions there, wolf. Thanks.

So the only person making shit up is YOU.

Sure, that's why this debate has gone on for decades. Its because you were right all along and everything else was just made up. Thanks.

No the law has just refused to take a logical approach to the VALUE of EVERY SINGLE LIFE. The law has given extra rights to a pregnant woman that it cannot and WILL not give to any other class of person.

As well it should. Being a woman is not a "class" either.

Whether or not you agree with the law, it still means that abortion is not murder.

The refusal of the law to stand up for the rights of those who cannot defend themselves is a legal and moral abomination.

That responsibility falls to the mother, not some gov't panel, right?

Then next time maybe you would be better off keeping your OPINION to yourself. So far you have FAILED to support your contention.

Really? I assumed you all would simply concede the issue. /sarc

You have claimed that a fetus is not a person, but you have not provided any legal, scientific, or moral definition of person that agrees with the linch pin of your argument.

Uh, self-awareness is one. But even self-awareness does not prove personhood.

So I'd say the claptrap here si coming from YOU.

There is nothing that you have presented here that I have not seen for years, as well as things that were presented nearly 40 years ago.

It is YOU that has not proven when personhood, and all rights therein, begins. And you can't. Your OPINION is that you would like to give personhood the benefit of the doubt. Which means once the egg is fertilized. The standard conservative position that has not changed or presented any additional proof in 40 yrs. Fine. That's YOUR CHOICE.

You would prefer to have that choice taken away from everyone else. And that ain't happening. Ever. Sorry.

Nonsense, wolf. A day old fetus is not a person.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 16:15:53

Then what defines personhood?

You said self awareness. This cannot be the only definition as people who are in a coma are then not a **person** as they are not aware at the time they are in a coma.

/

"I would personally own slaves/sell drugs to children/rape sheep, but otherwise it's not my business anymore than someone pulling the plug on grandma." You are a fool, D-Vega!

All of those are illegal, Baby Baud. There is a reason why those are illegal. And there is a reason why abortion is legal. You do some research and try to find out why.

You mean, the way you say you don't know when personhood begins, then turn right around and say you KNOW that a 1 day old fetus is not a person? You don't know anything D-Vega, and your obvious lies about aborotion are why you don't want to have a discussion that YOU started. You must work hard at being such a dumbass.

aw, now the crybaby devolves into the standard tactics. Tsk. Tsk. No one can PROVE when personhood begins. But my position is that a day old fetus is not a person. Can you prove otherwise? No, you can't.

And until Roeder have been convicted in a court of law, he is not guilty of ANYTHING.

Sure, he is. Just not in the eyes of the law.

I know how you on the Left love to convict based upon what you want to happen, but in this country 'Innocent until PROVEN Guilty' still stands.

Especially for the murderers of innocent abortion doctors.

Obvious guilt is meaningless. O.J. Simpson is OBVIOUSLY guilty, yet he is walking around free.

He is still guilty though, you idiot. Have you any doubt?

Then what defines personhood?

That is an age-old question that we don't have an answer to as of yet. But it ain't "as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg". That would mean the responsibility of the "child" would immediately fall under the gov't for protection. If the mother were to ride a bicycle and miscarry, she could be charged with manslaughter. That is the conservative position.

You said self awareness. This cannot be the only definition as people who are in a coma are then not a **person** as they are not aware at the time they are in a coma.

I said that is one factor. The coma example is a good one. Someone like Terri Schiavo is another. I don't know the answer. I just know what I would do in that situation. You do what you want to in that situation. That is the way we do it here in America.

aw, now the crybaby devolves into the standard tactics. Tsk. Tsk. No one can PROVE when personhood begins. But my position is that a day old fetus is not a person. Can you prove otherwise? No, you can't.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 16:54:47

And now you devolve into your typical childish taunts when you are caught in a lie. No surprise there.

Let's recap, shall we. It was YOU who said that there was no way to know when personhood occurred, and YOU that stated that a 1-day-old fetus is not a person. They cannot both be true. I don't know whether it is or not, but you stated definitatively that it is not, so prove that it is not?

What's that, you can't? There is not way to do that? Oh, I see. Your own words prove you to be a liar.

You don't know a single thing, D-Vega, so stop embarrassing yourself by making definitive statements like "A 1-day-old fetus is not a person." Statement that you knwo are lies and you make anyway!

