If you're not "Pro Life" are you "Pro Death"? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : If you're not "Pro Life" are you "Pro Death"?


Vic777
10-12-2012, 18:44
Why are lieberals afraid of the truth?

jakebrake
10-12-2012, 18:47
Why are lieberals afraid of the truth?

because they'd have to defend the liberal viewpoint. the majority of which is indefensible.

aspartz
10-12-2012, 19:15
Why are lieberals afraid of the truth?
Because we don't all believe that life begins at fertilization.

ARS

JBnTX
10-12-2012, 23:15
Because we don't all believe that life begins at fertilization.

ARS


When does it begin?

LASTRESORT20
10-12-2012, 23:38
Why are lieberals afraid of the truth?


`Liberals know the "good" can see right straight through their poker face of lies`

Trapped_in_Kali
10-13-2012, 00:13
I'm fully expecting them to push for PostNatal abortions. Those fetuses are such a nuisance until the 75th trimester that abortions should be legal until at least the 80th or 90th trimester.

hogship
10-13-2012, 00:51
It's time for the abortion issue to be an issue within one's own conscience........that is, if everyone truly believes in the concept of freedom.

The plain fact is, there is widespread disagreement as to when life begins......and to regulate against personal beliefs is contrary to the very concept of freedom.

Everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves what they will do if the issues effect their personal lives. What I think, really doesn't matter in a personal decision someone else will have to make........so, it's really none of my business what someone else does.

It's time to get rid of this issue once and for all.........

ooc

ricka10
10-13-2012, 01:07
I heard life begins at 40 (years) so I guess we are good to terminate until then. :wavey:

Clutch Cargo
10-13-2012, 01:15
Dunno, I'm pro life. I am, however, pro death penalty. There must be a few of us 'cause Ron White talks about Texas' execution chamber "express line"

SunsetMan
10-13-2012, 01:26
It's time for the abortion issue to be an issue within one's own conscience........that is, if everyone truly believes in the concept of freedom.

The plain fact is, there is widespread disagreement as to when life begins......and to regulate against personal beliefs is contrary to the very concept of freedom.

Everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves what they will do if the issues effect their personal lives. What I think, really doesn't matter in a personal decision someone else will have to make........so, it's really none of my business what someone else does.

It's time to get rid of this issue once and for all.........

ooc

Agreed and well said.

I cannot decide this for someone else and making abortion illegal will not prevent it from happening. I'm a conservative and wish the republican party would drop this issue from their platform.

Vic777
10-13-2012, 03:17
Because we don't all believe that life begins at fertilization.

ARSWhen we reach into the womb with the pliers and pull the fetus head off, if it squirms and tries to avoid it's fate and if it feels pain, can we agree that it was a life at that time?

I'm not necessarily asking you to answer this if you are a lieberal, because I realize that as a lieberal, this is none of your business.

As a lieberal I realize that your only concern is what happens with my money.

Vic777
10-13-2012, 03:28
The plain fact is, there is widespread disagreement as to when life begins......and to regulate against personal beliefs is contrary to the very concept of freedom.
The plain fact is ... we do know when life begins and there are many lives we want to terminate, but we are lieberals and so we say that the lives we want to terminate are really not lives. Why are lieberals such cowards and liars? Why not just say that we are a species who regularly kills our offspring when maybe we would prefer a new flat screen TV instead? Reality remains the same it does not depend on how we see it. Maybe lieberals lie so much that they truly have no idea what is real. Why not just admit lieberals are against killing unless it is convenient?

happyguy
10-13-2012, 04:13
Why are lieberals afraid of the truth?

Sometimes the truth is messy.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

hogship
10-13-2012, 04:16
When we reach into the womb with the pliers and pull the fetus head off, if it squirms and tries to avoid it's fate and if it feels pain, can we agree that it was a life at that time?

I'm not necessarily asking you to answer this if you are a lieberal, because I realize that as a lieberal, this is none of your business.

As a lieberal I realize that your only concern is what happens with my money.

I am a Tea Party conservative, and although you are not asking me to answer the question, I'll answer it anyway.

In your example, yes, I believe that life existed at that time, and I believe many "lieberals" would agree, as well. However, if the discussion is whether the moment of fertilization is the point at which life begins.....THEN there is a lot of disagreement. This is a point where it's not a conservative vs liberal issue, as opposing beliefs are not divided along left/right political leanings.

So.......what IS the answer to the dilemma? If I could wave a magic wand and make law, I'd say the point at which a life has legal status is the point where the fetus can survive without the host mother, and without any artificial means of support. Up until, and prior to that point, it is my personal belief that the greatest number of people would agree that life is nothing more than a part of the mother's body......of which she has complete control over it's fate and future. After that point, the baby is a life that deserves protection of law, and has rights. It should be understood that there will be no law that would have universal agreement.

Well, I don't have a magic wand, so I've come to the conclusion that no law is the best way to handle this. It would be best to allow those I disagree with to have the freedom to do as their conscience dictates.......and call the dividing line between "legally a person", and "not legally a person", to be the moment of natural birth. I realize this is very controversial, and against my personal beliefs........but, I'm very serious about the concept of freedom, and how that applies to those who do not hold the beliefs that I do.

If it were MY baby, then I'd have to admit that the moment of conception is where I'd call the fertilized egg a person, and in my mind, it would be so. However, I disagree with the concept that there can be no exception for any allowance of choice in certain issues, such as health and rape. In these cases, I find it abhorrent that someone else that I don't know would have, or could have the ability to make MY personal choices for me. (I am in disagreement with some members of my own church on this.......but, my beliefs are not dependent on what others who hold my religious beliefs have decided on this issue.)

The plain fact is ... we do know when life begins and there are many lives we want to terminate, but we are lieberals and so we say that the lives we want to terminate are really not lives. Why are lieberals such cowards and liars? Why not just say that we are a species who regularly kills our offspring when maybe we would prefer a new flat screen TV instead? Reality remains the same it does not depend on how we see it. Maybe lieberals lie so much that they truly have no idea what is real. Why not just admit lieberals are against killing unless it is convenient?

Vic777, you appear to be among those who are incapable of understanding that what you believe to be the truth.....and, you certainly have your conviction as to when life begins.......nevertheless, your beliefs are nothing more than an opinion. It is an opinion that is not shared by everyone, and just because you feel it should be, is not good enough reason to circumvent what others believe is their right to choose.

