The joke that is American politics

[azVolFan]

indicators but no guarantee. Heart beat, brain waves, etc don't actually tell you that the fetus will become human. You're assigning the "life" label to something that may not even make it

So ... IF a baby dies, it wasn't ever really alive in the first place?

 

[emainvol]

There is absolutely no reason that a woman's career, lifestyle, etc should be considered a higher priority than the right of another human being to live.

Don't be a MORON. It has nothing to do with religious fanaticism or anything of the sort. It has to do with human rights. Period.

Don't like that FACT? Deal with it.


FTR, abortions due to rape, incest, and the physical life of the mother make up a very, very small percentage. If we get to the point of quibbling over that then alot of progress will have been made. Also, if we properly punish rapists, the need for these types of abortions will be reduced.

I am generally supportive of the "right" to self defense therefore if it is truly the life of the mother at stake... she should have abortion as an option.

I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it does.

The next part is completely irrelevant. First, the percentage doesn't matter, it still happens and enlightened men such as yourself think that the victim should have to carry the baby to term. Secondly, reducing rape isn't eliminating rape. You are talking about two completely different issues here. Even if you reduce rape, some women will still be raped and some of those women will still get pregnant. You can go on your rationalizing flight of fancies all you want, but the aforementioned issue and the absolute absurdity of your position are not going to change.

So, go thump your bible and act like you have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[OrangeYankee]

If you commit a crime as a President and want to get away with it, how do you do it... you have a guy run into a crowded room of your critics and scream "Abortion! Gay Rights! War on Drugs!" and they will be too busy *****ing at each other while you rob the country blind..

Someone above made the statement that they don't know where they stand on the issue and I almost completely agree with it. I really feel the gov't has no business dictating to us what we do in our personal lives and what decisions we make. However, I really do truly believe that once the fetus has a heart beat it's off limits and gets progressively more so as you go along. I also think under no circumstances once you get into that 3rd Trimester should you be able to electively have an abortion. Again, I really do struggle with it.

As far as the original topic: I think they are Maher and co. are funny but that's the only thing about them that drives me nuts. Quit trying to act like you are neutral and have no agenda. I mean even Glenn Beck admits he's crazy far right.

 

[NEO]

Man, I didn't intend this thread to go this direction. I merely saw a funny clip on tv I thought others might enjoy.
That being said, as a Christian, I am neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. There is a distinction. If someone is for less gov't involvement in our lives, how can one support anti-abortion legislation. What represents more gov't intrusion than dictating what he/she does with their body? Not flaming but looking for opinions. I don't know personally when a fetus is a full human and don't condone murder which is why I personally would not want my unborn child aborted. But I'm also not a woman whose unintended pregnancy would change her life forever and possibly bring an unwanted child into a very unfortunate situation. And yes, before you ask, I do think current drug laws are outmoded, outdated and misdirected.

I am one of the people on this site that is for the smallest government possible, both fed and state, with a larger city government. I do though believe the rights of a person ( even unborn) should be protected and when we start questioning what exactly is a "true" human being we end up with slaves on boats and a society like ours that is split down the middle.

 

[utvolpj]

So ... IF a baby dies, it wasn't ever really alive in the first place?

that still gets into trying to define "life." I'm saying it wasn't what I would consider a human at that point

I do though believe the rights of a person ( even unborn) should be protected and when we start questioning what exactly is a "true" human being we end up with slaves on boats and a society like ours that is split down the middle.

quite a different scenario in seeing one as a human and one as less than human. I doubt the slave owners really believed the Africans they bought weren't a human (at least the educated among them)

 

[NEO]

that still gets into trying to define "life." I'm saying it wasn't what I would consider a human at that point



quite a different scenario in seeing one as a human and one as less than human. I doubt the slave owners really believed the Africans they bought weren't a human (at least the educated among them)

And I have a hard time believing the majority of abortion doctors actually believe the baby is not a life.

You name me one time in history when the majority of society was able to dictate what is a full fledged human being with human rights so they could legally kill that entity at anytime for any reason at all and it was a good thing for either the "entity" in question or the society?

 

[sjt18]

no I would be for people making their own decisions about their life, ie pro-choice. Again, they're not really comparable since the lives aren't equal.



it's not accurate at all! I think it's a sick practice but do not feel it's my place to make decisions like that for others. Difference is that you want that ability



that's because it doesn't exist. It's a negative label used to try and sway the argument by one side. It would be like me calling the pro-life sect "pro-welfare" since they are saying they would gladly pay to take the responsibility of raising these kids

You are truly disputing the definition of "is". You show every sign of someone who has made up their mind and demanding the "facts" to conform around your opinion even if they must be distorted in the process.

Simply answer, if something has human dna, normal human metabolism for their stage of development, and are distinct from any other person or thing... what do you call that thing?

