Return of the Eagle Eggs

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Return of the Eagle Eggs

This is the show from Tuesday May 6th, 2014

Summary:

Bob Enyart plays a voicemail message from a retired pastor in Colorado Springs who criticizes Bob for criticizing Christians. We also present MTV star Catelynn Lowell who posted a Personhood USA graphic showing the absurdity of protecting eagle eggs and killing unborn children, with the natural throwback to our classic BEL video Eagle Eggs! And finally, Denver Bible Church, Lord willing, is buying a church! The elder board of the other facility has accepted our offer, so please pray that we can now get the rest of our financing. We still need $168,000 of the $450,000 purchase price!

personhood-eagle-egg-catelynn-lowell-mtv.jpg
 

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Bob's eagle egg show was a classic. I remember watching it on tv a looong time ago. That was good television.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
No, I'm advocating you be consistent and support the children who are already born. Don't pretend you are pro-life if you don't have any interest in the lives of children after they are born.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
By your logic you are advocating that we murder kids after they are born as well.
Yep, it does.

It boggles the mind that some in our society consider MURDER of a little child to be an acceptable solution to poverty and hunger.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, I'm advocating you be consistent and support the children who are already born. Don't pretend you are pro-life if you don't have any interest in the lives of children after they are born.
By implication, you are saying pro-lifers advocate the murder of born children. In fact it is you who advocates the murder of children.
 

Eeset

.
LIFETIME MEMBER
If there were 7 billion eagles we would be harvesting them for thanksgiving dinners and eating their eggs for breakfast.
 

Jukia

New member
Yep, it does.

It boggles the mind that some in our society consider MURDER of a little child to be an acceptable solution to poverty and hunger.

But it is OK to ignore the issue of poverty and children as long as big corporations continue to pay dividends.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
By your logic you are advocating that we murder kids after they are born as well.

Uh, no. But the point stands: pro-lifers's involvement shouldn't end with an abortion avoided. That's nowhere near good enough.

Holding a sign is easy. Helping to fight poverty? Well, that requires real, actual work.
 
Yep, it does.

It boggles the mind that some in our society consider MURDER of a little child to be an acceptable solution to poverty and hunger.

But apparently to some it's perfectly okay if they starve to death or die of some perfectly treatable condition because they had the temerity to be born to parents who were poor.
 
If there were 7 billion eagles we would be harvesting them for thanksgiving dinners and eating their eggs for breakfast.

Absolutely. Protecting eagle eggs isn't about the individual eagle embryo, it's about protecting the entire species.

Anyway if humans hatched from eggs like birds, that their mothers didn't have to carry around inside of them for nine months, then there wouldn't really be any excuse for abortion.

Maybe one day medical science will come up with a way to transplant fetuses, or enable them to survive and grow outside a human womb. Once that happened it would become possible for a woman to end a pregnancy without killing the fetus.

And yet somehow I imagine that religious conservatives will still have a problem with this.
 
Uh, no. But the point stands: pro-lifers's involvement shouldn't end with an abortion avoided. That's nowhere near good enough.

Holding a sign is easy. Helping to fight poverty? Well, that requires real, actual work.

Most of them aren't anything even resembling "pro-life". Let's see:

Pro-death penalty, even in cases where the evidence against the condemned was questionable, witnesses changed their stories later, and the condemned didn't exactly get a fair trial (and during said trial are quick to condemn the accused as automatically being guilty even before the verdict is returned).

Enthusiastically pro-military and pro-war. Were beating their chests over George 43's invasion of Iraq and denouncing anyone who was opposed to it as traitors, even when it became clear that Saddam had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11, never had any WMD's and was in no position to pose any threat to the United States; and his removal only created a power vacuum that further destabilized the region. And they want to do the same with Syria.

Against even common sense gun regulations to try to keep guns out of the hands out of criminals and the criminally insane and to try to restrict gun ownership to those who know how to properly use them and who are mentally balanced. (And while tighter gun control laws that are vigorously enforced won't prevent all criminals from getting their hands on high-powered assault weapons, it would certainly make a dent in it. The Virginia Tech and Aurora, CO shooters might still have been able to acquire the weapons they used - or when they went to take possession of their guns might have instead ended up handcuffed in the back of a police car facing serious felony charges).

Against environmental regulations to keep toxic substances out of the environment that make people sick and invariably shorten a lot of lives. Also against occupational safety regulations to try to keep people from getting killed in accidents on the job or dying from illnesses resulting from exposure to toxic substances while on the job. (All in the name of corporate profits)

And of course against expanding health care access, despite the fact that every other industrialized first world nation on earth has a universal, single-payer health care system (or something that is functionally equivalent). Yet so many of these same so-called "pro-lifers" are bleating incessantly about "Obamacare" - apparently wanting to go back to the old system where if you got sick and didn't have health insurance (because you couldn't afford it, or had a *gasp* "pre-existing condition") you either died or went bankrupt.

Of course we have one red state (Tennessee) passing a law to allow the state to punish women for the outcome of a pregnancy, yet do absolutely nothing to help pregnant, low-income women obtain access to affordable prenatal care.


EDIT: Just to make it clear, I am well aware the above does not describe ALL people who are against abortion. (It certainly wouldn't apply to someone who was against abortion but liberal in other areas).
 
Last edited:

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Uh, no. But the point stands: pro-lifers's involvement shouldn't end with an abortion avoided. That's nowhere near good enough.

Holding a sign is easy. Helping to fight poverty? Well, that requires real, actual work.

Would you like to take part in a challenge?

Let's you and I post our last one, two, three, or maybe even four (or more) years tax information in this thread and see which one of us has done more, financially, for the cause of children that are already born.

Let's see which of us just "holds a sign" or just "posts on forums" or which one of us actually does something about the evils of the world.

Do you accept the challenge?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, I'm advocating you be consistent and support the children who are already born. Don't pretend you are pro-life if you don't have any interest in the lives of children after they are born.
Then you be consistent and advocate taking care of children before they are born. Right now they are being murdered by the millions. The only way to stop the murder as a society is to change the law so that babies, before they are born, get the same protection you do.

Saying, "it's OK to murder babies before they are born because I think Republicans are mean" is no way to support justice. It implies, strongly, that you think the solution to child hunger is to murder the children that might starve (as long as it is before they are born).

And; please don't call me a Republican. I'm just using them as an example because you think Republicans like to starve kids and be mean.
 
Top