Jump to content
IGNORED

Alabama Lawmaker, Compares Abortion Destroying An Eagle egg


doggie

Recommended Posts

today's stupidity comes from Alabama. Of course the idiot has presidential ambitions and good luck with that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 31873.html

Alabama State Sen. Shadrack McGill (R-Macedonia) said this week that he plans to reintroduce a bill this year that would grant legal personhood rights to a human fertilized egg and ban abortion at all stages.

“Did you know you can be charged up to $250,000 for destroying an eagle egg, but you can destroy babies in the womb?†McGill asked a reporter for the Times-Journal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bald eagle is going extinct humans are not.

The stupid burns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but you can apply for a permit to take eagles and their parts (which would include eggs). If they want to move in that direction, they should require people to get permits if they want to fertilize an egg. So, if a guy wants to have sex, he's going to need a permit for that ejaculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS. Except humans are't endangered.

This exact same example came up in my graduate level moral theology class. When I pointed out exactly what you did, the response from my classmates made it seem like I was encouraging ritual human sacrifice. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you do have a 'fine' for destroying a human egg. You pay your insurance, or in this case, you have to pay out of your own pocket for an abortion because nutty lawyers like this guy want to take away insurance for women's reproductive health care. Oh and also, the fine for destroying an eagle egg is NOTHING compare to the emotional/financial stress of raising a kid. Unless, of course, the douche compares raising kids to birds raising their young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If *I* were to destroy an eagle egg, sure, there would be a fine. If the eagle shoves that egg right out of the nest and it breaks on the ground, or if one hatchling murders the other, nobody goes and arrest them. Because that's nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just came from FB where a friend was spouting this crap.

He stated that tax payer money is being used for abortions.

I know in the past that the Hyde Amendment prohibited this but there is a lot of information out there that says since Obama Care this has changed.

For the record I believe that abortions should be free. I just want to be able to back my words up with fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Southern politicians....

You'd think the way some of these people constantly talk about abortions that all women do is abort their kids left and right....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same asshole who said teacher pay should be kept low so that only those with a "calling" go into teaching, while politicians (like him, of course) need a raise so they won't be tempted by bribes. At least he recognizes he's not as honorable as a teacher? Maybe?

Here's one article on this brain-dead Republican waste of air, but there are many more:

http://jezebel.com/5881887/the-bible-sa ... politician

:violence-pistoldouble:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bald eagle is going extinct humans are not.

The stupid burns.

To quote my lare, still-great, father: 'If brains were a disease, he'd be in the best of health".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bald eagle is going extinct humans are not.

The stupid burns.

Except for the fact that the bald eagle was going extinct (hence why you can't destroy the eggs without paying a fine) - it is still a bird. I eat eggs. I am willing to bet most of the fundies we talk about do to. This comparison is not the greatest to further their argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except for the fact that the bald eagle was going extinct (hence why you can't destroy the eggs without paying a fine) - it is still a bird. I eat eggs. I am willing to bet most of the fundies we talk about do to. This comparison is not the greatest to further their argument.

I think the guy's point is that it's hypocritical for a government to outlaw killing one type of fetus but not another. He doesn't seem to understand that there are reasons for laws that go beyond whether they're consistent between species. Which is a bit scary considering that he sees himself as presidential material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.