Abortion is a freedom issue.

ooc

eracer
10-13-2012, 04:17
A blob of cells is not a life. Even when the flippers have morphed into hands, it's not a viable human life. It's got potential, but it won't even know it's being sucked out of the womb and into a bio-medical disposal bag.

Keep your hands off a woman's individual liberty, statists.

happyguy
10-13-2012, 04:26
it won't even know it's being sucked out of the womb and into a bio-medical disposal bag.



So your criteria for killing children is that they understand what is happening to them?

Great

Regards,
Happyguy :)

eracer
10-13-2012, 04:29
So your criteria for killing children is that they understand what is happening to them?

Great

Regards,
Happyguy :)I would never advocate killing children. Disposing of fetuses? Yeah, in some cases that's OK.

Vic777
10-13-2012, 04:41
and without any artificial means of support. Up until, and prior to that point ...So could you kill a baby that has been out of the womb for say eight months? An eight month old child has no self awareness and relies totally on society to exist. So could we kill an eight month old child if say, we wanted a new flat screen instead?

hogship
10-13-2012, 04:45
So could you kill a baby that has been out of the womb for say eight months? An eight month old child has no self awareness and relies totally on society to exist. So could we kill an eight month old child if say, we wanted a new flat screen instead?

Nope, never said that......you're reading things into what I said, or lack comprehension skills........

Try reading it again.

ooc

Bren
10-13-2012, 04:50
Why are lieberals afraid of the truth?
It's not about being "afraid of the truth," it's about, in any debate, choosing the terms of the argument to give you an advantage. See "assault rifle" for an example of how that is done.

And I am pro-death in about any way you could mean that.

Vic777
10-13-2012, 04:54
Abortion is a freedom issue.
oocAbortion is killing a fetus, (you can look it up in the dictionary). Some fetuses are killed against their mothers wishes, some are killed by their mothers. Free people kill fetuses, Slaves also kill fetuses, it's got nothing to do with freedom. I think you're confused by concepts such as "Crime", and "Freedom". "KISS", you're confusing yourself. Jews were killed in Gas Chambers, maybe the Square Heads thought of it as a freedom issue, most likely they didn't give it much thought at all.

Louisville Glocker
10-13-2012, 05:00
I have a problem classifying two or four cells that have joined together as a human. I know the religious folks will say it is, and I do agree that it is the beginning of a human, the beginning of life, but it still has a long long way to go.

By the time it is viable outside the woman, I'd be absolutely fine classifying it as a human and giving it legal rights.

I don't think anyone has to be pro-life, or pro-death. In an issue like this one, there is a of middle ground. Personally, I've got three kids, boys, and I'm grateful to have them. Would I ever want to see a woman have an abortion? Heck no. But I can understand that a lot of people simply shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place and should have used birth control.

Which leads me to a lot of the right wing hypocrisy. Many on the right are opposed to birth control, apparently for religious reasons. Well, if you oppose birth control, guess what, you're going to get more pregnancies among teens who simply aren't ready to have a baby. Not ready economically or psychologically. So why the F do you make it harder to get birth control if you're then going to throw a hissy fit if they have an abortion? You're making it more likely when you make birth control harder to get!

Hypocrisy number two, is the pro-lifers demanding no abortions and then showing little support for the women who do have the babies and then aren't ready for them economically. As soon as the baby is born, the political positions become anti-welfare, anti-medicaid, anti-food stamps, anti-any kind of government help for the women with the babies that you just demanded she carry to term. They're making it more likely she has a baby (by restricting birth control) then saying she can't get an abortion, and so when she finally does have the baby, you're not willing to give aid.

Pro-life before death, anti-child as soon as they're born. That is what I observe from so many on the right, based on the actions, not based on rhetoric.

Poverty rate among children in the US: 22.4 percent. Among economically advanced countries, only Romania has a higher rate. Sweden checks in at 2.6 percent, for comparison.

Vic777
10-13-2012, 05:04
Nope, never said that......you're reading things into what I said, or lack comprehension skills........

Try reading it again.

oocI guess you just don't understand what goes on in the womb, A fetus is a totally independent life form completely separate from the mother. All the fetus uses the mother for is food. The same situation as with a one month old child. I'm (like most members of the species) not against killing humans, I just don't understand why lieberals continually feed this BS to each other.

Actually I don't mind that lieberals are weak and want to "keep their cake and eat it". I don't mind doing the thinking and carrying the can for lieberals. I just can't stand listening to their BS. But then again, it is entertaining. Lieberals also provide a nice "buffer zone" for when the SHTF.

hogship
10-13-2012, 05:08
Abortion is killing a fetus, (you can look it up in the dictionary). Some fetuses are killed against their mothers wishes, some are killed by their mothers. Free people kill fetuses, Slaves also kill fetuses, it's got nothing to do with freedom. I think you're confused by concepts such as "Crime", and "Freedom". "KISS", you're confusing yourself. Jews were killed in Gas Chambers, maybe the Square Heads thought of it as a freedom issue, most likely they didn't give it much thought at all.

Vic777......

If it were my own decision, regarding issues within my own life's circumstances, I probably agree with you more than you think is the case. You apparently haven't read, or haven't understood what I previously said in post #14. (Read it again.......)

However, as I said before, it appears you are one of those who are incapable of understanding your beliefs and values are not shared by everyone, and what you think is not the standard by which everyone should be governed.

Yes......it certainly is a freedom issue.

ooc

The Machinist
10-13-2012, 05:19
Arguing over when life begins as a justification for killing your offspring is a moot point, since abortions can only be performed on that which is unquestionably human life. In other words, the ghouls who run the abortion mills need a substantial amount of "tissue" in order to kill it.

While I'm at it, I'll also say that any defense of abortion requires a vast degree of intellectual dishonesty and selfishness. Humans only beget humans. If the "blob of cells" were not alive, it would not have to be aborted, would it?

eracer
10-13-2012, 05:29
Arguing over when life begins as a justification for killing your offspring is a moot point, since abortions can only be performed on that which is unquestionably human life. In other words, the ghouls who run the abortion mills need a substantial amount of "tissue" in order to kill it.