Oh, and Roeder is not guilty of anything yet. He may be found guilty, sometime in the future. The evidence against him is strong. But he is not guilty right now. You know, like murder is a legal term, so is guilty.

Guilt is not a legal term solely, El Baudo Lame-O.

Let's recap, shall we. It was YOU who said that there was no way to know when personhood occurred, and YOU that stated that a 1-day-old fetus is not a person. They cannot both be true.

Of course they can.

It is my position that a 1 day old fetus is not a person. I cannot prove it, and I have said that. But you cannot prove the contrary. That's why its called a controversy.

It's like when I call you an idiot. It's an informed opinion but can it be proven?

…

…

Uh… maybe that was a bad example. Nevermind.

Uh, self-awareness is one. But even self-awareness does not prove personhood.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 16:47:53

Where is self-awareness in the definition of PERSON? Where? please provide me the defintion that requires self-awareness.

It's ALL I've been asking for. Until you can provide it, you are not winning, you are just arguing aimlessly. I have a definition of person, it doesn't require or include anything about awareness(of any kind). SHOW me an accepted definition that supports your argument.

You would prefer to have that choice taken away from everyone else. And that ain't happening. Ever. Sorry.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 16:47:53

Don't be too sure of that Vega – it wasn't that long ago that similar crappy arguments were used to support slavery and genocide.

All your talk about the mother's rights still fails to take into account the rights of the CHILD that she is going to abort.

Guilt is not a legal term solely, El Baudo Lame-O.

Posted by D-Vega 2009-10-29 17:10:36

Oh, I see. You narrowly define 'murder' as a legal term to make your point that abortion isn't murder. Then you define 'guilty' broader, outside of a legal term, to make your point that Roeder is guilty, even though there has been no trial.

It is obvious that the only way you can prevail in a debate is if you control what is and is not allowed to be said, you control the definition of all the words, and you get to decide who has made a point and who has not.

D-Vega, you are a child and an asshole. Your lies are tiresome and your arrogance is appalling.

You cannot prove that a 1-day-old fetus is not a person. PERIOD!

There is about nine definitions there, wolf. Thanks.

Posted by D-Vega

2009-10-29 16:47:53

BUT NONE, Vega, could be used to define person in a legal or scientific sense, can they? And so the one I gave is the only relevant definition. And you still have not provided a definition that includes self awareness. Your entire argument is OPINION based soley on ADDING a requirement to the definition that is not found in ANY OTHER definition. My definition, accepted on a scientific and logical premise, is factual. So when you claim that a one day old 'fetus' is NOT a person, it's opinion. While I can say based on SCIENCE and LOGIC that the 'fetus' is a person.

You're never going to change your mind vega, but the law has failed the rights of single life aborted person in this world. You may not care, but I do.

Murder is a legal term, so no, abortion is not murder.

Posted by D-Vega
2009-10-29 13:43:01

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 565
Offenses Against the Person
Section 565.020

August 28, 2009

First degree murder, penalty–person under sixteen years of age not to receive death penalty.
565.020. 1. A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.

According to the letter of the law it is murder.

Uh, not its not, because its not a person, wolf.

That is an age-old question that we don't have an answer to as of yet. But it ain't "as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg". That would mean the responsibility of the "child" would immediately fall under the gov't for protection. If the mother were to ride a bicycle and miscarry, she could be charged with manslaughter. That is the conservative position.

Typical liberal strawman.

Since you're so eager to focus on legal terminology today, you should know that a charge of involuntary manslaughter requires criminally negligent behavior. Since there is no concrete proof that exercise causes miscarriages, there is no way any court or legislature would declare simple exercise criminal negligence.

Maybe the next time you want to go around talking about "the conservative position" you should try doing some actual research.

I said that is one factor.

That's precisely the point. You keep talking about all these "factors" but you stubbornly refuse to explain what those "factors" actually are. And even when you do, you come up with subjective and unmeasurable standards like "self-awareness".

It's the same old story with you liberals. You know you can't justify your position so you keep making crap up and pretending it amounts to an argument.

Guilt is not a legal term solely, El Baudo Lame-O.

So "guilt" has meaning beyond the purely legal definition, but "murder" has NO definition other than what you would find in a legal statute? Are you even listening to yourself, D-Vega?

It is my position that a 1 day old fetus is not a person. I cannot prove it, and I have said that.

Well thank you for admitting that your pro-abortion position has zero supporting evidence.

