Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend on it - Obama [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Vote Like Your Lady Parts Depend on it - Obama


redbaron007
10-02-2012, 14:36
Nice little ecard Obama team placed out on the web.

It's been taken down...but some have some screen shots of it.

Here is the screen shot (http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/r620-232a0c6d7180f8f30f14b934f73f117d.jpg).

Here is the story (http://washingtonexaminer.com/update-obama-campaign-deletes-outrageous-lady-parts-e-card-without-explanation/article/2509600#.UGtP-KllR3V).

Did he help himself?

:wavey:

red

Adjuster
10-02-2012, 14:39
I am going to need an explanation.


/

redbaron007
10-02-2012, 14:55
I am going to need an explanation.


/

My interpretation is; if you are a woman, and if you want to maintain control over your body....you vote for Barack Obama.

:dunno:


:wavey:

red

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 14:56
Well it's true sadly. The republican party and it's religious army insist that they know whats best for women.

tsmo1066
10-02-2012, 15:15
Well it's true sadly. The republican party and it's religious army insist that they know whats best for women.

Meanwhile, The Democrats insist that girls too young to even get a tattoo legally should be able to have invasive medical procedures done to them without their parent's knowledge or consent.

:whistling:

JoeCitizen
10-02-2012, 15:23
Well it's true sadly. The republican party and it's religious army insist that they know whats best for women.

Not so much insisting they know what's best for a woman. More like knowing death is a big negative thing for an unborn child. So the ecard thing is misleading. It's not the lady parts at stake, but the life the lady and man parts create. But, an unborn child can't vote so....

LASTRESORT20
10-02-2012, 15:30
Well it's true sadly. The republican party and it's religious army insist that they know whats best for women.


Truly sad The Democrates still dont "get" it....and make ignorant assumptions deceitful spin statements in general......Thats how leftist are....And Americans are aware of their deceit....The Leftist media is frantically putting up artificial polls....But...the narrative has changed.....oh....oh...



Friday's New Narrative is Already Old


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/10/02/friday_s_new_narrative_is_already_old

9jeeps
10-02-2012, 16:57
It isn't that the Reps don't believe the same as the Dems. The Reps are just sick and tired of Baby squirters who fall on the general public to pay their birthing and child support for life.

This isn't complicated folks

tsmo1066
10-02-2012, 17:01
It isn't that the Reps don't believe the same as the Dems. The Reps are just sick and tired of Baby squirters who fall on the general public to pay their birthing and child support for life.

This isn't complicated folks

No.

Many tens of millions of Americans believe that human life starts at conception and that an unborn child is more than just a lump of tissue, to be disposed of on a whim.

GLWyandotte
10-02-2012, 17:13
Not so much insisting they know what's best for a woman. More like knowing death is a big negative thing for an unborn child. So the ecard thing is misleading. It's not the lady parts at stake, but the life the lady and man parts create. But, an unborn child can't vote so....

Too bad they can't vote! Nearly 40 million dead babies would knock Obongo and Warf out of the white house.

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 17:48
It's not that I don't get it. I don't believe life starts until weeks after conception. So I have ZERO problem with destroying embryos. Now, 7 or 8 weeks in we have a problem.

tsmo1066
10-02-2012, 17:54
It's not that I don't get it. I don't believe life starts until weeks after conception. So I have ZERO problem with destroying embryos. Now, 7 or 8 weeks in we have a problem.

Most folks see it in shades of gray, as well.

I oppose partial birth abortion and later term abortions in general, as well as non-parental notification abortions for minors, but I do agree that women should be able to have an abortion outside of those restrictions.

I can also, however, at least understand those who feel that abortion is a form of murder. It's a tough issue all the way around.

aplcr0331
10-02-2012, 18:02
I think it's funny that liberals call cons anti science when talking about global climate change. Then when you point out that biologists and other scientist believe life begins at conception (and then say it's a social issue so they dont have to be stuck in the debate) all the sudden "that science is fuzzy" and such. I'm pro-choice, keep aborting all you want. The right kinds of people are getting abortions. Don't tell me its a bundle of tissues. Again, I'm pro-choice.

Restless28
10-02-2012, 18:04
I think it's funny that liberals call cons anti science when talking about global climate change. Then when you point out that biologists and other scientist believe life begins at conception (and then say it's a social issue so they dont have to be stuck in the debate) all the sudden "that science is fuzzy" and such. I'm pro-choice, keep aborting all you want. The right kinds of people are getting abortions. Don't tell me its a bundle of tissues. Again, I'm pro-choice.

You're a brave man. Prepare your flame suit.

KalashniKEV
10-02-2012, 18:07
It would make it much easier to vote Republican if they would give women the freedom to do as they choose with their bodies.

Angry Fist
10-02-2012, 18:07
Go tell your wimmen to make y'all some sammiches.

HollowHead
10-02-2012, 18:09
Most folks see it in shades of gray, as well.

I oppose partial birth abortion and later term abortions in general, as well as non-parental notification abortions for minors, but I do agree that women should be able to have an abortion outside of those restrictions.

I can also, however, at least understand those who feel that abortion is a form of murder. It's a tough issue all the way around.

And this is exactly why if you feel that it is murder, you do not have an abortion. HH

KalashniKEV
10-02-2012, 18:11
Then when you point out that biologists and other scientist believe life begins at conception...


There are no scientists who say life begins at conception.

Assigning a public personality to a blastula, a gastrula, or even an embryo is sick and weird. I have more cells living at the bottom of my laundry hamper.

Restless28
10-02-2012, 18:12
There are no scientists who say life begins at conception.

Assigning a public personality to a blastula, a gastrula, or even an embryo is sick and weird. I have more cells living at the bottom of my laundry hamper.

Don your flame suit. :supergrin:

GLWyandotte
10-02-2012, 18:13
It would make it much easier to vote Republican if they would give women the freedom to do as they choose with their bodies.

Give them freedom?
They have it, courtesy of liberal democraps.
Freedom of choice isn't about free birth control (which they have) it isn't about access to mammograms and Pap smears, it's about the ability to choose to end the life of a living baby.

jp3975
10-02-2012, 18:14
Either way, the president cant ban abortion.

tsmo1066
10-02-2012, 18:16
And this is exactly why if you feel that it is murder, you do not have an abortion. HH

That's like saying that if you think child rape is wrong, just don't rape children and leave it at that.

Sorry, but those who are opposed to an act and feel it victimizes someone who can't speak for or defend themselves have every moral and legal right to oppose it and try to get legislation changed.

vikingsoftpaw
10-02-2012, 18:18
It isn't that the Reps don't believe the same as the Dems. The Reps are just sick and tired of Baby squirters who fall on the general public to pay their birthing and child support for life.

This isn't complicated folks

Word ^^^

GAFinch
10-02-2012, 18:19
And this is exactly why if you feel that it is murder, you do not have an abortion. HH

When Obamacare's abortion mandate kicks in, everyone will be forced to pay for people to get "free" abortions. Every health provider will be forced to offer them. There will no longer be a live and let live stance on the issue.

RDW
10-02-2012, 18:19
SIMPLE ANWSER to this issue - If you don't want to pay for Birth Conrtol KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER! :faint: :faint: :faint:

tsmo1066
10-02-2012, 18:22
There are no scientists who say life begins at conception.


Not true. In fact, many of the world's leading geneticists and biologists have testified before Congress that not only does life begin at conception, but that there is no other viable scientific definition for what constitutes the beginning of a human life.

http://www.humanlife.org/abortion_scientists_attest.php

Modern science is as split on this issue as the rest of us.

CanMan
10-02-2012, 18:30
Didn't blow my Kilt up...... just more political pandering.

KalashniKEV
10-02-2012, 18:46
http://www.humanlife.org/abortion_scientists_attest.php

Modern science is as split on this issue as the rest of us.

Hmmmm... an anti-Choice think tank, huh?

:rofl:

I'm talking about REAL science! Not creationist, clumpy's-name-is-Jessica, we-found-Noah's-Ark science...

:upeyes:

Clutch Cargo
10-02-2012, 18:47
Go tell your wimmen to make y'all some sammiches.

And bring beer...lots and lots of beer.

KalashniKEV
10-02-2012, 18:50
Give them freedom?
They have it, courtesy of liberal democraps.

And there you have it- I am about protecting freedom AT ALL COSTS. The partisan aspect means nothing to me. I will not squander what freedom any of my fellow Americans have to live in some radical right-wing Christian moralist's ***** control sharia fantasy.

Not happening. Same as a ban on guns, BIG SODA, or smoking.
(I only partake in one of the three)

tsmo1066
10-02-2012, 18:51
Hmmmm... an anti-Choice think tank, huh?

:rofl:

I'm talking about REAL science! Not creationist, clumpy's-name-is-Jessica, we-found-Noah's-Ark science...

:upeyes:

Read the citations and who they are from.

Regardless of the orientation of the website (very hard to find a neutral site on the abortion topic), the congressional testimony they cite lists the doctors, biologists and geneticists who made the statements.

It simply isn't true to state as fact that there are no credible scientists who believe life starts at conception. It is, in fact, a very mixed field and some of the top authorities on genetics and biology firmly believe that life DOES start at conception.

AK_Stick
10-02-2012, 18:52
When Obamacare's abortion mandate kicks in, everyone will be forced to pay for people to get "free" abortions. Every health provider will be forced to offer them. There will no longer be a live and let live stance on the issue.




Sure there is, you still don't have to get one if you don't want one.

el_jewapo
10-02-2012, 19:53
I'm really tired of this abortion issue. It's never going to change. Why is it always so high on the political priority list?

I admit I'm going to pull this little statistic directly from my ass. But I'm so sure of it, I'd bet money. I'm sure that the abortion rates have steadily risen since Roe vs. Wade without so much as a blip on the line with the different presidents. Republican or Democrat, there are more abortions carried out during their term than the last president (with a little wiggle room for 1 term presidents). There were more abortions during the Bush years than the Clinton years, and there will be more during the Obama years than the Bush years. There will be more in the next presidents reign than with Obama. Maybe someone not so lazy will chime in to prove me wrong. But I doubt it. The abortion issue needs to be dropped from presidential elections.

gjk5
10-02-2012, 20:20
It would make it much easier to vote Republican if they would give women the freedom to do as they choose with their bodies.

They do have the choice to NOT get pregnant don't they?

I am not religious, nor am I a pro-lifer, but please, let's be honest here.

The bottom line is that IN GENERAL stupid people get pregnant unintentionally, and stupid people get abortions. All in all it tends to work out OK with it reducing the amount of stupid people, but let's call a spade a spade.

Aborting an unwanted fetus/embryo/child whatever is a seriously lame way to deal with an easily preventable problem.

RenoF250
10-02-2012, 20:22
Read the citations and who they are from.

Regardless of the orientation of the website (very hard to find a neutral site on the abortion topic), the congressional testimony they cite lists the doctors, biologists and geneticists who made the statements.

It simply isn't true to state as fact that there are no credible scientists who believe life starts at conception. It is, in fact, a very mixed field and some of the top authorities on genetics and biology firmly believe that life DOES start at conception.

And it is a fact the a fetus can survive after 6 months and by all definition is a life from that point on but the pro-choice people will not admit that either. Some garbage about well it could not survive on its own. A 5 YEAR OLD CAN"T LIVE ON THEIR OWN EITHER YOU MORONS!!

Abortion is for the convenience of the idiots. Birth control works and when it don't you know within a month and can "abort" with black cohosh or the like.