While I'm at it, I'll also say that any defense of abortion requires a vast degree of intellectual dishonesty and selfishness. Humans only beget humans. If the "blob of cells" were not alive, it would not have to be aborted, would it?I would argue that any defense of forcing a woman to allow a blob of cells in her uterus to develop enough to be born full-term is equally, if not more selfish.

Anti-Choice defenders seek to impose their will on a woman. A woman seeking an abortion imposes her will on herself.

And that's really the crux of the argument. It's about who gets to play God. Anti-Choicers can't stand the thought that free will can be used to eliminate a potentially viable human. They designate themselves 'protectors of the innocent.' No blob of cells is an innocent creature. That description is simply emotional propaganda.

Vic777
10-13-2012, 05:39
any defence of abortion requires a vast degree of intellectual dishonesty and selfishness.That's what bugs me about lieberals, they're such liars and cowards. It (their scrambled brains) carries over and affects everything they do, it's like dealing with a computer program which is full of bugs.

JerryVO
10-13-2012, 05:45
I am pro choice: you can choose to keep your legs closed or choose to deal with the consequences.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

TKM
10-13-2012, 05:51
It's just a different "ignore list".

Picking the terms doesn't mean you get to pick the meaning.

Why do so many people cherish tissue yet dislike the people it turns into?

Weirdos with an invisible friend don't get to tell free Americans what to do.

The Machinist
10-13-2012, 05:53
I would argue that any defense of forcing a woman to allow a blob of cells in her uterus to develop enough to be born full-term is equally, if not more selfish.
So killing a human life is the less selfish act?

Anti-Choice defenders seek to impose their will on a woman. A woman seeking an abortion imposes her will on herself.
My will is that we protect human life against those who would take it without just cause.

And that's really the crux of the argument. It's about who gets to play God.
Protecting the innocent doesn't constitute playing God. The child would live, but for our intervention. Deciding that you don't want him or her to draw breath is playing God.

Anti-Choicers can't stand the thought that free will can be used to eliminate a potentially viable human. They designate themselves 'protectors of the innocent.' No blob of cells is an innocent creature. That description is simply emotional propaganda.
It's not propaganda - It's a medical fact that human life begins at conception. Biology 101.

Would you also consider killing newborns to be the right of the mother? They don't meet your requirements of being a human being by your standards, so who are we to impose our will?

series1811
10-13-2012, 06:55
Because we don't all believe that life begins at fertilization.

ARS

Okay, then, when exactly does it begin? And, if you don't know, isn't abortion kind of like shooting in a direction without knowing if there are any people downrange that could be hit by your rounds?

What are we going to say if ten years from now, someone finds a way to start communicating with babies still in the womb?

Are we going to tell them we about to kill them so they can get ready, or is it more humane to just let be a surprise?

What do you think it feels like to be being born, be almost all the way out of your mother's body, and then have a rod stuck in the side of your head and your brains scrambled?

Yes, we are that barbaric, and there is no doubt history one day will judge us for that and wonder how in the hell people stood by and let it happen, the same way we look at other people in the past who stood by and let genocide happen.

series1811
10-13-2012, 06:58
I would argue that any defense of forcing a woman to allow a blob of cells in her uterus to develop enough to be born full-term is equally, if not more selfish.

.

Of course, you have to look at it that way and believe that. Otherwise, you are an evil monster. And, while a few people don't mind being that, and are comfortable being that, most need some kind of fiction they can latch on to, to keep them from realizing what they really believe in, and who they really are

I understand someone wanting an abortion because it would be very inconvienent to have a baby. I also understand someone wanting to kill someone because they made them really mad. I also understand someone wanting to rob a bank because they are broke. I also understand someone wanting to run someone off the road who makes a dangerous vehicle maneuver near them that places their life in jeopardy.

But, I don't understand people who are not civilized enough to suppress those wants and emotions and are unable to keep themselves from acting on them, regardless of the consequences to others because their personality was formed badly and they lack empathy for others. We have a name for those people. Sociopaths.

John Rambo
10-13-2012, 07:00
Why are lieberals afraid of the truth?

That would be true if they advocated aborting all pregnancies. Since that isn't the case, the answer to your question is a flat, "No."


Now, if you're not pro-choice, you ARE anti-choice.

eracer
10-13-2012, 07:18
So killing a human life is the less selfish act?


My will is that we protect human life against those who would take it without just cause.


Protecting the innocent doesn't constitute playing God. The child would live, but for our intervention. Deciding that you don't want him or her to draw breath is playing God.


It's not propaganda - It's a medical fact that human life begins at conception. Biology 101.

Would you also consider killing newborns to be the right of the mother? They don't meet your requirements of being a human being by your standards, so who are we to impose our will?According to your logical framework, you are correct.

According to mine, you are a moralist who cares more about a blob of cells than an adult human being's freedom of choice.

As for whether a mother and father should have the right to euthanize a newborn... In the case of a baby born anencephalic, absolutely yes.

It's no one else's business whether or not to terminate an unviable set of cells.

heyTJ
10-13-2012, 07:22
I am pro choice: you can choose to keep your legs closed or choose to deal with the consequences.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

Are you saying it's entirely the woman's fault that she becomes pregnant?
In your mind the man has no responsibility for any consequences that becomes of it.

JBnTX
10-13-2012, 09:25
A blob of cells is not a life...

How could you possibly even know that?

The Machinist
10-13-2012, 09:52
It's no one else's business whether or not to terminate an unviable set of cells.
The only statement you're making is that when it comes to basic human biology, and how abortions are actually performed, you're profoundly ignorant. Abortioneers require a body of significant size to do their dirty work. At that point, there can be no question that it's a human life.

ModGlock17
10-13-2012, 11:15
When my wife was pregnant with one of ours, doctors at the largest hospital in town did a series of measurements over the pregnancy time and came to the conclusion that ours was +90% likely down-syndrome and that they would support an abortion.

We had a lot of issues in our life at that time, but thank God the Holy Spirit was guiding us.

Our girl turns out to be charismatic, witty, and full of goodness. She turns heads at the Malls and make gumpiest face smiles. So many times, I told my wife, "Whew, I am sooooo glad we didn't mess up!"

So when God gives me a job, a life to manage for him, I'd never say 'No'. Only God can make that kind of decisions, not me.

That's my story.