So how exactly do you justify your support for abortion when you yourself admit that you have no evidence to back it up?

Just to wrap up Vega's position. If we pretend that it is not a human being, it might be human, it might not be human, who knows? than it is okay to kill it because it is not human because we said so, but if it was human then it would be wrong but because we killed it, it can't be human because loving, tolerant lefties don't condone murder therefore if it was human we wouldn't kill it but because we killed it that proves it wasn't human, unless it was because we can't know nd this has baffled everyone for ever so to be on the safe side we'll kill it and tell ourselves that it isn't a human life because we're so caring and sensitive.

Have an Evil day.

And as usual, liberals like immeasurable stupidity incarnate Vega seek refuge in meaningless legalese to hide the fundamental truth: they have no problem murdering human beings to further their "needs", regardless of pettiness.

If anything, they revel in the mass slaughter of infants. After all, you just need to define them "things", and all is well, is it not? So easy to be the monsters they do, underneath all, know they are.

Truly, liberals are despicable to the last.

It's repulsive shows like this that, sometimes, make the murderers of abortionists feel like the true victims. How fortunate liberals are that it's only sometimes. But be warned; eventually people went to war to stop the barbaric practice of slavery, and mass child murder is a practice no less barbaric and no less worthy of having such extreme measures considered to fight it.

Abortion is murder, by the way.

Posted by bthewolf

2009-10-29 16:13:50

Blah, blah, blah, more of the same. PROVE that a day old fetus is a person.

Posted by whats_up

2009-10-30 03:48:17

Blah, blah, blah, more of the same. PROVE that a day old fetus is a NOT person.

DUMBASS I ALREADY PROVED IT IS!!! It's alive and human, PERIOD, that's the most basic and scientific definition of PERSON. So unless YOU can prove that it's NOT a person, I'm right.

Oh and that's the most lame and retarded comeback I've ever seen from you, congratas, loser.

So far NO ONE has provided an ACCEPTED definition of person that is, you, Vega, never-show, NO ONE that runs counter to my definition.

Posted by bthewolf

2009-10-30 05:22:14

That is what you dont get, neither of us can prove our assertions, that is why this is such a contentious issue.

That is what you dont get, neither of us can prove our assertions, that is why this is such a contentious issue.

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-30 13:05:00

So you also fall into the group of "I don't know if it is a living person or not, so let's just kill it anyway."

The Left is full of hateful monsters.

You can't prove that is isn't a person so you must be open to the possibility that it is a person; this is clearly in the realm of possibility. But you're perfectly okay with killing it because someone's suppossed right to kill what may be a person is more important to you than a human life.

You would have made a great Nazi, W-U. Yeah, I know, I know I just lost the argument by the internet rule of referencing Nazis but when the genocide condoning boot fits it fits.

Have an Evil day

Posted by TheBaud

2009-10-30 13:35:10

Not at all, thats why I leave it up to the individual to decide. Individual rights, you know those rights that Conservatives say we should all have, I guess except in this case right?

Not at all, thats why I leave it up to the individual to decide. Individual rights, you know those rights that Conservatives say we should all have, I guess except in this case right?

Posted by whats_up 2009-10-30 15:16:10

You want an individual to decide that it is OK to kill their offspring? Is that really the position you want to take, whats_up? How utterly stupid of you to say that.

You support abortion for the convenience of one person over another. Since you have already said you don't know when life begins or when that life becomes a person, you simply think someone can be killed for the convenience of another. What a monstrous and evil position.

Would that you had any shame or ability for remorse. But you are a Liberals, and those things are beyond you!

The reason that we don't have anti-abortion laws is not that its complicated. Its that its hard.

It is very simple. Life begins at conception. Any other standard opens the door to horror. If I am in a coma for a day, then they can harvest my lungs, eh? Or, if I am not temporarily viable after a car wreck, instead of giving me a few stitches and some meds, and letting me out of the hospital two days later, they can just 'dispose of the non-viable genetic material' on the spot.

Murder is the deliberate killing of someone you don't have the right to kill. The state can sanction your right to in time of war, and it sanctions executioners, and we all have a God-given right to defend ourselves and others. The government does not have the right to sanction doctors to commit child murder. So even if the government says its not murder, it doesn't matter. The gov't can say black is white and it changes nothing. The government is an accomplice to murder.

We despise the Nazi's, but we're worse, far worse.