Someone explain the logic that allows the woman to decide to go to term and make the man pay child support but if she wants to abort he has no say???????

RenoF250
10-02-2012, 20:24
They do have the choice to NOT get pregnant don't they?

I am not religious, nor am I a pro-lifer, but please, let's be honest here.

The bottom line is that IN GENERAL stupid people get pregnant unintentionally, and stupid people get abortions. All in all it tends to work out OK with it reducing the amount of stupid people, but let's call a spade a spade.

Aborting an unwanted fetus/embryo/child whatever is a seriously lame way to deal with an easily preventable problem.

Wow, some of the most clear and direct writing I have seen.

gjk5
10-02-2012, 20:30
Someone explain the logic that allows the woman to decide to go to term and make the man pay child support but if she wants to abort he has no say???????

don't be silly, the man has no choice in the matter of course.

this follows the line of complete garbage logic the left uses to justify killing for convenience. By all rights the two have equal genetic material involved, logically a man should be able to say "I hereby absolve myself of any responsibility for that child, otherwise gimme back my sperms or forget yer child support".

It doesn't really matter though, the huge majority of the time Uncle Sugar ends up being the baby daddy.

mj9mm
10-02-2012, 20:31
It's not that I don't get it. I don't believe life starts until weeks after conception. So I have ZERO problem with destroying embryos. Now, 7 or 8 weeks in we have a problem.

interesting, do you pick the amount of time using science, or is it arbitrary?

The Maggy
10-02-2012, 20:34
When Obamacare's abortion mandate kicks in, everyone will be forced to pay for people to get "free" abortions. Every health provider will be forced to offer them. There will no longer be a live and let live stance on the issue.

I'm not sure what your idea of abortion is or medical practice in general; but it isn't like baking cookies.

The people that have the know how and the equipment to carry out abortions are currently doing so. The people that are not currently offering abortions either don't have the equipment or they don't have the know how. That is never going to change.

You can pay for:
A) an abortion
B) food stamps, school lunch, medical care, housing, ect for a period of 18 years+ years.

personally, from a purely political/economical standpoint... I'd choose option A.

ArtificialGrape
10-02-2012, 20:49
I'm really tired of this abortion issue. It's never going to change. Why is it always so high on the political priority list?

I admit I'm going to pull this little statistic directly from my ass. But I'm so sure of it, I'd bet money. I'm sure that the abortion rates have steadily risen since Roe vs. Wade without so much as a blip on the line with the different presidents. Republican or Democrat, there are more abortions carried out during their term than the last president (with a little wiggle room for 1 term presidents). There were more abortions during the Bush years than the Clinton years, and there will be more during the Obama years than the Bush years. There will be more in the next presidents reign than with Obama. Maybe someone not so lazy will chime in to prove me wrong. But I doubt it. The abortion issue needs to be dropped from presidential elections.

You would lose money on that bet. The abortion rate climbed through the 70s, but has been dropping steadily since 1980 -- from the graph there does appear to be a slight increase around 89-90.

29 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 in 1980 down to 20 abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 in 2004. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202831.html)

-ArtificialGrape

jp3975
10-02-2012, 20:57
You would think Christians wouldnt mind abortion so much. Think of all the souls spared the fate of burning in Hell.

F350
10-02-2012, 20:59
Originally Posted by Angry Fist
Go tell your wimmen to make y'all some sammiches.

And bring beer...lots and lots of beer.

Ya; and have it opened when you hand it to me!!!

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 21:09
I think it's funny that liberals call cons anti science when talking about global climate change. Then when you point out that biologists and other scientist believe life begins at conception (and then say it's a social issue so they dont have to be stuck in the debate) all the sudden "that science is fuzzy" and such. I'm pro-choice, keep aborting all you want. The right kinds of people are getting abortions. Don't tell me its a bundle of tissues. Again, I'm pro-choice.

Both sides make gross generalizations. Like the one you just made.

I'm a biologist and I don't believe that life begins at conception.

There is no brain activity until 40ish days after conception. So I defer to the philosophy:

"I think, therefore I am." ~Descartes

Life starts when you think your first thought IMO.

The really amusing thing here is: Making abortion illegal is like creating a gun free zone. If somebody wants to do it, it's going to happen. Protestant women in early America used to dump illegitimate newborns in the trash piles and toilet holes to avoid judgment from the community. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 21:16
Not true. In fact, many of the world's leading geneticists and biologists have testified before Congress that not only does life begin at conception, but that there is no other viable scientific definition for what constitutes the beginning of a human life.

http://www.humanlife.org/abortion_scientists_attest.php

Modern science is as split on this issue as the rest of us.

If you are using the same definition for life that you assign to Escherichia coli then yes.

Since humans are a more complicated species than arguably any other on the planet, I think we deserve a more evolved definition of life.

Angry Fist
10-02-2012, 21:50
Since humans are a more complicated species than arguably any other on the planet, I think we deserve a more evolved definition of life.
So give life the benefit of the doubt? There are alternatives to abortion. Every soul deserves a chance.

tsmo1066
10-02-2012, 21:50
If you are using the same definition for life that you assign to Escherichia coli then yes.

Since humans are a more complicated species than arguably any other on the planet, I think we deserve a more evolved definition of life.

As you know, when it comes to humans there are four main schools of thought on this. There is the neurological view, which it sounds like you are espousing, that says "personhood" (if not actual human life) begins with brainwave activity, then there is the embryologic view, which holds that life begins with gastrulation at about 14-17 days after conception. There is also the genetic view, which holds that human life starts at conception when a novel genome is created, and rounding the field out is the at-or-near-birth view which goes by the standard of viability outside the womb.

While you may privately hold that the neurological view is the correct one (please correct me if I am wrong on your beliefs here), there is no denying that a great many biologists, geneticists and doctors hold with the other schools of thought, especially the genetic and embryological schools. There is simply too much congressional testimony, white papers and published research from leading experts in these disciplines to deny that such is the case.

As I have said, it is a very split field, and I'm not attempting to state which school of thought is "right". Hell, the scientists themselves don't agree on it, but to argue as kalashnikev did that NO scientists believe human life starts at conception is simply wrong.

podwich
10-02-2012, 21:51
Vote like your economic livelihood depended on it...because it kinda does.

GAFinch
10-02-2012, 21:58
I'm not sure what your idea of abortion is or medical practice in general; but it isn't like baking cookies.

The people that have the know how and the equipment to carry out abortions are currently doing so. The people that are not currently offering abortions either don't have the equipment or they don't have the know how. That is never going to change.

You can pay for:
A) an abortion
B) food stamps, school lunch, medical care, housing, ect for a period of 18 years+ years.

personally, from a purely political/economical standpoint... I'd choose option A.

Not true. Religious hospitals and clinics can choose not to offer abortions.

Abortion as a cost-saving plan for society is a fallacy since 1 million legal immigrants and 1-2 million illegal immigrants are brought into this country each year to make up for the low birth rate of our native citizens. While immigration is supposed to be focused on bringing in somewhat qualified people, nowadays only 1% of legal immigrant applications are denied due to lack of potential self-sustainability.

Cali-Glock
10-02-2012, 22:00
Well it's true sadly. The republican party and it's religious army insist that they know whats best for women.

So you advocate stealing my money to pay for some else to murder children? That what the debate is about.

AirCav
10-02-2012, 22:05
Read the citations and who they are from.

Regardless of the orientation of the website (very hard to find a neutral site on the abortion topic), the congressional testimony they cite lists the doctors, biologists and geneticists who made the statements.

It simply isn't true to state as fact that there are no credible scientists who believe life starts at conception. It is, in fact, a very mixed field and some of the top authorities on genetics and biology firmly believe that life DOES start at conception.

As you know, when it comes to humans there are four main schools of thought on this. There is the neurological view, which it sounds like you are espousing, that says "personhood" (if not actual human life) begins with brainwave activity, then there is the embryologic view, which holds that life begins with gastrulation at about 14-17 days after conception. There is also the genetic view, which holds that human life starts at conception when a novel genome is created, and rounding the field out is the at-or-near-birth view which goes by the standard of viability outside the womb.

While you may privately hold that the neurological view is the correct one (please correct me if I am wrong on your beliefs here), there is no denying that a great many biologists, geneticists and doctors hold with the other schools of thought, especially the genetic and embryological schools. There is simply too much congressional testimony, white papers and published research from leading experts in these disciplines to deny that such is the case.

As I have said, it is a very split field, and I'm not attempting to state which school of thought is "right". Hell, the scientists themselves don't agree on it, but to argue as kalashnikev did that NO scientists believe human life starts at conception is simply wrong.
But how can you expect anyone to consider your measured and reasoned responses credible without any "rolley eyes" or "rolling on the floor laughing" emoticons? Are you new at this?

gotin
10-02-2012, 22:26
For some reason everybody likes banning things. How about offering incentives to keep the babies if that is the big deal?
If those women are offered prenatal care and then families that will adopt the child, I'm sure many will chose to do it.
And since when bans work? How many women died or got hurt during illegal abortions before they were legalized?
BTW, I'd rather pay for condoms or abortions than house the unwanted child in various juvenile and adult correction facilities. Because that's where most of these kids will end up if they are born.

Angry Fist
10-02-2012, 22:28
For some reason everybody likes banning things. How about offering incentives to keep the babies if that is the big deal?
If those women are offered prenatal care and then families that will adopt the child, I'm sure many will chose to do it.
And since when bans work? How many women died or got hurt during illegal abortions before they were legalized?
BTW, I'd rather pay for condoms or abortions than house the unwanted child in various juvenile and adult correction facilities. Because that's where most of these kids will end up if they are born.
These ho's are trying to keep it tight. Life goes downhill if they fail. Occupational hazards.

Mushinto
10-02-2012, 22:50
I do not believe abortion is moral, but it's a dead issue.

The Supreme Court created the right of a woman to have an abortion and banned states from preventing it. There is no appeal, it's over.

Pro life groups should lobby, march and provide education to try and convince woman not to have one, but as far as banning abortion it's a dead issue.

Let's move on.

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 23:03
As you know, when it comes to humans there are four main schools of thought on this. There is the neurological view, which it sounds like you are espousing, that says "personhood" (if not actual human life) begins with brainwave activity, then there is the embryologic view, which holds that life begins with gastrulation at about 14-17 days after conception. There is also the genetic view, which holds that human life starts at conception when a novel genome is created, and rounding the field out is the at-or-near-birth view which goes by the standard of viability outside the womb.

While you may privately hold that the neurological view is the correct one (please correct me if I am wrong on your beliefs here), there is no denying that a great many biologists, geneticists and doctors hold with the other schools of thought, especially the genetic and embryological schools. There is simply too much congressional testimony, white papers and published research from leading experts in these disciplines to deny that such is the case.

As I have said, it is a very split field, and I'm not attempting to state which school of thought is "right". Hell, the scientists themselves don't agree on it, but to argue as kalashnikev did that NO scientists believe human life starts at conception is simply wrong.

I don't know of any esteemed or credible ones personaly, but i'm sure you will find some out there. In my field we call them outliers :tongueout:. But seriously, yes there are some out there.

However, I don't see you jumping on the generalization that Kalishnikev was quoting.

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 23:12
So give life the benefit of the doubt? There are alternatives to abortion. Every soul deserves a chance.

Would it be crazy of me to think that souls, if they exist, don't occur until a human is old enough to think?

Whats the point of having a soul if you can't think.

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 23:20
interesting, do you pick the amount of time using science, or is it arbitrary?

Yes. it's called an EEG. It measures brain activity.