Vic777
10-13-2012, 11:55
I would argue that any defense of forcing a woman to allow a blob of cells in her uterus to develop enough to be born full-term is equally, if not more selfish.
Those fetuses are so dog gone selfish ... they want to live! Then get adopted, how dare them!

Vic777
10-13-2012, 11:57
How could you possibly even know that?It helps if you've never read a book, get all your info from "The View".

maxsnafu
10-13-2012, 12:06
I'm fully expecting them to push for PostNatal abortions.

Some already do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide

"Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[23]—and therefore 'killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.'"

Dalton Wayne
10-13-2012, 12:19
I am pro choice, but anti death penalty

Chronos
10-13-2012, 12:26
Regardless of where you come down on the ethics of it all (which is legitimately confusing for a lot of smart people), getting the wise overlords from government involved to sort it all out for us is a really bad idea.

MZBKA
10-13-2012, 12:49
Those fetuses are so dog gone selfish ... they want to live! Then get adopted, how dare them!

Blobs of cells don't have wants. . .they don't think.

Put it this way: Before you lie a petri dish containing a blob of cells you can't see and a newborn baby. Al Gore is going to burn one of them. You have to tell him which one to burn.

Would you really say, "They're both life in my eyes" and let him choose? :upeyes:

Vic777
10-13-2012, 13:33
Blobs of cells don't have wants. . .they don't think.
Neither does a two day old baby, is it ok to kill it? What's the difference?

(and you're actually wrong, by the way, a blob of cells has a very strong self preserving survival reaction, as does all life.)

With no killing intervention it might grow up to be an Obama,lieberal's just can't get their heads around the abstract.

Louisville Glocker
10-13-2012, 13:45
I thought I'd be setting myself up for attack by pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who are anti-contraception and anti-abortion. I guess you're pro-life in both cases (consistent), but if you truly don't want abortions, maybe you should let people prevent them in the first place.

Teens and young adults are going to have sex. It is going to happen. All the "just say no" campaigns aren't going to stop that (see the Palins for an example). Contraceptive devices need to be available, and anyone opposing those should just go take a hike when they start complaining about those same people getting abortions. Further, they need to get ready to start adopting kids and supporting the young moms who weren't ready to have kids.

Yeah, I agree in self responsibility, but I also believe in being consistent in your values. If you don't want abortions, you should allow birth control. If you don't want abortions, you should be ready to pay for welfare, food stamps, daycare, and other support needed for those kids that you're demanding be brought into this world against the will of their parent.

And yes, it is very anti-freedom, as others have pointed out here. Suppose a three week old embryo is in a mom. You're now demanding (on what basis, religious?) that they carry the baby to term for the next 37 weeks. What about freedom? The embryo is not a human. Yes, it has the potential to be a human being if the mom feeds it and shelters it and nourishes it for the next 8 months. But it isn't a person. The potential to be a human, a person, yes. But it isn't a person. So now you want BIG GOVERNMENT to tell the woman what she has to do for the next 8 months. Sounds kind of against tea party principles to me....ahhhhh...yes, the hypocrisy.....

Vic777
10-13-2012, 16:21
to tell the woman what she has to do for the next 8 months.She doesn't have to do anything, (otherwise we never would have survived). It would be nice if she stayed off drugs however.

The Machinist
10-13-2012, 17:06
The embryo is not a human.
Humans only beget humans. It meets every definition of life, and cannot be anything other than human.

Yes, it has the potential to be a human being if the mom feeds it and shelters it and nourishes it for the next 8 months. But it isn't a person. The potential to be a human, a person, yes. But it isn't a person. So now you want BIG GOVERNMENT to tell the woman what she has to do for the next 8 months. Sounds kind of against tea party principles to me....ahhhhh...yes, the hypocrisy.....
So then is it perfectly OK to throw an infant into a dumpster to let them die? After all, it's a 100% drain on the people who have to shelter and feed it. Should big government really impose morality by forcing someone to take care of them?

happyguy
10-13-2012, 18:39
That's my story.

And it's a great one.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

IndyGunFreak
10-13-2012, 18:53
Dunno, I'm pro life. I am, however, pro death penalty. There must be a few of us 'cause Ron White talks about Texas' execution chamber "express line"

I personally abhor abortion, but I don't have a huge issue with the Death Penalty. Why? It's very simple, the person on death row is there due to their own deeds. A child that is aborted has done nothing wrong other than being born to someone who doesn't care about them.

IGF

Chronos
10-13-2012, 20:04
Humans only beget humans. It meets every definition of life, and cannot be anything other than human.


So then is it perfectly OK to throw an infant into a dumpster to let them die? After all, it's a 100% drain on the people who have to shelter and feed it. Should big government really impose morality by forcing someone to take care of them?

I ask you specifically, Machinist, because I respect your ability to think clearly on a bunch of issues.

Let's say we have a situation in which ~1/2 the population takes moral position A, and ~1/2 the population takes moral position B. This is a strictly moral position -- it doesn't involve government in and of itself yet.

Now, what is the proper way for groups A and B to resolve their differences? Does it involve grabbing control of government, setting up regulatory agencies, and sending in guys with guns?

Now, I know you may be tempted to say "what if A and B involve murder" -- but remember, half the population take the opposite position.

Note that I'm not judging the correctness of A vs. B. Maybe one of them is completely, objectively wrong (and the other objectively correct) if anyone thinks about it long enough. I'm only concerned about the issue of how one half of the population should resolve the issue with the other half of the population in a civilized manner.

Anyway, I will respect your opinion on this regardless of your answer, as I'm quite certain that you'll devote a full amount of thought to it.

frizz
10-13-2012, 20:48
It's not propaganda - It's a medical fact that human life begins at conception. Biology 101.

That is laughable. Regardless of your stance on abortion, the beginning of human life isn't answered by science because science isn't designed to answer that sort of question.

The beginning of life is a general philosophical question, just like the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet.

Chronos
10-13-2012, 20:58
That is laughable. Regardless of your stance on abortion, the beginning of human life isn't answered by science because science isn't designed to answer that sort of question.

The beginning of life is a general philosophical question, just like the question of whether or not Pluto is a planet.

Just to double-clarify, you're saying that the arbitrariness can't be taken out of the answer, because the "correct" answer depends entirely on how you define things like "life" etc. Right?

hogship
10-14-2012, 00:24
I ask you specifically, Machinist, because I respect your ability to think clearly on a bunch of issues.