There is not one point after the first few following conception where a doctor can objectively and scientifically say "Just now the child passed from non-life to life". The unborn is a unique human entity.

Again, suggest a different label that is accurate and I will use it. It is not my intent to poison the well of this debate at all.

 

[sjt18]

I am unaware of anyone who actually likes abortion.

Some are making millions off of it. The more radical feminists use it to empower themselves politically. The number may be small but there are some people with a vested interest in seeing a significant number of abortions occur. Oh, don't forget the population alarmists who think more abortion is good for the planet.

 

[sjt18]

I don't think the word "fact" means what you think it does.

So... what is that non-response supposed actually mean or prove?

The next part is completely irrelevant. First, the percentage doesn't matter, it still happens and enlightened men such as yourself think that the victim should have to carry the baby to term. Secondly, reducing rape isn't eliminating rape. You are talking about two completely different issues here. Even if you reduce rape, some women will still be raped and some of those women will still get pregnant.

So what you are effectively saying is that if Sam rapes Alice then Tom should be executed, right? No real reason... just kill him because.

So, go thump your bible and act like you have any idea what you are talking about.

Go be a jerk and demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[utvolpj]

You are truly disputing the definition of "is". You show every sign of someone who has made up their mind and demanding the "facts" to conform around your opinion even if they must be distorted in the process.

Simply answer, if something has human dna, normal human metabolism for their stage of development, and are distinct from any other person or thing... what do you call that thing?

There is not one point after the first few following conception where a doctor can objectively and scientifically say "Just now the child passed from non-life to life". The unborn is a unique human entity.

Again, suggest a different label that is accurate and I will use it. It is not my intent to poison the well of this debate at all.

so I take it you're against IVF/PGD/etc? I have yet to see any pro-life people protest against that practice. Unless you're only against the killing of a "human" once it's in the womb (which actually happens in that process also)

And I have a hard time believing the majority of abortion doctors actually believe the baby is not a life.

You name me one time in history when the majority of society was able to dictate what is a full fledged human being with human rights so they could legally kill that entity at anytime for any reason at all and it was a good thing for either the "entity" in question or the society?

I don't care what the abortion doctors believe since they aren't making the initial decision. Sorry but the last part really doesn't make much sense

 

[sjt18]

quite a different scenario in seeing one as a human and one as less than human. I doubt the slave owners really believed the Africans they bought weren't a human (at least the educated among them)

Not exactly sure why you would bring this up. The arguments made for dehumanizing blacks to justify gross injustice parallel the arguments made against the humanity of the unborn.

 

[utvolpj]

Not exactly sure why you would bring this up. The arguments made for dehumanizing blacks to justify gross injustice parallel the arguments made against the humanity of the unborn.

I didn't bring it up and I doubt the argument was made very often that slaves were not humans (again, by anyone of any intelligence)

 

[sjt18]

so I take it you're against IVF/PGD/etc? I have yet to see any pro-life people protest against that practice. Unless you're only against the killing of a "human" once it's in the womb (which actually happens in that process also)

I am undecided and can't argue one way or another concerning fertilized eggs that do not have metabolism.

I would definitely say that once in the womb and "living" by process it would be "alive" by every reasonable definition of the word. Before that? I simply do not know... and would not ask for a law to be passed against something before I did know.

I would still like to see your answer so I will ask in a different way. What about an unborn after cell separation begins is "non-human" or not alive?

 

[sjt18]

I didn't bring it up and I doubt the argument was made very often that slaves were not humans (again, by anyone of any intelligence)

Really? It was written in the Constitution originally that they would not have rights and would be treated as 1/3 of a person for the allocation of electors. They also wanted to evade the "humanity" of slaves to justify a predetermined conclusion.

 

[utvolpj]

I am undecided and can't argue one way or another concerning fertilized eggs that do not have metabolism.

I would definitely say that once in the womb and "living" by process it would be "alive" by every reasonable definition of the word. Before that? I simply do not know... and would not ask for a law to be passed against something before I did know.

but once in the womb it has already been determined to be a viable embryo right? This would by many definitions on here make it a human unless you're adding an up-to date here

I would still like to see your answer so I will ask in a different way. What about an unborn after cell separation begins is "non-human" or not alive?

as I've answered many times before it can't live on it's own which I view as a part of starting human life (and no I'm not going down the Schiavo road). That actually occurs relatively early in the process. Even earlier you are able to tell if they would have genetic diseases that would make life extremely difficult and that's also a reason for abortion that I can see as correct.

 

[utvolpj]

Really? It was written in the Constitution originally that they would not have rights and would be treated as 1/3 of a person for the allocation of electors. They also wanted to evade the "humanity" of slaves to justify a predetermined conclusion.

it had to be written that way for a few idiots to ratify. It wasn't as easy a thing as you make it out to be

 

[emainvol]

So what you are effectively saying is that if Sam rapes Alice then Tom should be executed, right? No real reason... just kill him because.