Angry Fist
10-02-2012, 23:34
Would it be crazy of me to think that souls, if they exist, don't occur until a human is old enough to think?

Whats the point of having a soul if you can't think.
Just needs a little time.

Foxtrotx1
10-02-2012, 23:42
Just needs a little time.

At least we are not debating on whether or not viruses are alive.

Angry Fist
10-02-2012, 23:48
I'm sure viruses don't think, but have a hell of an impact on those who do. Ain't life funny? :cheers:

Foxtrotx1
10-03-2012, 01:46
I'm sure viruses don't think, but have a hell of an impact on those who do. Ain't life funny? :cheers:

:rofl:true. They have impacted society more than get credit for.

Interesting correlation, and further thread derail, near passing of comets and outbreaks of plague, coincidence or evidence of panspermia?

DanaT
10-03-2012, 06:02
No matter what the GT braintrust thinks, this a topic that by an large women side with Obama on. I think you will find that a very high (i would suspect close to 75%) of women will be more on the side of the Dems than the Repub when it comes to reproductive issues.

There are some mainstream religions who (read catholic) who believe contraception is immoral and if they could would force their beliefs on the rest of the country.

And everyone who says women should just learn to keep their legs together and this wouldnt happen, what say you about cases of rape? Should a woman, through no choice of her own, became pregnant be forced to have the baby? After all, if she had just not made the choices she did....

What do you say about abortion when the mother and baby are at risk of dying and the baby is not yet developed enough to survive (this does happen). We (as in humans) make choices all the time that other humans shouldnt live or being in society for the benefit of others. We execute these people, throw them in jail.

I have often wondered, how can someone be for execution and against abortion on moral grounds. Killing someone who isnt an direct threat to your life (for example someone on death row) is murder its just murder than is justified by society. This means that anyone who can justify executions by definition believes that murder is acceptable given the correct set of conditions. After this, it is just arguing what those conditions are. I would think if you are opposed to murder, your are opposed to murder.

All in all, this is a winning slogan for Obama to get female votes.

kensb2
10-03-2012, 06:35
You can argue this issue until you're blue in the face, and probably well beyond that. What gets me is that Planned Parenthood received almost half a billion dollars in tax payer monies. As of now, you have the legal right to have an abortion. Why, however, should I be paying for your mistake? Pay for your own abortion! Or get the guy to pay for it.

frank4570
10-03-2012, 06:48
You can argue this issue until you're blue in the face, and probably well beyond that. What gets me is that Planned Parenthood received almost half a billion dollars in tax payer monies. As of now, you have the legal right to have an abortion. Why, however, should I be paying for your mistake? Pay for your own abortion! Or get the guy to pay for it.

Just looking at the money, paying for an abortion is WAY cheaper than paying for a new welfare recipient.

kensb2
10-03-2012, 07:06
Just looking at the money, paying for an abortion is WAY cheaper than paying for a new welfare recipient.

Personally, I'd rather pay for neither....

frank4570
10-03-2012, 07:12
Personally, I'd rather pay for neither....

There is a ton of stuff I'd rather not pay for. That isn't really working out for me.

DanaT
10-03-2012, 07:13
Personally, I'd rather pay for neither....

There are lot of things I would not to pay for.....doesnt make it reality...

redbaron007
10-03-2012, 07:15
...snip...


I have often wondered, how can someone be for execution and against abortion on moral grounds. Killing someone who isnt an direct threat to your life (for example someone on death row) is murder its just murder than is justified by society. This means that anyone who can justify executions by definition believes that murder is acceptable given the correct set of conditions. After this, it is just arguing what those conditions are. I would think if you are opposed to murder, your are opposed to murder.

All in all, this is a winning slogan for Obama to get female votes.

I believe your interchanging of murder and killing is possibly the confusion. In your example of killing a death row inmate, this person committed a crime against society that has been determined punishment is by death.... a cause and effect. The killing of a baby, who has not committed any crime against society, is terminated, killed, murdered. Just remember, murder is unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of a human being.

There are some who don't like it either way. I don't side with them. I'm a firm believer in paying your debt to society after one has inflicted their damage to society.

I'm personally against the killing of a baby for convenience.

:wavey:

red

KalashniKEV
10-03-2012, 07:16
Abortion is for the convenience of the idiots. Birth control works and when it don't you know within a month and can "abort" with black cohosh or the like.

Todd Aiken... is that YOU???

:rofl:

I had to google it, but "Black Cohosh" is a dietary supplement that might have some effect in treating hot flashes in menopausal women.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/BlackCohosh-HealthProfessional/

Did you think it was Plan B??

Someone explain the logic that allows the woman to decide to go to term and make the man pay child support but if she wants to abort he has no say???????

You need someone to explain... the logic?

Because it's her lady parts.

Next question...


For some reason everybody likes banning things. How about offering incentives to keep the babies if that is the big deal?

How about the government just STFU and lets people do what they want without interference. This would apply to their actions as well as their bodies. Yeah... that's a good idea! :cool:

frank4570
10-03-2012, 07:17
I do not believe abortion is moral, but it's a dead issue.

The Supreme Court created the right of a woman to have an abortion and banned states from preventing it. There is no appeal, it's over.

Pro life groups should lobby, march and provide education to try and convince woman not to have one, but as far as banning abortion it's a dead issue.

Let's move on.

You're right. But there are some people who are never going to stop trying to make abortion illegal by whatever way possible. And those people are in the republican party.
Just like the anti-gunners are never going to stop, and they joined the democrats.

DanaT
10-03-2012, 07:24
Just remember, murder is unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of a human being.

By yoru definition of murder, then neither would be murder since abortion is not unlawful, it isnt murder. It is lawful killing just like a self defense shooting or execution.

dbcooper
10-03-2012, 07:46
They do have the choice to NOT get pregnant don't they?

I am not religious, nor am I a pro-lifer, but please, let's be honest here.

The bottom line is that IN GENERAL stupid people get pregnant unintentionally, and stupid people get abortions. All in all it tends to work out OK with it reducing the amount of stupid people, but let's call a spade a spade.

Aborting an unwanted fetus/embryo/child whatever is a seriously lame way to deal with an easily preventable problem.

Birth control can and does fail, I have a set of 7yr olds that were born in spite of the fact that the Mrs. took the pill like clockwork.

redbaron007
10-03-2012, 08:03
By yoru definition of murder, then neither would be murder since abortion is not unlawful, it isnt murder. It is lawful killing just like a self defense shooting or execution.

^^^
Bingo!

In addition, that's why I phrased my comments as I am against killing a baby for convenience.

Currently, our laws allow the killing of a baby/fetus in the womb.


:wavey:

red

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 08:18
SIMPLE ANWSER to this issue - If you don't want to pay for Birth Conrtol KEEP YOUR LEGS TOGETHER! :faint: :faint: :faint:

Pretty simple.

Or use birth control.

Just don't ask me to pay for it.

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 08:34
No matter what the GT braintrust thinks, this a topic that by an large women side with Obama on. I think you will find that a very high (i would suspect close to 75%) of women will be more on the side of the Dems than the Repub when it comes to reproductive issues.

There are some mainstream religions who (read catholic) who believe contraception is immoral and if they could would force their beliefs on the rest of the country.

And everyone who says women should just learn to keep their legs together and this wouldnt happen, what say you about cases of rape? Should a woman, through no choice of her own, became pregnant be forced to have the baby? After all, if she had just not made the choices she did....

What do you say about abortion when the mother and baby are at risk of dying and the baby is not yet developed enough to survive (this does happen). We (as in humans) make choices all the time that other humans shouldnt live or being in society for the benefit of others. We execute these people, throw them in jail.

I have often wondered, how can someone be for execution and against abortion on moral grounds. Killing someone who isnt an direct threat to your life (for example someone on death row) is murder its just murder than is justified by society. This means that anyone who can justify executions by definition believes that murder is acceptable given the correct set of conditions. After this, it is just arguing what those conditions are. I would think if you are opposed to murder, your are opposed to murder.

All in all, this is a winning slogan for Obama to get female votes.


Rape is simple to handle:

Victim carries baby until term and puts baby up for adoption if she chooses. Rapist pays for 100% of the pregnant woman's care. If he doesn't have enough money, his organs are harvested and sold to make up the difference.

Problem solved. :cool:

(I despise rapists and consider them sub-human btw).

In reality though rape and incest are a very small percentage of abortions (I've heard less than 1%). I could agree with a system where abortions are sanctioned in the cases you named (especially since a rape is going to be handled very early I would think) - this includes the cases where the mother's life is at risk.

It just sickens me that people think they can have an abortion just because having a baby is "inconvenient." I also get sick of people intentionally having children out of wedlock. However, that is a moral issue and not really the government's problem to handle. In reality they both are outside of defining abortion as murder or not.

What it comes down to is, as a society, we have decided that actions should not have consequences. This is fundamentally wrong. Anything you do - from buying a car to driving to work to having sex out of wedlock can have ramifications and consequences.

A lot of this gets simpler if we could be sure when a baby is indeed "alive." If it is at 14 days, then most of the issues with rape go away since the "abortion pill" could be administered well before then.

tsmo1066
10-03-2012, 08:34
No matter what the GT braintrust thinks, this a topic that by an large women side with Obama on. I think you will find that a very high (i would suspect close to 75%) of women will be more on the side of the Dems than the Repub when it comes to reproductive issues.

Actually, America as a whole has been swinging to the "Pro-life" side of the issue over the past few years and a majority of Americans now identify themselves as "pro-life" - this includes a majority of WOMEN who now identify as "pro-life" as well.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

Many Democrats CLAIM to speak for women on this issue, but in typical fashion they don't bother to check with the women first to see what they might actually think.

:wavey:

gjk5
10-03-2012, 08:38
And everyone who says women should just learn to keep their legs together and this wouldnt happen, what say you about cases of rape? Should a woman, through no choice of her own, became pregnant be forced to have the baby? After all, if she had just not made the choices she did....

What do you say about abortion when the mother and baby are at risk of dying and the baby is not yet developed enough to survive (this does happen). We (as in humans) make choices all the time that other humans shouldnt live or being in society for the benefit of others. We execute these people, throw them in jail.


All of the above is why I said IN GENERAL. Those instances are miniscule in relation to the percentage of abortions for convenience. And for the record I am not pro-life, I do not believe it should be illegal.

I just believe it should be stigmatized as the sleazy, lazy, cheap way out that it is.


You need someone to explain... the logic?

Because it's her lady parts.

Next question...


Perfect. Since she holds sole decision making over her sooper speshul "lady parts", then she can take sole responsiblility for those decisions, NO?

Birth control can and does fail, I have a set of 7yr olds that were born in spite of the fact that the Mrs. took the pill like clockwork.

Again: IN GENERAL.

Gareth68
10-03-2012, 08:43
How many of you pro-lifers have adopted your very own little ghetto crackbaby?

Stand by your convictions.

Save a child.

tsmo1066
10-03-2012, 08:49
How many of you pro-lifers have adopted your very own little ghetto crackbaby?

Stand by your convictions.

Save a child.

Nationally there are actually waiting lists to adopt such children, waiting lists that can last for up to FIVE YEARS.

Why do you think celebrities and others with money go to Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa to adopt kids? It's because there are so many people ahead of them in line to adopt American babies (even special needs babies).

Gareth68
10-03-2012, 09:00
Nationally there are actually waiting lists to adopt such children, waiting lists that can last for up to FIVE YEARS.