Let's say we have a situation in which ~1/2 the population takes moral position A, and ~1/2 the population takes moral position B. This is a strictly moral position -- it doesn't involve government in and of itself yet.

Now, what is the proper way for groups A and B to resolve their differences? Does it involve grabbing control of government, setting up regulatory agencies, and sending in guys with guns?

Now, I know you may be tempted to say "what if A and B involve murder" -- but remember, half the population take the opposite position.

Note that I'm not judging the correctness of A vs. B. Maybe one of them is completely, objectively wrong (and the other objectively correct) if anyone thinks about it long enough. I'm only concerned about the issue of how one half of the population should resolve the issue with the other half of the population in a civilized manner.

Anyway, I will respect your opinion on this regardless of your answer, as I'm quite certain that you'll devote a full amount of thought to it.

Great questions, Chronos.......

I'm tempted to answer them myself, but I think it would only be fair for everyone to wait and see what Machinist has to say about this first........

ooc

Your question to Frizz is equally well stated......

The Machinist
10-14-2012, 05:31
I ask you specifically, Machinist, because I respect your ability to think clearly on a bunch of issues.

Let's say we have a situation in which ~1/2 the population takes moral position A, and ~1/2 the population takes moral position B. This is a strictly moral position -- it doesn't involve government in and of itself yet.

Now, what is the proper way for groups A and B to resolve their differences? Does it involve grabbing control of government, setting up regulatory agencies, and sending in guys with guns?

Now, I know you may be tempted to say "what if A and B involve murder" -- but remember, half the population take the opposite position.

Note that I'm not judging the correctness of A vs. B. Maybe one of them is completely, objectively wrong (and the other objectively correct) if anyone thinks about it long enough. I'm only concerned about the issue of how one half of the population should resolve the issue with the other half of the population in a civilized manner.

Anyway, I will respect your opinion on this regardless of your answer, as I'm quite certain that you'll devote a full amount of thought to it.
When your question is applied to issues such as drug use, or gun control, we always have the facts on our side, regardless of what percentage of the people decide they don't like those facts. For instance, it can be proven that the war on drugs has completely failed in its intentions, or that disarming citizens actually increases violent crime.

One of the few obligations of the government is to protect life - to protect peoples' rights. I know, it's crazy to think that in these times. To relieve someone of their life requires an unquestionable justification. Killing them for no other reason than they're inconvenient to you is abominable.

So then, what about the half that thinks unborn children aren't alive? I tried to be as succinct as possible when I said that humans cannot have offspring that is not also human, and that if it were not alive, it would not need aborting. I posit that they are intentionally ignoring all the facts around them, in order to justify their beliefs. It is no different than starry-eyed liberals who think we should ban all guns, or neocon "patriots" that think we should hang every pothead. The facts don't matter, and the numbers mean nothing. It's an act of selfishness that violates the rights of others as a result.

With that said, I'm not advocating for wresting control of the government to force people to live the life I think they should. I'm advocating for the government to do one of the few things it ought to be doing, which is defending the right of human beings to live.

Hope that made some sense.

series1811
10-14-2012, 05:31
I am pro choice, but anti death penalty

Probably the weirdest position anyone can have: Kill the innocent, spare the guilty.

The Machinist
10-14-2012, 05:35
That is laughable. Regardless of your stance on abortion, the beginning of human life isn't answered by science because science isn't designed to answer that sort of question.
So that fact that there is cell division occurring, a possession of unique DNA, and that it will draw breath in nine months time says nothing about whether it's alive or not? It's merely a philosophical question?

series1811
10-14-2012, 05:36
I ask you specifically, Machinist, because I respect your ability to think clearly on a bunch of issues.

Let's say we have a situation in which ~1/2 the population takes moral position A, and ~1/2 the population takes moral position B. This is a strictly moral position -- it doesn't involve government in and of itself yet.

Now, what is the proper way for groups A and B to resolve their differences? Does it involve grabbing control of government, setting up regulatory agencies, and sending in guys with guns?

Now, I know you may be tempted to say "what if A and B involve murder" -- but remember, half the population take the opposite position.

Note that I'm not judging the correctness of A vs. B. Maybe one of them is completely, objectively wrong (and the other objectively correct) if anyone thinks about it long enough. I'm only concerned about the issue of how one half of the population should resolve the issue with the other half of the population in a civilized manner.

Anyway, I will respect your opinion on this regardless of your answer, as I'm quite certain that you'll devote a full amount of thought to it.

Well, you have a good point that what is moral is decided by society. And, in the past we have had societies that decided slavery, child labor, and even human sacrifice, were moral.

And, I guess that's what it comes down to in abortion. If society decides that abortion is moral, then I as a person who believes it to be immoral, can't do anything about it.

But, just because you change the law doesn't mean you've changed what you are doing, and doesn't mean that those of us who believe it's murder, aren't looking at you the way we look at any other murderer.

I can't stop genocide in Rwanda or Serbia, or here, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Bren
10-14-2012, 05:53
It's not propaganda - It's a medical fact that human life begins at conception. Biology 101.

If you are going that route, then it is equally true that the sperm and egg are alive before conception and each iof them is part of a potential person.

Does that mean [edit: monkey spanking] is equal to abortion for you guys?

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/17810.gif

ModGlock17
10-14-2012, 08:10
If one or two human cells are considered self sustainable life, then we should remember that and ask for forgiveness every time we squeeze a pimple, or creating a gash in flesh during sport games, or how much sperms (they are cells) were wasted without conception.

Oh the humanity. How pagan we have become!

Vic777
10-14-2012, 08:49
If one or two human cells are considered self sustainable life, then we should remember that and ask for forgiveness every time we squeeze a pimple, or creating a gash in flesh during sport games, or how much sperms (they are cells) were wasted without conception.

Oh the humanity. How pagan we have become!In fact one or two cells are self sustainable life ... a killer has to intervene to snuff the life out. (lieberals lie to themselves mostly). But what about when the killer enters the womb with pliers and pulls the head off the fetus, what's the lieberal excuse for that.

Vic777
10-14-2012, 08:56
And, I guess that's what it comes down to in abortion. If society decides that abortion is moral, then I as a person who believes it to be immoral, can't do anything about it.
WTF? What if an abortionist killed your grandchild without your permission, could you do anything about it?