No, I am effectively saying that is Sam rapes Alice, Alice shouldn't have to deal with a constant reminder of Sam raping Alice for 9 months. I am also saying that Alice shouldn't have to change her lifestyle, deal with any kind of extra strain on her psyche and her body, or deal with the stress and strain that could come to any other facet of her life just because Sam raped her. It's really not that hard, is it? Are you saying that a woman that has already been through a rape should be further punished just because she happened to be ovulating at the time? Give me a damn break.

 

[emainvol]

it had to be written that way for a few idiots to ratify. It wasn't as easy a thing as you make it out to be

If they wouldn't ratify it, why didn't the founding fathers just rape them into submission?

 

[sjt18]

No, I am effectively saying that is Sam rapes Alice, Alice shouldn't have to deal with a constant reminder of Sam raping Alice for 9 months.

So instead the unborn baby that did absolutely nothing must die, right?

There are no easy answers here but the life of one person should trump the convenience of another, shouldn't it?

I am also saying that Alice shouldn't have to change her lifestyle, deal with any kind of extra strain on her psyche and her body, or deal with the stress and strain that could come to any other facet of her life just because Sam raped her. It's really not that hard, is it?

Yes. It really is that hard if you have respect for life. It is tragic that any woman would have to endure that situation. But it is a VERY hard issue as to whether the hardship that she did nothing to cause outweighs the life of the child who also did nothing.

Are you saying that a woman that has already been through a rape should be further punished just because she happened to be ovulating at the time? Give me a damn break.

No. I am saying that the child should not be executed because of it.

 

[BeecherVol]

I am unaware of anyone who actually likes abortion.

The thought or act of it? I would hope not.

But it is a nice safety net when you want to have sex, but not bring in the responsibility that can come with it.

 

[sjt18]

it had to be written that way for a few idiots to ratify. It wasn't as easy a thing as you make it out to be

Never said it was easy. They risked a war between the states in trying to come up with a compromise. They desperately needed the Tories to join the new country. They disproportionately owned slaves and demanded a means for protecting that "right".

It didn't have to be written that way. But there was a price for doing the right thing that they were unwilling to pay.

The main point however was that none of that could occur until the humanity of black people was either denied or ignored.

There is no reason to say the unborn are not human or alive except that those assumptions are necessary to justify abortion.

 

[emainvol]

So instead the unborn baby that did absolutely nothing must die, right?

There are no easy answers here but the life of one person should trump the convenience of another, shouldn't it? Yes. It really is that hard if you have respect for life. It is tragic that any woman would have to endure that situation. But it is a VERY hard issue as to whether the hardship that she did nothing to cause outweighs the life of the child who also did nothing.

No. I am saying that the child should not be executed because of it.

Well then charge the rapist with murder, too. Accusing a woman of the same is pure rubbish.

 

[sjt18]

but once in the womb it has already been determined to be a viable embryo right? This would by many definitions on here make it a human unless you're adding an up-to date here

No. I am simply saying that two factors make the unborn a living human being: Human dna and metabolism.

as I've answered many times before it can't live on it's own which I view as a part of starting human life (and no I'm not going down the Schiavo road).

So basically you just "say so" and reject evidence that completely destroys your premise?

Dependency is NOT a reasonable means of determining whether something is alive or human. New borns cannot live on their own. Is infanticide therefore OK? The very old cannot live on their own and often need something very much akin to a mother's support of a fetus. Is it OK to kill them... they're certainly inconvenient sometimes?

My son was just in the hospital and due to a very high fever could not eat for several days. It disrupted our lives and cost us a boat load of money... should we have had the option of denying him an IV?

That actually occurs relatively early in the process.

How so? If you mean they can live outside the womb then I think the earliest birth was around 4 months. But a baby will be completely dependent on someone for several years after birth. Again, dependency does not determine life or personhood.

Even earlier you are able to tell if they would have genetic diseases that would make life extremely difficult and that's also a reason for abortion that I can see as correct.

That is sick... and sad. Talk about a lack of heart and compassion.

 

[utvolpj]

the dependency of a newborn and a fetus is different

That is sick... and sad. Talk about a lack of heart and compassion.

I was in the position that would have been a real decision I would have had to make. In a way I guess I was fortunate to not have to make it but I have a feeling which way I would have gone

 

[emainvol]

the dependency of a newborn and a fetus is different



I was in the position that would have been a real decision I would have had to make. In a way I guess I was fortunate to not have to make it but I have a feeling which way I would have gone

I could in no way fault expectant parents for seeking an abortion in the case of something like Anencephaly, among other things. I agree with you on your stance there completely.