Why do you think celebrities and others with money go to Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa to adopt kids? It's because there are so many people ahead of them in line to adopt American babies (even special needs babies).

So, I assume y'all are on the list then?

KalashniKEV
10-03-2012, 09:09
What it comes down to is, as a society, we have decided that actions should not have consequences. This is fundamentally wrong. Anything you do - from buying a car to driving to work to having sex out of wedlock can have ramifications and consequences.

Thanks for being honest- so a child should exist as a punishment for having sex, a daily wage garnishment for a bad decision, and wanted by no one. That must be part of that "Christian Love" thing, right?

If it is at 14 days, then most of the issues with rape go away since the "abortion pill" could be administered well before then.

Plan B is actually a very high dose of hormones, and works very similar to birth control. To call it an "abortion pill" makes you look stupid. (which is why you used quotes, I assume)

Perfect. Since she holds sole decision making over her sooper speshul "lady parts", then she can take sole responsiblility for those decisions, NO?


Why do you hate women? Did your mother not love you?

Get therapy.

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 09:24
Thanks for being honest- so a child should exist as a punishment for having sex, a daily wage garnishment for a bad decision, and wanted by no one. That must be part of that "Christian Love" thing, right?

Holy crap you misunderstand.

If you have unprotected sex a child could result. That's they way it is. Just like if you drive a car you could get in a wreck and be seriously hurt. If you get in a wreck you may have months of rehab. If you get pregnant you may have to deal with a pregnancy for 9 months (at which time there is a long list of people waiting to adopt kids). The point I was making is that, as a society we have decided that, rather than take a look at the things that cause these issues (unprotected sex as an example) we decided to make "quick fixes" rather than look at our behavior.

Many consider a child a blessing instead of a "consequence" but I'm guessing you won't find many of those in the local abortion clinic.

For the record, I hold the men in these situations just as culpable as the women, for what it's worth.

Do I expect people to suddenly stop having sex out of wedlock? No, but they should take precautions and understand what could happen. I should not have to pay for the precautions and organizations that do not believe in these precautions (such as the Roman Catholic Church, which even as a Christian I dispise as an organization BTW) certainly should not be forced to pay for them.

And I have no idea what the "abortion pill" is called. That is the name I have heard it called, but that is why I put it in quotes. What it is called is irrelevant to me.

In the end though Mushinto is right - this is a dead issue. No change is coming.

gjk5
10-03-2012, 09:26
Why do you hate women? Did your mother not love you?

Get therapy.

so being logical is hating women? you can't have it both ways, don't be a hypocrite.

HexHead
10-03-2012, 09:32
It would make it much easier to vote Republican if they would give women the freedom to do as they choose with their bodies.

It ceases to be "their bodies" as soon as another life form starts multiplying cells inside.

HexHead
10-03-2012, 09:36
Where are the feminazis with Dems objectifying women's body parts like this? They should be outraged.

gjk5
10-03-2012, 09:44
It ceases to be "their bodies" as soon as another life form starts multiplying cells inside.

no, apparently it ceases to be "their body" as soon as it becomes inconvenient to argue it that way.

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 09:45
It ceases to be "their bodies" as soon as another life form starts multiplying cells inside.

I've been saying that for years.

RenoF250
10-03-2012, 09:45
The whole "it is her lady parts so her decision" logic is ridiculous. The question is, is it a life or not. You can try to debate the subtleties pre-3rd trimester but babies have been born late 2nd and lived. THEY ARE VIABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB AND THEREFORE A LIFE BY ANY NON MORONS DEFINITION. If you "abort" at that point or beyond you are a murderer of you own child plain and simple. I don't like to stand around and let you kill children so you can make your decision on your lady parts because you are too lazy/stupid to take proper care to prevent pregnancy. If birth control fails deal with it in the first 2 months!! If you cannot do that you are stuck carrying to term, deal with it.

Are you pro-choicers aware that there are women that purposely get pregnant to have an abortion "to empower themselves as a woman". We had to read an essay in college about a woman who first got pregnant at ~14 and then purposely ~4 more times because it empowered her. What a turd.

G36's Rule
10-03-2012, 09:56
The whole abortion issue is a sad card trick the liberals play that the morons latch on to like a baby on a tit.

How many Republican administrations have we had since Roe vs. Wade? How many times has abortion been banned nationally?

It is a non-issue used to spook the less than intelligent.

Foxtrotx1
10-03-2012, 10:09
Well it is cheaper to pay for an abortion than to support a kid. Could save some tax dollars this way.

Foxtrotx1
10-03-2012, 10:10
The whole abortion issue is a sad card trick the liberals play that the morons latch on to like a baby on a tit.

How many Republican administrations have we had since Roe vs. Wade? How many times has abortion been banned nationally?

It is a non-issue used to spook the less than intelligent.

Then why do republicans get so their panties up in a wad and make it a fore front issue in almost every election?

G36's Rule
10-03-2012, 10:24
They don't. And I would bet that most of the Republican candidates wish the very vocal minority would STFU about it.

RenoF250
10-03-2012, 10:28
Well it is cheaper to pay for an abortion than to support a kid. Could save some tax dollars this way.

Yes, it would be cheaper to kill all unemployed/welfare/handicapped as well. Shall we do that?

RenoF250
10-03-2012, 10:29
Then why do republicans get so their panties up in a wad and make it a fore front issue in almost every election?

Please give us an example where a R brought up abortion and made it an issue. I have only seen them respond to abortion questions in debates and most tiptoe around that. Ron Paul is the exception and has made it an issue.

Gareth68
10-03-2012, 10:35
Yes, it would be cheaper to kill all unemployed/welfare/handicapped as well. Shall we do that?

Lets star with welfare, and see how it goes.


:whistling:

KalashniKEV
10-03-2012, 11:04
If you have unprotected sex a child could result. That's they way it is. Just like if you drive a car you could get in a wreck and be seriously hurt.

OK... but if you could end crippling car accidents for a relatively small sum of money, wouldn't you want as many car accident victims to have access to that as possible?

Or would it give you pleasure to see their ruined, maimed, and twisted bodies- so long as you don't ever become one?

It ceases to be "their bodies" as soon as another life form starts multiplying cells inside.

Another reason why it's GOOD to be a male- you never lose the right to your own body!

:rofl:

(you were just joking, right?)

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 11:08
OK... but if you could end crippling car accidents for a relatively small sum of money, wouldn't you want as many car accident victims to have access to that as possible?

Or would it give you pleasure to see their ruined, maimed, and twisted bodies- so long as you don't ever become one?





Nicely played straw man!!!

That actually plays into my argument. Prevent the unwanted pregnancy. Don't do the "cheap fix" later that is morally questionable (at best).

ArtificialGrape
10-03-2012, 11:18
Actually, America as a whole has been swinging to the "Pro-life" side of the issue over the past few years and a majority of Americans now identify themselves as "pro-life" - this includes a majority of WOMEN who now identify as "pro-life" as well.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

If you read the article that you linked to you will see that your characterization of "America as a whole" is false -- Republicans (and those leaning Republican) have become more pro-life.

The source of the shift in abortion views is clear in the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey. The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves "pro-life" rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

-ArtificialGrape

KalashniKEV
10-03-2012, 11:25
Nicely played straw man!!!

That actually plays into my argument. Prevent the unwanted pregnancy. Don't do the "cheap fix" later that is morally questionable (at best).

Your argument is rather poorly thought out.

So long as cars are on the road, there are going to be accidents.

So long as people have genitals, they are going to have sex.

I'm talking about the remedy for adverse consequences.



You sound like you'd be a proponent of FGM... :shocked:

fnfalman
10-03-2012, 11:31
I am not anti-abortion. I think there are too many people in the world already.

However, as a man, I vehemently oppose to the idea that a woman can do whatever they want with the fetus/embryo/kid/ without the father's involvement.

"It's my body and I can kill the pregnancy off if I want to" OK, fine. But then when you want to keep it, don't expect me to pay for child support either because I have no say-so either way.

gjk5
10-03-2012, 11:49
Your argument is rather poorly thought out.

So long as cars are on the road, there are going to be accidents.

So long as people have genitals, they are going to have sex.

I'm talking about the remedy for adverse consequences.



You sound like you'd be a proponent of FGM... :shocked:

They could choose to use a condom (or use some type of other BC), just like smart drivers use a seatbelt. After all, if you KNOW there could be adverse consequences, how stupid do you have to be to NOT try and avoid them?

tsmo1066
10-03-2012, 11:49
So, I assume y'all are on the list then?

"Assume" whatever you choose. My children are none of your business.

tsmo1066
10-03-2012, 11:53
If you read the article that you linked to you will see that your characterization of "America as a whole" is false -- Republicans (and those leaning Republican) have become more pro-life.

The source of the shift in abortion views is clear in the Gallup Values and Beliefs survey. The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) calling themselves "pro-life" rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

-ArtificialGrape

They are simply mentioning the source for the shift. That doesn't change the fact that the majority of ALL Americans are pro-life.

It wasn't a "Republicans Only" or "Democrats Only" poll, but a nationwide opinion poll, and it found that the majority of Americans, to include a majority of all American WOMEN, oppose abortion.

Restless28
10-03-2012, 12:15
It's tough to support the death penalty and be anti-choice.

That seems like a tough conflict.

G36's Rule
10-03-2012, 12:38
It's tough to support the death penalty and be anti-choice.

That seems like a tough conflict.

Ridiculous.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

Dragoon189
10-03-2012, 12:54
Meanwhile, The Democrats insist that girls too young to even get a tattoo legally should be able to have invasive medical procedures done to them without their parent's knowledge or consent.

:whistling:

Don't forget that the Dems seem to claim that they know better than you about every other aspect of your life :tongueout:

fnfalman
10-03-2012, 13:00
Don't forget that the Dems seem to claim that they know better than you about every other aspect of your life :tongueout:

I thought that's the Pubs too?

You get one coming and the other one going.

Vote Libertarian!!!

tsmo1066
10-03-2012, 13:22
It's tough to support the death penalty and be anti-choice.

That seems like a tough conflict.

How so?

A convicted murderer who is executed has committed grievous atrocities on others in order to earn his/her fate.

What has an unborn child done, except get conceived?
:dunno:

SC Tiger
10-03-2012, 13:45
Your argument is rather poorly thought out.

So long as cars are on the road, there are going to be accidents.

So long as people have genitals, they are going to have sex.

I'm talking about the remedy for adverse consequences.



You sound like you'd be a proponent of FGM... :shocked:

And if people try to avoid accidents by driving safe speeds, following the rules of the road (ie taking responsibility for following their own safety) there would be fewer accidents and fewer deaths and injuries from car wrecks. People generally do try to avoid accidents so the number of serious wrecks is very low.

If people who do not want children use birth control, then there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies. Those children that do get conceived could easily be given to adopting families - assuming the biological parents do not want them.

FGM? I don't know what that is.

DanaT
10-03-2012, 14:51
Rape is simple to handle:

Victim carries baby until term and puts baby up for adoption if she chooses. Rapist pays for 100% of the pregnant woman's care. If he doesn't have enough money, his organs are harvested and sold to make up the difference.


So then you would be ok with a law that said is a man or a boy is sexually assualted, then the man/get 20 lbs of silicone implanted near his gut for 9 months, hormone injections that cause body regulations issues, and then right before it is all removed, he had to have an 8 lb watermelon shoved up his rectum?

This happens starting the day after the crime. Maybe the criminal is never even prosecuted, but the boy/man has to put of with this.