Would you also say that, "If society decides that killing Jews is moral, then I as a person who believes it to be immoral, can't do anything about it" ... ?

Cavalry Doc
10-14-2012, 08:58
Because we don't all believe that life begins at fertilization.

ARS

It's a scientific fact that the life of an individual being begins very shortly after fertilization. There is a genetically unique organism at that point.

The real debate seems to be when it is old enough that killing it would make one feel bad.

It's funny when Atheists make moral judgements while ignoring scientific facts.

Cavalry Doc
10-14-2012, 09:11
It's time for the abortion issue to be an issue within one's own conscience........that is, if everyone truly believes in the concept of freedom.

The plain fact is, there is widespread disagreement as to when life begins......and to regulate against personal beliefs is contrary to the very concept of freedom.

Everyone should be allowed to decide for themselves what they will do if the issues effect their personal lives. What I think, really doesn't matter in a personal decision someone else will have to make........so, it's really none of my business what someone else does.

It's time to get rid of this issue once and for all.........

ooc

Freedom, applied to some and denied to others seems to be what you are arguing for.

I'm a lot closer to your position than you probably think. It is inherently wrong to rip an unborn from the womb. But I don't have the power to stop them from happening, so I'm pragmatic about it. If someone wants to kill their own child for the sake of their own convenience, and their conscious allows them to live with that decision, that's their problem. It does say quite a bit about them though, and you have to wonder if you want people like that procreating anyway.

My biggest problem is that I don't think abortion should be covered by insurance any more than a butt lift. It's entirely elective in the vast majority of cases, and unless there is a clear and present danger to the life of the mother (Eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy etc), then it should be performed in a private facility, not subsidized in any way by tax dollars, and paid for by the customer out of pocket, unless they have a completely separate "I got knocked up" policy that they are paying for on their own.


I'm not saying ban it, I'm just saying if you want it, you pay for it in every way. Much the same way I feel about drugs.

Freedom is really cool, as long as it is coupled with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is a very bad thing.

Cavalry Doc
10-14-2012, 09:21
If you are going that route, then it is equally true that the sperm and egg are alive before conception and each iof them is part of a potential person.

Does that mean [edit: monkey spanking] is equal to abortion for you guys?

http://www.rankopedia.com/CandidatePix/17810.gif

Come on now, lets get serious. Sperm and Ova would be cells of the individual man or woman. Once they combine to make a genetically unique organism, and it divides, it's alive.

If you are able to be completely objective about it, and not let emotion cloud your view on the subject, that makes the most sense.

Cavalry Doc
10-14-2012, 09:24
I thought I'd be setting myself up for attack by pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who are anti-contraception and anti-abortion. I guess you're pro-life in both cases (consistent), but if you truly don't want abortions, maybe you should let people prevent them in the first place.

Teens and young adults are going to have sex. It is going to happen. All the "just say no" campaigns aren't going to stop that (see the Palins for an example). Contraceptive devices need to be available, and anyone opposing those should just go take a hike when they start complaining about those same people getting abortions. Further, they need to get ready to start adopting kids and supporting the young moms who weren't ready to have kids.

Yeah, I agree in self responsibility, but I also believe in being consistent in your values. If you don't want abortions, you should allow birth control. If you don't want abortions, you should be ready to pay for welfare, food stamps, daycare, and other support needed for those kids that you're demanding be brought into this world against the will of their parent.

And yes, it is very anti-freedom, as others have pointed out here. Suppose a three week old embryo is in a mom. You're now demanding (on what basis, religious?) that they carry the baby to term for the next 37 weeks. What about freedom? The embryo is not a human. Yes, it has the potential to be a human being if the mom feeds it and shelters it and nourishes it for the next 8 months. But it isn't a person. The potential to be a human, a person, yes. But it isn't a person. So now you want BIG GOVERNMENT to tell the woman what she has to do for the next 8 months. Sounds kind of against tea party principles to me....ahhhhh...yes, the hypocrisy.....

I'm only demanding that they pay for the elective procedure on their own, and take full responsibility for it.

The only place the law should get involved is in the arena of parental consent. I think that a minor cannot give informed consent to get their ears pierced, and the same should go for an abortion. If it's so bad that the parents cannot know, the child should be made a ward of the state.

By the way, up to 24 weeks is the rule in a lot of states.

Is this what freedom looks like to you?

http://prolife.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Abortion_diagram_late.jpg

kirgi08
10-14-2012, 09:31
What folks do is their choice,they don't havta answer ta me.'08.

Ruble Noon
10-14-2012, 09:35
Freedom, applied to some and denied to others seems to be what you are arguing for.

I'm a lot closer to your position than you probably think. It is inherently wrong to rip an unborn from the womb. But I don't have the power to stop them from happening, so I'm pragmatic about it. If someone wants to kill their own child for the sake of their own convenience, and their conscious allows them to live with that decision, that's their problem. It does say quite a bit about them though, and you have to wonder if you want people like that procreating anyway.

My biggest problem is that I don't think abortion should be covered by insurance any more than a butt lift. It's entirely elective in the vast majority of cases, and unless there is a clear and present danger to the life of the mother (Eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy etc), then it should be performed in a private facility, not subsidized in any way by tax dollars, and paid for by the customer out of pocket, unless they have a completely separate "I got knocked up" policy that they are paying for on their own.


I'm not saying ban it, I'm just saying if you want it, you pay for it in every way. Much the same way I feel about drugs.

Freedom is really cool, as long as it is coupled with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is a very bad thing.

100% agree.

hogship
10-14-2012, 09:54
Freedom, applied to some and denied to others seems to be what you are arguing for.

I'm a lot closer to your position than you probably think. It is inherently wrong to rip an unborn from the womb. But I don't have the power to stop them from happening, so I'm pragmatic about it. If someone wants to kill their own child for the sake of their own convenience, and their conscious allows them to live with that decision, that's their problem. It does say quite a bit about them though, and you have to wonder if you want people like that procreating anyway.

My biggest problem is that I don't think abortion should be covered by insurance any more than a butt lift. It's entirely elective in the vast majority of cases, and unless there is a clear and present danger to the life of the mother (Eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy etc), then it should be performed in a private facility, not subsidized in any way by tax dollars, and paid for by the customer out of pocket, unless they have a completely separate "I got knocked up" policy that they are paying for on their own.