Obviously, you dont get that carrying a baby and having a baby is not the most comfortable and pain free process for a woman.

But you are OK with making a woman go through these changes with her body.

I will tell you what. I believe you have the some right to tell a woman what happens after she is raped the day I see you post a video of you putting an 8lb watermelon in your rectum or passing a lemon from your bladder through your urethra. Then you might have an idea what they go through. Of course, it would probably help if you got to experience a man raping you so you know exactly how the woman feels.

frank4570
10-03-2012, 16:28
I'm pro choice. But I would be perfectly ok with setting a time limit beyond which abortions are not permitted. And I'll bet MOST americans would find that pretty reasonable and acceptable. Only the extremists on the left and the right would have a problem with it. But neither of them will stop banging that drum, so it stays in the spotlight with everybody all worked up, and both sides using it as a wedge issue in elections.

dbcooper
10-03-2012, 16:50
I honestly don't care much about the whole thing. I could understand getting rid of the late term stuff. On the other hand if my wife or daughter was at risk I'd save the ones I already know and love over the new one, who wouldn't?

HollowHead
10-03-2012, 17:06
It ceases to be "their bodies" as soon as another life form starts multiplying cells inside.

Save The Tapeworms! HH

RenoF250
10-03-2012, 17:24
I honestly don't care much about the whole thing. I could understand getting rid of the late term stuff. On the other hand if my wife or daughter was at risk I'd save the ones I already know and love over the new one, who wouldn't?

My grandmother didn't and my uncle is around because of it. She was fine as well. There are very few where the baby threatens the mother these days.

RenoF250
10-03-2012, 17:25
I am fairly certain the "rape kit" in the ER includes RU486 equivalent to end any possible pregnancy.

Regardless, once the fetus is past 6 month it is viable and a life. To abort it is to kill the baby for what its father did.

gjk5
10-03-2012, 17:53
So then you would be ok with a law that said is a man or a boy is sexually assualted, then the man/get 20 lbs of silicone implanted near his gut for 9 months, hormone injections that cause body regulations issues, and then right before it is all removed, he had to have an 8 lb watermelon shoved up his rectum?

This happens starting the day after the crime. Maybe the criminal is never even prosecuted, but the boy/man has to put of with this.

Obviously, you dont get that carrying a baby and having a baby is not the most comfortable and pain free process for a woman.

But you are OK with making a woman go through these changes with her body.

I will tell you what. I believe you have the some right to tell a woman what happens after she is raped the day I see you post a video of you putting an 8lb watermelon in your rectum or passing a lemon from your bladder through your urethra. Then you might have an idea what they go through. Of course, it would probably help if you got to experience a man raping you so you know exactly how the woman feels.

congrats on what is probably the stupidest analogy I have ever seen posted on GT......and that's saying something.

ETA: SC Tiger's suggestion was retarded, but I think that went without saying.

tsmo1066
10-03-2012, 18:07
Save The Tapeworms! HH

Do you honestly equate an unborn human child, even a fetus, to be nothing more than the equivalent of a tapeworm?

I'm assuming that was sarcasm at work, right?

Mushinto
10-04-2012, 11:26
... Obviously, you dont get that carrying a baby and having a baby is not the most comfortable and pain free process for a woman...

Eve's fault.

DanaT
10-04-2012, 11:40
congrats on what is probably the stupidest analogy I have ever seen posted on GT......and that's saying something.

ETA: SC Tiger's suggestion was retarded, but I think that went without saying.

Really?

You think is a man was told, by a woman, that he was going to experience what a woman does during pregnancy and childbirth after a crime was committed against him, he would agree that forcing him, because of the woman's religious views, to go through that is acceptable.

How would you feel if my religious views dictated that you get a grapefruit shoved up your rectum? That is about the size of a baby's head?

DanaT
10-04-2012, 11:42
Eve's fault.

That is stupid to even say. How do you then place blame that all female mammals go through this? Is that Eve's fault too?

dbcooper
10-04-2012, 12:09
My grandmother didn't and my uncle is around because of it. She was fine as well. There are very few where the baby threatens the mother these days.

The very few is kind of the point, a blanket ban leaves no room for the rare case.

There was a recent case where a 12 yr old was taken to the er for stomach pain, turned out that it was from a pregnancy after being molested by mom's boyfriend. In that case the unborn may be an innocent child but so was the "mother" I can't see a child having to go through with that birth.

It's a complicated issue.

SC Tiger
10-04-2012, 12:18
So then you would be ok with a law that said is a man or a boy is sexually assualted, then the man/get 20 lbs of silicone implanted near his gut for 9 months, hormone injections that cause body regulations issues, and then right before it is all removed, he had to have an 8 lb watermelon shoved up his rectum?

This happens starting the day after the crime. Maybe the criminal is never even prosecuted, but the boy/man has to put of with this.

Obviously, you dont get that carrying a baby and having a baby is not the most comfortable and pain free process for a woman.

But you are OK with making a woman go through these changes with her body.

I will tell you what. I believe you have the some right to tell a woman what happens after she is raped the day I see you post a video of you putting an 8lb watermelon in your rectum or passing a lemon from your bladder through your urethra. Then you might have an idea what they go through. Of course, it would probably help if you got to experience a man raping you so you know exactly how the woman feels.

Ok, I admit that was a sort of off-the-cuff idea (and thankfully I'm not the one that would have to come up with the solution) and not the best (even "retarted" as was stated above). There are already other solutions out there (that "plan b" pill that Kalashnikev was talking about, for one) much better than what I suggested.

I would like to keep the idea of gutting the rapist and selling his organs, with the money going to the rape victim though, if I may.

But even leaving abortion in as an option for rape victims and medical necessity (which I stated in another post I would not be opposed to), what gets me is when women get pregnant due to their own actions (ie not rape) and think of an abortion just because the child is not "convenient." It may be one of those areas where principles have to give way a little to common sense.

Edit to Add - I stated this right below the section you quoted - fifth paragraph (counting the single sentences). It starts with the statement "In reality".

All that said, your analogy is at least as stupid as my idea.

In any case - nothing will change so not really worth talking about. In the past 32 years there have been 20 years of Republican presidents (the side that would typically be in favor of a ban) and nothing has happened, and it won't.

DanaT
10-04-2012, 12:25
But even leaving abortion in as an option for rape victims and medical necessity (which I stated in another post I would not be opposed to), what gets me is when women get pregnant due to their own actions (ie not rape) and think of an abortion just because the child is not "convenient." It may be one of those areas where principles have to give way a little to common sense.

I dont believe in abortion as birth control.

That said, I also believe that in some cases (i.e. rape and medical necessity) it is not immoral.

But what you must realize is that for many (especially men) there is no middle ground. It is black and white. But I promise if men had to go through what women do with a pregnancy, I highly suspect they may view it differently.

Sharkey
10-04-2012, 12:31
Either way, the president cant ban abortion.

Geez, would you quit with the logic.

So a prez. that favors partial birth abortion and saddles the next generation with a massive amount of debt IS for women's rights? Uh huh.......

You know if Clinton ran again, I think the e card slogan would apply much better. He likes lady parts.

Sharkey
10-04-2012, 12:37
I dont believe in abortion as birth control.

Sadly, the majority that get abortions don't think like that.


That said, I also believe that in some cases (i.e. rape and medical necessity) it is not immoral.

That is a pretty small percentage actually. Even though I'm a Christian conservative, I'll go along with you in theory.


But what you must realize is that for many (especially men) there is no middle ground. It is black and white. But I promise if men had to go through what women do with a pregnancy, I highly suspect they may view it differently.

Well many men pass kidney stones so let us call it even. I know it sounds simplistic but if women don't wanna get pregnant, they could keep their legs closed or pay for contraceptives.

SC Tiger
10-04-2012, 12:42
I dont believe in abortion as birth control.

That said, I also believe that in some cases (i.e. rape and medical necessity) it is not immoral.


I agree on these stances.

Unfortunately, dbcooper brings up a case where an abortion might be the only real answer. I would imagine a 12-year-old would be terrified to tell her parents what happened. Holy God that is just terrible.

Dalton Wayne
10-04-2012, 12:59
I think it's funny that liberals call cons anti science when talking about global climate change. Then when you point out that biologists and other scientist believe life begins at conception (and then say it's a social issue so they dont have to be stuck in the debate) all the sudden "that science is fuzzy" and such. I'm pro-choice, keep aborting all you want. The right kinds of people are getting abortions. Don't tell me its a bundle of tissues. Again, I'm pro-choice.
:thumbsup:
flame suit on

c6601a
10-04-2012, 14:19
It is amazing that the same people that are screaming the loudest about the government intruding into their lives and interfering with their freedom to not buy insurance be stick their medical bills on others are the very same people that have no problem imposing their sharia law on others.

The whole issue of abortion comes down to a single question: When does life begin? No matter how many make belief "scientists" (or even real ones for that matter) one quotes to bolster their position, the reality is that for almost everyone the answer to that question comes from their religious beliefs. The so called scientific quotes are just meant to shore up a decision one has already made due to reasons other than logic or science.

When you decide to tell someone that their belief about when life begins is wrong and they must live by your beliefs, you are the Christian taliban who is imposing your sharia law on them.

tsmo1066
10-04-2012, 15:43
The whole issue of abortion comes down to a single question: When does life begin? No matter how many make belief "scientists" (or even real ones for that matter) one quotes to bolster their position, the reality is that for almost everyone the answer to that question comes from their religious beliefs. The so called scientific quotes are just meant to shore up a decision one has already made due to reasons other than logic or science.

That's nothing more than your private opinion masquerading as fact.

Most geneticists believe human life starts at conception not because of their religious beliefs, but because a distinct, quantifiable scientific event that is a keystone in that field occurs at conception - the creation of a unique, distinctly human genome.

Many biologists believe that human life starts at gastrulation, (about 14-17 days after conception) because during this time period another distinct and quantifiable scientific process takes place - the beginning of the process of complex cellular differentiation. Again, this is not a religious conviction, but hard science.

Ironically, of all the different means of defining when life begins, it is the pro-abortionists who use the LEAST scientific standard - that of "viability outside of the womb". Why is that the least scientific of all the standards? Because there is no real way of scientifically measuring "viability". A late-second trimester fetus can often live for several hours outside of the womb before succumbing, so does that mean that abortions should be outlawed after week 18 of a pregnancy? On the other hand, even a three year-old child will succumb within days (possibly even hours) if not constantly cared for by an adult as they lack the means or ability to feed, protect and shelter themselves absent direct and ongoing adult intervention. Does this mean that "aborting" three year old children should be acceptable since they are not truly "viable" outside of the womb?

Before making accusations about one side or the other being "Taliban", perhaps you would do well to look at the actual science underlying each position.

HollowHead
10-04-2012, 16:02
That's nothing more than your private opinion masquerading as fact.


So is the, "abortion is murder" statement. HH

CarryTexas
10-04-2012, 16:36
That's nothing more than your private opinion masquerading as fact.

Most geneticists believe human life starts at conception not because of their religious beliefs, but because a distinct, quantifiable scientific event that is a keystone in that field occurs at conception - the creation of a unique, distinctly human genome.

Many biologists believe that human life starts at gastrulation, (about 14-17 days after conception) because during this time period another distinct and quantifiable scientific process takes place - the beginning of the process of complex cellular differentiation. Again, this is not a religious conviction, but hard science.