I'm not saying ban it, I'm just saying if you want it, you pay for it in every way. Much the same way I feel about drugs.

Freedom is really cool, as long as it is coupled with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is a very bad thing.

No, I'm advocating freedom for everyone.....but, you must understand my personal belief is the unborn doesn't have legal rights until it can survive without the mother, and without artificial means of support. If your term "everyone" includes a moment of conception.......then, we do have a fundamental difference in beliefs. That would account for the differences in the meanings we each apply to the words.

Because I have thoughts on when legal rights apply, this doesn't mean I conduct my life according to the technical limits of the law. If it were my decision to make, moment of conception is good for me........I just don't think my values should overrule anyone else in their decisions, and how the term "freedom" applies to everyone equally......

Yes, I do think we are in agreement on much of the issue.....when it applies to our own lives.

Freedom without responsibility is one thing we'll just have to live with, if we want that same freedom for ourselves......that's just the way it works. The only way to prevent irresponsibility, is to regulate everyone's freedom. I want freedom for myself, and all those I know.......and, I'm willing to allow others the same freedom, even if they don't make the same choices I would make.

On an ethical basis, abortion because of mother's health is a good reason, but rape is, as well.

ooc

Cavalry Doc
10-14-2012, 10:46
No, I'm advocating freedom for everyone.....but, you must understand my personal belief is the unborn doesn't have legal rights until it can survive without the mother, and without artificial means of support. If your term "everyone" includes a moment of conception.......then, we do have a fundamental difference in beliefs. That would account for the differences in the meanings we each apply to the words.

Because I have thoughts on when legal rights apply, this doesn't mean I conduct my life according to the technical limits of the law. If it were my decision to make, moment of conception is good for me........I just don't think my values should overrule anyone else in their decisions, and how the term "freedom" applies to everyone equally......

Yes, I do think we are in agreement on much of the issue.....when it applies to our own lives.

Freedom without responsibility is one thing we'll just have to live with, if we want that same freedom for ourselves......that's just the way it works. The only way to prevent irresponsibility, is to regulate everyone's freedom. I want freedom for myself, and all those I know.......and, I'm willing to allow others the same freedom, even if they don't make the same choices I would make.

On an ethical basis, abortion because of mother's health is a good reason, but rape is, as well.

ooc

So you have made a personal determination on when you think rights are bestowed upon an individual.

http://i.ebayimg.com/t/Now-That-Im-Safe-Im-PRO-CHOICE-Funny-Baby-T-shirt-Tee-/00/$(KGrHqR,!jQE1J2OUVy-BNg7HugG(Q~~0_3.JPG

That's convenient. But you seem to be arguing for free freedom. Hasn't anyone told you that freedom is not free? Someone has to pay for it one way or another.


There are plenty of charities that will spring up to help rape and incest victims pay for their abortions. In fact, emergency contraception for people that are assaulted has been around since at least the mid-80's when I was filling prescriptions for it. I'm cool with elective abortions for rape/incest. Besides, if you limited abortion to rape/incest, a lot of innocent young men are going to be accused of rape that may have simply participated in a consensual hook up. It's human nature, any female willing to kill her child for her own convenience, will have little problem falsely claiming rape to get the abortion. That's one of the biggest reasons I don't want it banned.


By the way, the law has not kept up with medical advances. Abortions are routinely available until 24 weeks, and the premature babies can be viable below 23 weeks.


Let it stay legal, but cut off all public financial support for elective abortion. That seems reasonable.

As long as my money, and any public money is kept out of it, I'm OK.

Vic777
10-14-2012, 11:31
That is laughable. Regardless of your stance on abortion, the beginning of human life isn't answered by science because science isn't designed to answer that sort of question.

You should try to educate yourself, it can actually lead to making money, getting what you want out of life etc.

Wikipedia is not "Gospel", but it's an easy way for you to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Vic777
10-14-2012, 11:33
double post, "space holder" in case I ever visit this thread again.
too bad about Arlen Specter :rofl::rofl:

countrygun
10-14-2012, 12:57
Arguing over when life begins as a justification for killing your offspring is a moot point, since abortions can only be performed on that which is unquestionably human life. In other words, the ghouls who run the abortion mills need a substantial amount of "tissue" in order to kill it.

While I'm at it, I'll also say that any defense of abortion requires a vast degree of intellectual dishonesty and selfishness. Humans only beget humans. If the "blob of cells" were not alive, it would not have to be aborted, would it?

By your standard then, if society says "you may not abort" then the same society has shown a right to tell the mother what they may legally ingest during pregnancy because it could damage the fetus that society now has a vested interest in. How do we justify not allowing a mothe to end a pregnancy but allow them to engage in behavior that will damage the fetus?

Stubudd
10-14-2012, 13:07
And I am pro-death in about any way you could mean that.

:rofl:

jesus...

janice6
10-14-2012, 13:31
Yes. I'm pro-death. I think everybody should die sometime.

hogship
10-14-2012, 14:49
So you have made a personal determination on when you think rights are bestowed upon an individual.

That's convenient. But you seem to be arguing for free freedom. Hasn't anyone told you that freedom is not free? Someone has to pay for it one way or another.


There are plenty of charities that will spring up to help rape and incest victims pay for their abortions. In fact, emergency contraception for people that are assaulted has been around since at least the mid-80's when I was filling prescriptions for it. I'm cool with elective abortions for rape/incest. Besides, if you limited abortion to rape/incest, a lot of innocent young men are going to be accused of rape that may have simply participated in a consensual hook up. It's human nature, any female willing to kill her child for her own convenience, will have little problem falsely claiming rape to get the abortion. That's one of the biggest reasons I don't want it banned.


By the way, the law has not kept up with medical advances. Abortions are routinely available until 24 weeks, and the premature babies can be viable below 23 weeks.


Let it stay legal, but cut off all public financial support for elective abortion. That seems reasonable.

As long as my money, and any public money is kept out of it, I'm OK.

Yes, you are correct, I have made a determination of when rights should be bestowed. You have missed the point that my beliefs are mine alone, and there is no intention to construct law that everyone else should be held to......or, have the same beliefs. How I would apply that personal belief to my own affairs, is my business, and mine alone. If a law existed parallel to my beliefs, I think the parameters I mentioned would be the most fair to everyone, including the unborn.