Ironically, of all the different means of defining when life begins, it is the pro-abortionists who use the LEAST scientific standard - that of "viability outside of the womb". Why is that the least scientific of all the standards? Because there is no real way of scientifically measuring "viability". A late-second trimester fetus can often live for several hours outside of the womb before succumbing, so does that mean that abortions should be outlawed after week 18 of a pregnancy? On the other hand, even a three year-old child will succumb within days (possibly even hours) if not constantly cared for by an adult as they lack the means or ability to feed, protect and shelter themselves absent direct and ongoing adult intervention. Does this mean that "aborting" three year old children should be acceptable since they are not truly "viable" outside of the womb?

Before making accusations about one side or the other being "Taliban", perhaps you would do well to look at the actual science underlying each position.

That's going to leave a mark!

CarryTexas
10-04-2012, 16:42
So is the, "abortion is murder" statement. HH

Murder implies a crime has been committed and since abortion is legal that is not the case. However, abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

I was more or less pro-choice prior to my kids being born... After that experience I can't understand how a doctor could perform an abortion.

BTW: most women wouldn't know they were pregnant until after the baby's heart started beating at about 6 weeks..

tsmo1066
10-04-2012, 17:01
So is the, "abortion is murder" statement. HH

Or the belief that destroying a human fetus is no different than destroying a tapeworm.

:whistling:

In any event, I don't recall arguing that abortion is murder. In fact, I support abortion rights in general, although I think they go way too far in legalizing partial birth abortions or allowing minor children to get abortions absent parental knowledge or consent.

c6601a
10-04-2012, 18:15
Before making accusations about one side or the other being "Taliban", perhaps you would do well to look at the actual science underlying each position.For argument's sake, I will accept the science you laid out. Which of those scientists is correct about when life actually begins? The answer is obvious: The one who agrees with whatever it is you want to believe! And what you want to believe is based on your religious, moral or spiritual beliefs. That was my point that you made for me in your response. Thank you.

tsmo1066
10-04-2012, 21:00
For argument's sake, I will accept the science you laid out. Which of those scientists is correct about when life actually begins? The answer is obvious: The one who agrees with whatever it is you want to believe! And what you want to believe is based on your religious, moral or spiritual beliefs. That was my point that you made for me in your response. Thank you.

I think that's actually true for many people. Most scientists, however, (at least in my experience) put science above religious bias. Sometimes the science dovetails with religious beliefs, as it does with the "Genetic" standard coinciding with the Catholic Church's position that life begins at conception, and sometimes it doesn't.

It's no surprise that many people follow their moral, religious and personal convictions and tend to 'cherry pick' the facts that bolster their beliefs.

One must ask, however, what the "moral" motivations are of those who would ignore science in order to support abortion, as is done in the case of those who adhere to the wholly non-scientific "viability outside the womb" school of thought. What moral standard, spiritual or otherwise, would motivate someone to support the legalized killing of what is, by any quantifiable scientific criteria, a living human being?

What brand of "Taliban" is that indicative of?

One thing I have learned on the abortion issue is that there is no clear-cut moral high ground at either extreme end of the debate.

c6601a
10-05-2012, 03:53
One must ask, however, what the "moral" motivations are of those who would ignore science in order to support abortion, as is done in the case of those who adhere to the wholly non-scientific "viability outside the womb" school of thought.Exactly the same rule applies. What you consider "non-scientific" is as much governed by your beliefs as which "scientific" approach you consider valid. To you "viability outside the womb" standard is "non scientific" only because it conflicts with your belief system. To others, the opinions of theoretical biologists and geneticists are purely academic and totally irrelevant because something that can not exist on its own is not a lifeform.

When any of these groups declares a monopoly on valid answers and demands that everyone else live their lives according to this one group's beliefs, they start acting like the Taliban and that is what I call them.

canis latrans
10-05-2012, 05:48
Well it's true sadly. The republican party and it's religious army insist that they know whats best for women.

perhaps...

but the Dimocrats will force EVERYONE to live THEIR way on EVERY other issue, right down to how many gallons of water your toilet is allowed to use.

RenoF250
10-05-2012, 09:05
For argument's sake, I will accept the science you laid out. Which of those scientists is correct about when life actually begins? The answer is obvious: The one who agrees with whatever it is you want to believe! And what you want to believe is based on your religious, moral or spiritual beliefs. That was my point that you made for me in your response. Thank you.

How about the fact that babies survive after 6 months. My cousin has a son that was born that early. I have a friend that was born that early as well. That is not based or religion or anything else, it is based on FACT. Personally, I do not like abortions before 6 months either but the line is not as clear there.

KalashniKEV
10-05-2012, 09:23
...the Dimocrats will force EVERYONE to live THEIR way on EVERY other issue...

Yeah, but they won't force you to have an abortion if you don't want one.

Under the doctrine of the Bible Thumping American Taliban/ Kookistani Patriots, a woman doesn't own and control her lady parts, Rush Limbaugh does.

That's why he demanded Sandra Fluke make him a sex tape. That drug-addled, obese, old hippo really believes that he should own and control all the lady parts.

That's why these animals need to be purged...

Their influence over the GOP platform amounts to real and literal sabotage.

series1811
10-05-2012, 09:31
How about the fact that babies survive after 6 months. My cousin has a son that was born that early. I have a friend that was born that early as well. That is not based or religion or anything else, it is based on FACT. Personally, I do not like abortions before 6 months either but the line is not as clear there.

Oh, I think abortionists are well aware they are killing babies. Partial birth abortion pretty much proves that.

Think about it. If a doctor were about to perform a partial birth abortion, and stab a baby in the brain to kill it, as long as a small part of the baby was in the ******, you could do nothing but stand and watch. But, if he were to slip, and let the baby all the way out, and try and do the same thing, you would be justified in 50 states to shoot him dead to stop him.

It doesn't make sense, and there is no way to make it make sense. It is just a political decision, made for political reasons.

CarryTexas
10-05-2012, 10:01
Under the doctrine of the Bible Thumping American Taliban/ Kookistani Patriots, a woman doesn't own and control her lady parts.


A woman does own her "lady parts". However, she doesn't "own" the product that they produce. If she doesn't want to have a child then she should take steps to prevent pregnancy.

Once the baby has been created, then that baby has rights of their own that should be protected.

This is not a woman's rights issue it's a right to life issue...

This is not a tumor we're talking about, it's a human being!

RenoF250
10-05-2012, 10:04
Yeah, but they won't force you to have an abortion if you don't want one.

Under the doctrine of the Bible Thumping American Taliban/ Kookistani Patriots, a woman doesn't own and control her lady parts, Rush Limbaugh does.

That's why he demanded Sandra Fluke make him a sex tape. That drug-addled, obese, old hippo really believes that he should own and control all the lady parts.

That's why these animals need to be purged...

Their influence over the GOP platform amounts to real and literal sabotage.

Go get some fresh air.

Why do you kooky liberals want to control my handy parts and stop me from shooting people? I am not making you shoot anyone.

It is the same logic. We, as a society, look out for the rights of others. As far as I am concerned you can do whatever you want to yourself but in regards to abortion there is another PERSON involved and that person's rights trump the mothers rights to skank around without repercussions.

Why is that so hard to understand?

KalashniKEV
10-05-2012, 11:01
A woman does own her "lady parts". However, she doesn't "own" the product that they produce.

No... she does.

If she doesn't want to have a child then she should take steps to prevent pregnancy.

:rofl:

SHE got pregnant!


Once the baby has been created, then that baby has rights of their own that should be protected.

Baby or clumpy?

I think you're assigning a public personality to a clump of cells. A clump of cells does not any rights. If it did I would feel terrible about cleaning my shower in the corners.

If a clump of cells is assigned full rights under the constitution, does a baby (a real child- BORN) have a right to US citizenship if the DNA was initially combined on US soil, but was born into this world (became a life) in a foreign land?

Why do you kooky liberals want to control my handy parts and stop me from shooting people?

I don't get it...

...and that person's rights trump the mothers rights to skank around without repercussions.

Why is that so hard to understand?

:shocked:

Thanks for finally getting down to the roots of your belief. Women who have unprotected sex out of wedlock are skanks and sluts. They deserve to be punished. They should carry the fetus and carry the Shame, so that every time they look at their child they know they are whores.

You'd probably throw rocks at them if you could get away with it.

:upeyes:

CarryTexas
10-05-2012, 11:25
SHE got pregnant!


Huh? What? The point was that the responsiblity was to not get pregnant in the first place.



Baby or clumpy?

I think you're assigning a public personality to a clump of cells. A clump of cells does not any rights. If it did I would feel terrible about cleaning my shower in the corners.

If a clump of cells is assigned full rights under the constitution, does a baby (a real child- BORN) have a right to US citizenship if the DNA was initially combined on US soil

:upeyes:

I guess you're okay with partial birth abortion? Heck if a baby doesn't deserve rights until they're born.... 39.5 weeks = "clumpy"

SC Tiger
10-05-2012, 11:29
Thanks for finally getting down to the roots of your belief. Women who have unprotected sex out of wedlock are skanks and sluts. They deserve to be punished. They should carry the fetus and carry the Shame, so that every time they look at their child they know they are whores.

You'd probably throw rocks at them if you could get away with it.

:upeyes:

I would not throw rocks, but if they want birth control I'd make them buy it with their own money.

AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 11:30
And this is why you're going to continually lose this argument.


If you don't want an abortion, don't get one......Its not that hard.


But stop trying to tell other people, they have to beleive what you do, and live like you do.

AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 11:31
I would not throw rocks, but if they want birth control I'd make them buy it with their own money.


And perhaps if we hadn't drug the issue out so long and so far, trying to make it illegal, we wouldn't have saddled all the working class with having to provide it.



Well played 'Merica

kensb2
10-05-2012, 11:36
Yeah, but they won't force you to have an abortion if you don't want one.



No, but they will make me pay to let someone else have an abortion. Want to call abortion a day? No partial-birth abortions, and I don't have to pay for them, you do (or your insurance), and you can abort as many babies as you see fit.
I don't think abortion is right personally, but that's the compromise I'd be willing to make so we can get the issue out of politics, and back to letting the so called 'bible-thumpers' preach about it.

racerford
10-05-2012, 11:38
No... she does.

You don't own children, you are responsible for them.

..........
If a clump of cells is assigned full rights under the constitution, does a baby (a real child- BORN) have a right to US citizenship if the DNA was initially combined on US soil, but was born into this world (became a life) in a foreign land?

.......

This would make an interesting court case. So if a an illegal immigrant women was in the Arizona desert and giving birth to a baby right on the border (parallel and straddling it) what country would it have citizenship in, assuming the Father was not a US citizen? They was a case where a child was born to a US citizen in a foreign country but the child was not the biological child of the women that gave birth nor of American citizen father. The US government said the child was not a US citizen.

DanaT
10-05-2012, 12:01
This would make an interesting court case. So if a an illegal immigrant women was in the Arizona desert and giving birth to a baby right on the border (parallel and straddling it) what country would it have citizenship in, assuming the Father was not a US citizen? They was a case where a child was born to a US citizen in a foreign country but the child was not the biological child of the women that gave birth nor of American citizen father. The US government said the child was not a US citizen.

Even better since you can't deport a us child to a different country, if rights are given at conception, does that mean an illegal alien who was impregnated in USA cannot be deported.

I am sure people don't believe in deporting American citizens to other countries.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

frank4570
10-05-2012, 12:09
How about this to settle the money issue?

Each person who is taxed can elect to pay either for birth control/abortions, OR you can chose to be taxed to support welfare and those programs. But you have to pick one or it will be picked for you.

NOLA_glock
10-05-2012, 12:18
Snipped for concision.

One of the biggest factors in this argument, for some people, is that there is just no clear-cut definition for life -- neither under the broad umbrella of biological studies, nor colloquially.

In any freshman bio101 class, on the very first day, the professor will make it clear that "life" cannot be defined absolutely, though they will give a handful of characteristics for what is accepted as things that living entities must do or be:

Respond to external stimuli.

Organized into cells.

Reproduce (sexually or asexually).

Grow.

Maintain homeostasis.

There will be others, but I understand some of them to be redundant (e.g. I would consider "adaptation" to be an extrapolation on "responding to external stimuli")

Living things must conform to most or all of the characteristics described. That in itself gives rise to a rather convoluted process of filing some things into the "living" and "nonliving" bins -- not to mention the difficulty in determining what constitutes something that, for example, "responds to external stimuli".

Nonetheless, I contend that we would all agree that a from a zygote onwards would be considered "living", by the biological "definition", as imperfect as it may be. I find this topic as bearing no importance on the argument other than in order for one to be a person, one must first be alive.

The real issue is that of the point in development at which something should be considered a person protected by all of the laws we afford to people. This is where all bets are off, scientifically, as "person-ness" isn't really the kind of thing that can be quantified scientifically in the first place. I'd suspect that if we were to try to construct a rigorous definition of "person", it would be just as convoluted as that of life. That (again, just my opinion) seems to be one of the biggest issues of contention, and is why people tend to have very staunch feelings on the matter, not to mention why some people will talk of babies being murdered while others will speak about blastulae or fetuses being aborted. The problem with biological milestones separating "not yet a person" from "person" is that they are all necessarily arbitrary. Are you a person from conception? Implantation? From birth? Somewhere in between? This is where the real argument lies, though I don't see there being an absolute answer on the matter right now.

I know where I stand on this issue, but I also realize that based on the way I understand the argument, it is nothing more than an arbitrary line I have drawn.

DanaT
10-05-2012, 12:29
How many people that believe in zero abortion believe in "pulling the plug" on a person who is a "vegetable"? Wouldn't society be obligated to protect those who can't protect themselves?

Hasn't it been established in this thread that high level cognitive brain activity isn't a condition for human life?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

SC Tiger
10-05-2012, 12:50
How many people that believe in zero abortion believe in "pulling the plug" on a person who is a "vegetable"? Wouldn't society be obligated to protect those who can't protect themselves?

Hasn't it been established in this thread that high level cognitive brain activity isn't a condition for human life?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I'm about said all I'm gonna say on all of this but I'll answer this one.

"Pulling the plug" is in no way the same thing. When you "pull the plug" you end the artificial (mechanical) means to keep someone alive who cannot survive without them.

Abortion is different in that you are actually terminating the life.

It gets complicated again in medical emergencies, since if the fetus cannot survive outside the body at that time it is a lot like pulling the plug (since if the mother dies, the fetus dies).

Abortion in the case of rape is much more complicated, especially if a child is the one impregnated as I would tend to believe that a child is less likely to report the abuse or rape than an adult. IMO that is a situation where you have to decide which bucket of @@@@ to eat.

The best analogy I can come up with is this:

Pulling the plug would be like not helping someone change a flat tire. You didn't cause it but you aren't helping them either. Actually, it would be more like not helping them change a tire on a car about to blow it's engine. Abortion is puncturing the tire itself, regardless of the condition of the engine. It's not a perfect example but all I can come up with right now.

AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 12:52
A fetus can't survive without the mother.


If the mother doesn't want the child, how is that any different than pulling the plug?

tsmo1066
10-05-2012, 13:43
Exactly the same rule applies. What you consider "non-scientific" is as much governed by your beliefs as which "scientific" approach you consider valid. To you "viability outside the womb" standard is "non scientific" only because it conflicts with your belief system.

That's not true. Of the four common standards for determining where life begins that are used in the Abortion debate, three of them have hard, quantifiable and measurable scientific cornerstones that have nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

The Genetics standard - Creation of a unique, human genome.

The Embryonic standard - Occurance of Gastrulation.

The Neurological standard - Presence of measurable brainwave activity.

Only the "viability outside of the womb" standard has no quantifiable scientific criteria behind it. If you feel differently, here's a challenge for you: Please define, in a quantifiable and scientifically supportable fashion, exactly what "viability outside of the womb" means, and do so in a way that would exclude two year-old infants who, like a late-term fetus, can neither feed nor sustain themselves outside of the womb absent constant adult intervention and support.

tsmo1066
10-05-2012, 14:07
One of the biggest factors in this argument, for some people, is that there is just no clear-cut definition for life -- neither under the broad umbrella of biological studies, nor colloquially.

In any freshman bio101 class, on the very first day, the professor will make it clear that "life" cannot be defined absolutely, though they will give a handful of characteristics for what is accepted as things that living entities must do or be:

Respond to external stimuli.

Organized into cells.

Reproduce (sexually or asexually).

Grow.

Maintain homeostasis.

There will be others, but I understand some of them to be redundant (e.g. I would consider "adaptation" to be an extrapolation on "responding to external stimuli")

Living things must conform to most or all of the characteristics described. That in itself gives rise to a rather convoluted process of filing some things into the "living" and "nonliving" bins -- not to mention the difficulty in determining what constitutes something that, for example, "responds to external stimuli".

Nonetheless, I contend that we would all agree that a from a zygote onwards would be considered "living", by the biological "definition", as imperfect as it may be. I find this topic as bearing no importance on the argument other than in order for one to be a person, one must first be alive.

The real issue is that of the point in development at which something should be considered a person protected by all of the laws we afford to people. This is where all bets are off, scientifically, as "person-ness" isn't really the kind of thing that can be quantified scientifically in the first place. I'd suspect that if we were to try to construct a rigorous definition of "person", it would be just as convoluted as that of life. That (again, just my opinion) seems to be one of the biggest issues of contention, and is why people tend to have very staunch feelings on the matter, not to mention why some people will talk of babies being murdered while others will speak about blastulae or fetuses being aborted. The problem with biological milestones separating "not yet a person" from "person" is that they are all necessarily arbitrary. Are you a person from conception? Implantation? From birth? Somewhere in between? This is where the real argument lies, though I don't see there being an absolute answer on the matter right now.

I know where I stand on this issue, but I also realize that based on the way I understand the argument, it is nothing more than an arbitrary line I have drawn.

I agree with everything you say and don't mean to give the impression that if you believe in science, you should oppose abortion (or anything similar).

I do believe, however, that there is a middle ground between granting a developing fetus "all" of the rights of a person vs granting it "none" of them and treating it like a simple lump of tissue, to be discarded at will.

We don't give minor children "all" of the rights of a person (at least an adult person), but we do grant them basic protections and acknowledge that they are, in fact, living entities worthy of preserving. I believe that the same basic recognition should be granted, at a minimum, to late-term (third trimester) unborn babies.

tsmo1066
10-05-2012, 14:15
Deleted Post (duplicate)

HollowHead
10-05-2012, 14:19
There has been a great deal of lucid logic with supporting data provide here. Access to this kind of information is immensly helpful and would help anyone in making their own decisions about abortion, and this is where the issue should end. HH

dango
10-05-2012, 15:09
Well,I'm standing here in front of the mirror. Panties,bra and silk stockings,I do look stunning but I just ain't feeling it!

This year,coin toss , heads tails thing !:supergrin:

RenoF250
10-05-2012, 15:16
Well,I'm standing here in front of the mirror. Panties,bra and silk stockings,I do look stunning but I just ain't feeling it!

This year,coin toss , heads tails thing !:supergrin:

:needspics:

:tongueout::rofl::dunno::wow:

DanaT
10-05-2012, 17:26
:needspics:

:tongueout::rofl::dunno::wow:

Let me find a camera....

Gunhaver
10-05-2012, 18:19
I'm not sure what your idea of abortion is or medical practice in general; but it isn't like baking cookies.

The people that have the know how and the equipment to carry out abortions are currently doing so. The people that are not currently offering abortions either don't have the equipment or they don't have the know how. That is never going to change.

You can pay for:
A) an abortion
B) food stamps, school lunch, medical care, housing, ect for a period of 18 years+ years.

personally, from a purely political/economical standpoint... I'd choose option A.

Pro-life people live in a magical dream world where you can make abortion illegal, eliminate welfare and teach kids to keep it in their pants until they're married and everyone will just wake up a responsible upstanding citizen the next morning.

Rupert
10-06-2012, 18:32
Nobody's happily skipping off to the abortion clinic. It's a horrible choice for one to make, but one they should be free to make for themselves.

Yankee2718
10-07-2012, 15:07
That has nothing to do with abortion. There are provisions in the current health care legislation that affords low cost or free prenatal screening, breast cancer exams, pap smears, etc... Romney's healthcare plan is supposed to eliminate those provisions. That's the context of the ecard was about.

canis latrans
10-07-2012, 15:48
Nobody's happily skipping off to the abortion clinic. It's a horrible choice for one to make, but one they should be free to make for themselves.

and PAY for themselves?

tsmo1066
10-07-2012, 15:59
Nobody's happily skipping off to the abortion clinic. It's a horrible choice for one to make, but one they should be free to make for themselves.

Define "they", and under what circumstances "they" should be able to make that decision.

Should a 14 year-old minor be allowed to get an invasive medical procedure (abortion) done without their parent's consent or knowledge?

What about a healthy woman in her eighth month? Should she be free to get a partial birth abortion of a healthy, late-term, unborn child with full brainwave activity?

As they say, "The devil is in the details."

IQof1
10-07-2012, 17:51
I didnt have an opinion on this until an old girlfriend aborted my child. i didnt find out til weeks later that she had even been pregnant.

i sometimes find myself lost in thought about what that child wouldve been like. i dont "miss" him but, i do feel a wierd emptiness when i think about it. especially now that i have another child.

KalashniKEV
10-07-2012, 18:23
should a 14 year-old minor be allowed to get an invasive medical procedure (abortion) done without their parent's consent or knowledge?

Yes.

what about a healthy woman in her eighth month? Should she be free to get a partial birth abortion of a healthy, late-term, unborn child with full brainwave activity?

Yes.

686Owner
10-07-2012, 18:49
It would make it much easier to vote Republican if they would give women the freedom to do as they choose with their bodies.

Are republicans telling women what to do with their bodies?

686Owner
10-07-2012, 18:50
Yes.



Yes.

What if the guy doesn't want the baby? Maybe he can choose to abort it too? Without the mother's consent of course.

686Owner
10-07-2012, 18:52
That has nothing to do with abortion. There are provisions in the current health care legislation that affords low cost or free prenatal screening, breast cancer exams, pap smears, etc... Romney's healthcare plan is supposed to eliminate those provisions. That's the context of the ecard was about.

What about men? Do they get free exams for prostate cancer etc? And if so, why wouldn't there be a card to say "vote like your man parts depend on it?"

tsmo1066
10-07-2012, 18:59
Yes.



Yes.

So even though a 14 year-old can't legally vote, serve in the armed forces, drive or get so much as a tattoo without parental consent, in your mind they should be able legally get an invasive medical procedure done to themselves, a procedure that involves risks to both their physical and emotional health, without even informing the parents who are legally responsible for them, their safety and their actions in every other aspect of their lives?

Where is the ethical or moral consistancy in that?

racerford
10-07-2012, 20:48
So even though a 14 year-old can't legally vote, serve in the armed forces, drive or get so much as a tattoo without parental consent, in your mind they should be able legally get an invasive medical procedure done to themselves, a procedure that involves risks to both their physical and emotional health, without even informing the parents who are legally responsible for them, their safety and their actions in every other aspect of their lives?