I don't know what it is that's so hard for you to understand, but right from the beginning, I've said freedom is the ability to make choices independent of what anyone else thinks. It is my personal belief that there should be no abortion law......government to keep out of individual, and personal choices on the matter. Freedom is the ability to make choices that someone else would not make.

Cut off all public funding for abortion......check. This seems to be your main concern, and we are in total agreement on this.......no "free" freedom......as you say.

It's a very good point you make about rape, and how there will be accusations of rape where none occurred. I can see this happening, if rape were the determining factor of funding an abortion. There may be other examples, but I can't think of one at the moment.......anyone else think of one? Anyway, if the funding were not available, this little rape accusation problem ought not be as prevalent........again, cut off public funding, check.

Take care Cavalry Doc......and, try not to interpret meaning into my words that were not intended. :supergrin:

ooc

Cavalry Doc
10-14-2012, 18:04
Yes, you are correct, I have made a determination of when rights should be bestowed. You have missed the point that my beliefs are mine alone, and there is no intention to construct law that everyone else should be held to......or, have the same beliefs. How I would apply that personal belief to my own affairs, is my business, and mine alone. If a law existed parallel to my beliefs, I think the parameters I mentioned would be the most fair to everyone, including the unborn.

I don't know what it is that's so hard for you to understand, but right from the beginning, I've said freedom is the ability to make choices independent of what anyone else thinks. It is my personal belief that there should be no abortion law......government to keep out of individual, and personal choices on the matter. Freedom is the ability to make choices that someone else would not make.

Cut off all public funding for abortion......check. This seems to be your main concern, and we are in total agreement on this.......no "free" freedom......as you say.

It's a very good point you make about rape, and how there will be accusations of rape where none occurred. I can see this happening, if rape were the determining factor of funding an abortion. There may be other examples, but I can't think of one at the moment.......anyone else think of one? Anyway, if the funding were not available, this little rape accusation problem ought not be as prevalent........again, cut off public funding, check.

Take care Cavalry Doc......and, try not to interpret meaning into my words that were not intended. :supergrin:

ooc

:wavey: I'll try, promise.

NMG26
10-14-2012, 18:10
And I am pro-death in about any way you could mean that.

Points for not ***** footing around.

NMG26
10-14-2012, 18:19
When does it begin?

When does life begin according to your book?

Gen 2:7
the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

An argument can be made "at first breath".

The penalty for murder is death.

From you book:
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine].

Here is a forced miscarriage and it is NOT called murder.

I don't think God weighs in either way according to you book on the matter. It is simply Christian doctrine that has made abortion "murder".

Do you have something from your book that shows God calling abortion murder?

Vic777
10-14-2012, 19:24
Do you have something from your book that shows God calling abortion murder?Who gives a sweet flying **** what God calls it? What do we call it?

NMG26
10-14-2012, 19:55
Who gives a sweet flying **** what God calls it? What do we call it?

Abortion.

Cavalry Doc
10-14-2012, 21:13
Who gives a sweet flying **** what God calls it? What do we call it?

The ending of a life. I'm not opposed to that all of the time. I've been ACTIVELY in favor of that before. The question is it a net good or a net bad. And is it good or bad under certain circumstances.

Ever seen one. It is an interesting thing to watch.

http://survivors.la/images/d-e-23-weeks.jpg

Freedom is sometimes ugly to see at the point of exercise.

But if it is a beautiful exercise of freedom, we should celebrate it, and how it looks. Show it to our kids, have a holiday and all that jazz.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/aborted_9_week_fetus.jpg

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

Some freedoms are not freedoms, if viewed from another perspective.

series1811
10-16-2012, 06:11
The ending of a life. I'm not opposed to that all of the time. I've been ACTIVELY in favor of that before. The question is it a net good or a net bad. And is it good or bad under certain circumstances.

Ever seen one. It is an interesting thing to watch.

http://survivors.la/images/d-e-23-weeks.jpg

Freedom is sometimes ugly to see at the point of exercise.

But if it is a beautiful exercise of freedom, we should celebrate it, and how it looks. Show it to our kids, have a holiday and all that jazz.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/aborted_9_week_fetus.jpg

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/medical/suctionweb.jpg

Some freedoms are not freedoms, if viewed from another perspective.

Anybody who can look at that and say, "I don't see a problem," is not the person you want to be on the lifeboat with when the food runs out.

Vic777
10-16-2012, 08:42
Anybody who can look at that and say, "I don't see a problem," is not the person you want to be on the lifeboat with when the food runs out.I don't know, whenever I meet a smoker, I know I can take him, I know that whatever the competition, given enough time, I can beat a smoker. I don't mean because of physical strength, I mean because of strength of character. Similarly, whenever I find my opponent is a lieberal, I know I can "take" him. Lieberals ultimately lose because they can't even trust themselves ... they lie to themselves, their brains are scrambled. Put me on a life raft with lieberals any day ... that makes me Captain. Lieberals, they taste just like chicken!

dbcooper
10-16-2012, 09:03
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f5/republicans-get-in-my-******

Alpine
10-16-2012, 18:49
Boy, things sure got quiet around here once the photos came out.

Cavalry Doc
10-16-2012, 19:27
Boy, things sure got quiet around here once the photos came out.


It's always funny when people that cover an issue with rhetoric, words like "freedom" and "choice", and fail to understand what it is they are talking about.

Unchecked freedom is not necessarily what you want.

I am not anti abortion. I won't perform them, I think anyone that wants one should pay 100% of the price of it, including complications. You pay, and you can play.

By the way, the first one of those I witnessed, I got to be the person to take the baby parts out of the suction collector and put them back in approximate anatomical position on the table. They do that to make sure you didn't miss any parts. If you do that, you can get real ugly. Google hydatidiform mole (https://www.google.com/search?q=hydatidiform+mole&hl=en&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=GJe&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=igh-UKLtM-SJ2AXqwIGACg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1902&bih=891). These are not procedures without risks, which is why I think a parent needs to be included in the informed consent, just the same way as getting a tattoo.

happyguy
10-16-2012, 19:52
I'm a nearly 60 year old man and when I see those pictures it makes me think of my children and it makes me want to cry at the same time.

It also makes me want to punch someone in the mouth.

Regards,
Happyguy :)