Where is the ethical or moral consistancy in that?

Forget moral and ethical, what about legal. They cannot consent for any other surgery. They cannot be operated on without the consent of a parent or guardian, absent an emergent situation. A pregnancy is not an emergent situation.

tsmo1066
10-07-2012, 20:53
Forget moral and ethical, what about legal. They cannot consent for any other surgery. They cannot be operated on without the consent of a parent or guardian, absent an emergent situation. A pregnancy is not an emergent situation.

And yet it is legal in some states for minors to do just that.

In the name of "choice", some areas of the country have actually gone so far as to eliminate the judgement, life experience and maturity of two responsible parents and replace it with the decision making of a frightened minor on an irrevocable decision that will impact them emotionally, and possibly physically, for the rest of their lives.

Go figure...

frank4570
10-07-2012, 21:20
Forget moral and ethical, what about legal. They cannot consent for any other surgery. They cannot be operated on without the consent of a parent or guardian, absent an emergent situation. A pregnancy is not an emergent situation.

Then they will get an illegal abortion. Just like they always have.

Yankee2718
10-07-2012, 21:27
What about men? Do they get free exams for prostate cancer etc? And if so, why wouldn't there be a card to say "vote like your man parts depend on it?"

I actually think there is a whole list of exams that are afforded to men. I can't be 100% sure what they are, but I think they are in there. That is what the card is all about. Cosmopolitan magazine i think it was recently had an article about it.

Some of Romeny's ideas about medicare and medicaid are scary. His idea to not provide it to young people when they age is a mistake. If the medicaid market moves completely towards the private sector we will end up in the same dilemma we are with regular health insurance. Sure, folks that are wealthy can afford to switch health plans more easily than working folks, but the majority of us are stuck with whatever our employer offers us, or whatever we can afford to pay every month.

Removing all government control of the insurance industry could result in insurance companies taking your premium money and fighting you tooth and nail when you get sick. I went through that when my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. They didn't want to pay for all the treatment, stating that chemotherapy and radiation wasn't necessary. My mom is alive today simply because my father is a lawyer and told them where they could go stick it. (1999)

I have a very close friend that has cerebral-palsy. He is trying like mad to get a job, but no one will hire him. He has literally been trying for almost 2 years since he graduated college. He currently has private insurance and medicaid. His private insurance doesn't pay for nearly enough of his expenses and medicaid picks up the rest. One of his power wheel chairs costs in excess of $20k. I'm not making that up. If medicaid goes away, people like him would be totally screwed. Here is a man that is trying his hardest to be a productive member of society, earn a living and support himself, but no employer will hire him because of his disability.

I think that the every day American needs to ask Mitt Romney some serious questions about his healthcare and tax plans. He talks about doing away with a good deal of tax breaks. Many of those tax breaks directly impact the middle class. I don't know about you, but paying an extra $500-1000 in taxes every year, compared to deducting $1500 results in a net increase of $2K! That's a lot of money for a $39k a year salary. And no, I'm not making all this up. My father is a trust, estate and tax lawyer, he's keeping close tabs on the tax issues.

Read this article on the taxes Mitt paid. Mitt Taxes (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/mitt-romney-releases-taxes-/1#.UHJHSk1G9Xw)

HollowHead
10-07-2012, 21:32
What about men? Do they get free exams for prostate cancer etc? And if so, why wouldn't there be a card to say "vote like your man parts depend on it?"

Nobody is trying to ban prostate exams. HH

RichardB
10-08-2012, 05:35
Owners of firearms discussing the morality of killing. We are a complicated species.

Yankee2718
10-08-2012, 05:53
Owners of firearms discussing the morality of killing. We are a complicated species.

I agree. Even thought this ecard has nothing to to with abortion directly, everyone automatically assumes it does. If a woman really wants an abortion she is going to find a way to have one.

I think banning abortion just puts people at risk. You will have women making false claims of rape to get their abortion covered, then when the abortion is over, they won't cooperate with police any more. It will turn into accident reports for fender benders. You get knocked up and want an abortion- call police, say you got raped in a back alley by an unknown man, get case number, have abortion, the end. I can easily see this happening.

I think it will also put women at risk from having underground abortions. We just need to face it. Abortion is a part of society as much as we might not want to admit it, it is. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. This is a prime example. I don't believe in abortion, but I don't let my personal views and beliefs impact my legal ideas.

series1811
10-08-2012, 06:35
Owners of firearms discussing the morality of killing. We are a complicated species.

Abortion is one of those issue that people are very fixed, opinion wise.

I don't understand the people who can look at abortion and not see it as an unjustified killing.

And, I am sure the people who do support abortion, cannot understand why I see it as an justificed killing.

There really are two different species of human beings out there, trying to live together. We look the same, and talk the same, and can even breed, but we are very different in the ways that count.

series1811
10-08-2012, 06:37
And this is why you're going to continually lose this argument.


If you don't want an abortion, don't get one......Its not that hard.

Fifty per cent of the people involved in an abortion, do not want to get one.


But stop trying to tell other people, they have to beleive what you do, and live like you do.

But, don't you see, neither side is winning the argument. No one's views are being changed. Each side is just becoming more and more sure they are right.

racerford
10-08-2012, 06:57
Then they will get an illegal abortion. Just like they always have.

Or perhaps, they will tell their parents, and an informed consent will be made.

The problem is the legal inconsistency on the ability to consent for similarly invasive procedures.

Averageman
10-08-2012, 07:16
I dont know about voting like your Lady parts depend on it, but the last debate someone showed up debating like he had Lady parts.

frank4570
10-08-2012, 07:37
I dont know about voting like your Lady parts depend on it, but the last debate someone showed up debating like he had Lady parts.

Nice.
:rofl:

WacoGlock
10-08-2012, 19:45
And I thought it was about women getting their CHL's so they could protect themselves.

DirtyPete
10-09-2012, 09:16
I'd be ok with abortions if they would just hand out free coat hangers at Planned Parenthood. I'd pay for the hangers.

KalashniKEV
10-09-2012, 10:28
Are republicans telling women what to do with their bodies?

Yes, they seek to own and control the *****.

It's the only way to counter the type of "soft power" that was given to women by the Creator. In a primitive environment, men have the physical strength, women have persuasive power to influence them. By designing society where women have no/few rights, you can seize the upper hand. This is what early Christian society was like and this is what life is still like in some Stone-Age parts of the world.

The agenda of the radical right-wing Christian moralists is sick kind of post-primativism from medieval times. It's more than just about Abortion, and it's more than un-American and anti-Freedom.

What if the guy doesn't want the baby? Maybe he can choose to abort it too? Without the mother's consent of course.

If the guy is having the baby then that's his choice to make...

http://blog.oregonlive.com/qpdx/2008/07/small_beatie-with-wife.jpg
(Yes, this guy really did have a baby)

What about men? Do they get free exams for prostate cancer etc?

Yeah, and STD screenings too. It's called "Men's Health Services."

You really don't know anything about this, do you?

So even though a 14 year-old can't legally vote, serve in the armed forces, drive or get so much as a tattoo without parental consent, in your mind they should be able legally get an invasive medical procedure done to themselves, a procedure that involves risks to both their physical and emotional health, without even informing the parents who are legally responsible for them, their safety and their actions in every other aspect of their lives?

Yes.

tsmo1066
10-09-2012, 10:34
If the guy is having the baby then that's his choice to make...



So then you agree, of course, that if the guy doesn't want the baby, he should never be required to pay a dime in child support, right? After all, if it's unfair to demand that a woman carry a baby for 9 months because it's "Her body", then it's equally unfair to demand that a guy slave away at 2 jobs for 18 years to support a child he didn't want since it's "his body" that he's working into an early grave.

KalashniKEV
10-09-2012, 10:54
So then you agree, of course, that if the guy doesn't want the baby, he should never be required to pay a dime in child support, right? After all, if it's unfair to demand that a woman carry a baby for 9 months because it's "Her body", then it's equally unfair to demand that a guy slave away at 2 jobs for 18 years to support a child he didn't want since it's "his body" that he's working into an early grave.

You just don't get it do you?

:dunno:

Her body, Her choice.

His child, His responsibility.

tsmo1066
10-09-2012, 11:24
You just don't get it do you?

:dunno:

Her body, Her choice.

His child, His responsibility.

What about HIS BODY??? If the man has to work overtime, a second job or otherwise perform extra toil and labor for 18 years to support a child he doesn't even want then his body is AT LEAST as invested in this as the woman's.

Why does the woman get all the "choice" while the man gets all the responsibility even though it's both of their bodies on the line?

KalashniKEV
10-09-2012, 12:09
I know I'm going to regret doing this, but... because I'm a masochist, I'll follow you down this absurd rabbit hole...

If the man has to work overtime, a second job or otherwise perform extra toil and labor for 18 years to support a child he doesn't even want.

You seem to think that making money has something to do with manual labor.

I suppose it explains something about your mentality.

...then his body is AT LEAST as invested in this as the woman's.

:faint:

No... it's not.

Why does the woman get all the "choice" while the man gets all the responsibility even though it's both of their bodies on the line?

OMGosh... let's do it again...

Her body, Her choice.

His child, His responsibility.

Hate it all you want. It's part of life's rules. I'm sure you can think of more of them you don't like if you sit down and think really hard. :upeyes:

racerford
10-09-2012, 13:59
I know I'm going to regret doing this, but... because I'm a masochist, I'll follow you down this absurd rabbit hole...



You seem to think that making money has something to do with manual labor.

I suppose it explains something about your mentality.



:faint:

No... it's not.



OMGosh... let's do it again...

Her body, Her choice.

His child, His responsibility.

Hate it all you want. It's part of life's rules. I'm sure you can think of more of them you don't like if you sit down and think really hard. :upeyes:

Her choice sometimes equates to my responsibility as a tax payer. That part I don't like. And I consistently vote against. Under Obama I will likely pay whatever her choice.

I am all about making the choices in your life, as long you pay for them, and their consequences, and I don't.

series1811
10-09-2012, 14:01
I know I'm going to regret doing this, but... because I'm a masochist, I'll follow you down this absurd rabbit hole...



You seem to think that making money has something to do with manual labor.

I suppose it explains something about your mentality.



:faint:

No... it's not.



OMGosh... let's do it again...

Her body, Her choice.

His child, His responsibility.

Hate it all you want. It's part of life's rules. I'm sure you can think of more of them you don't like if you sit down and think really hard. :upeyes:

You really think that if people who believe abortion is murder, sit down and think about it, we will magically, suddenly come to the same opinion you have?

Liberals.

tsmo1066
10-09-2012, 14:12
You seem to think that making money has something to do with manual labor.

I suppose it explains something about your mentality.



For a great many people making money has EVERYTHING to do with manual labor, and even for those who don't make a living through sweat, the additional stress of having to work extra hours to support a child takes an immense toll on the man's body...at least as much of a toll over the years as a pregnancy.

As for it being "life's rules" for a male to have to take responsibility for a child he doesn't want, sorry but now you're talking like a pro-life religious zealot. After all, it's THEIR argument that pregnancy is "life's rule" and that such rules trump individual choice.

Naked hypocrisy, anyone?

RichardB
10-09-2012, 14:27
Rules for life I learned as a child include:

Men don't get married until they can afford a wife.

Couples don't have children until they can afford them.

Tough rules, but they work.