Really Jack?

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

dakota1977 Said:
So now individuals that can't survive at certain points on their own are okay to terminate? By that same principle is it okay to terminate someone that can't live without a bottle of oxygen or has to be on life support...even if only temporarily? It must be okay to terminate them. I mean why wouldn't we? After all, many are saying we can terminate what are clearly babies because they "can't survive out of the womb". Their situation is only temporary in which they are on life support (i.e. in the uterus) if they are but given a chance.

The Declaration of Independence talks about Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was designed to protect liberty. You cannot protect liberty if there is no life! None of the constitutional protections matter one iota without the fundamental protection of life itself. There is absolutely nothing conflicting or hypocriphal about working for limited government while working to protect life. Especially the lives of those that cannot protect themselves.

-Justin

Actually we do let the sick die - with some semblance of peace.

Doubt me....than you havent lived or been out in the world.

I have seen many on life support - let go and released.

Or would you condone keeping brain people stuck in failed bodies.

And what about children with massive deformities or disabilities....what about their pursuit of happiness...eh...

How happy and quality filled will be their life?

Especially if they lack the cognitive ability to even know...they are alive.

No one wants to talk about that.

And funny you should bring up the constitution - the laws you support just denied people their rights - for that of an embryo....an organism that cannot even sustain its own life, does not having cognitive awareness.

And spare me the drivel on how embryos feel and think - thats garbage science based on the self serving decrees of those with a vested interest in trying to remove abortion. Modern science and the World Health Organization have all but denounced those idiotic arguments. And why.....an organism without a brain cannot feel, think or exhibit awareness.

Patience Suchka.......

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

dakota1977 Said:
BTW... I stumbled across this quote about viability which I found very enlightening.

"...The nine-month old fetus is no more viable than the one-month old one. In fact, a one-month old baby has the same degree of viability. I hate to be so crude, but leave all three of them unattended on a table in a hospital and see what happens."

Source: http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance297.html

-Justin

Wrong.......

Doubt me - study a little developmental human biology.

Or are you one of those....I read it on the internet...so it must be true types.

The difference between a nine month old fetus is night and day.

Where do you people get your arguments.....the dollar bin at Walmarts....

Patience Suchka.......

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

Plainsman Said:

....I mean it is all about your sitting at home feeling pretentious and trite in forcing your beliefs on others.

From a societal stand point and not a personal one isn't being pro abortion or anti abortion both trying to get society to make laws in our favor?   My point is your pro abortion stand is as "forcing" as the anti abortion stand.   I'm not going to research all night, but don't most laws work that way?  Lets say some guy hates another guy to the extreme he would like to kill him.  Isn't outlawing murder forcing your opinion and my opinion on that person?  Yes Yes I know extreme, but I'm simply making a point.  Besides many of us consider abortion murder.

When two sides disagree one side is going to have it's opinion forced on the other.  You appear to think that somehow your side is more entitled and the other side is less entitled to do the same thing. 
 

Exactly.

They dont want liberal laws imposed on them.

But.............it is fine for them to impose their laws on others.

You cannot have it both ways.

Some of you see the ignorance in it, others are too blind with self serving rants to see the reality.

Gladly, this idiocy will be defeated in court. Just as the idiocy of those who would disarm has been defeated for the moment.

Fools.....

Patience Suchka.......

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

See what I did there.

Some dont get it, maybe Plainsman doesnt.

His post proves the point - both sides have a say - but neither have a right to push it on the other.

As it stands - allowing abortion doesnt mean you have to have one yourself, but it allows others to make their own choices.

Banning it however swings the balance to one sides point of view - being the land of the law.

The status quo was the equal, this new set of laws is not.

Patience Suchka.......

dakota1977's picture
dakota1977
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/27/06

Perhaps you didn't notice but I said "temporarily". That's the distinction. You see, babies that cannot survive outside the uterus are in a temporary condition. If allowed to continue, they eventually come to a point where they no longer need to be. This is the similarity to those that may have to be on life support temporarily as well. Many people have been on life support temporarily and eventually improved to the point where they no longer had to be. In those situations, do we just tear them to pieces and dispose of them? Of course not. But why not? They can't live independently for a time on their own. Why don't we? Because of respect for life and the realization that they may return to health.

Now, do some people not survive and are allowed to die? Of course. But here's the distinction...those people are at the end of their lives and there's nothing more that can be done for them. A baby is at the beginning of their life and there's MUCH that can be done for them. Furthermore, not at any point do we tear somebody on life support to pieces or burn them with a solution to get rid of them or any other grotesque and barbaric method that they use to terminate the lives of the unborn.

Now, in relation to the quote on viability, I don't think you understood what the author was saying. While there are certainly differences between a nine month fetus and a one month fetus, is there really much of a difference in terms of viability if you remove both from the womb and put both on a table and leave them unattended? Of course not. They will both die. While the nine month fetus may live longer before it expires, it will expire nonetheless if not taken care of. However, both are viable and will live to become independent persons if cared for long enough by those that can and should take responsibility for them.

BTW... There is no contradiction in a person being "pro gun" and "anti-abortion". We seek to protect gun ownership as an inherent right. Why? Well, not just for hunting. The fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to protect their lives and liberties and the lives and liberties of others from forces that would seek to destroy them. Why are so many of us also "anti-abortion"? Basically for the same reason...to protect the lives and liberties of those that cannot defend themselves from the forces that would seek to destroy them. If there are any contradictions, they are in those that say they stand for the 2nd Amendment and then support taking the lives of those that cannot defend themselves.

I'm not trying to "rant". I'm simply debating the issue. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. I know all sides of the issue feel strongly about their positions, and that is completely understandable.

-Justin

-Justin

mowerman's picture
mowerman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/30/11

God is pissed and it would be nice to be on the right side when he comes back!!!

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

mowerman Said:
God is pissed and it would be nice to be on the right side when he comes back!!!

that is your right to believe that.  Should we have a "law" that makes people believe that.

I am with eyekllr you cant have your cake and eat it to.   I am against abortion but who am i to tell you how to live with a decison that would not take any rights or effect me personally.

that poster bemoind posted is about spot on

 Adn

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

  Here is my opinion, abortion is an escape route. Are moral fabric of this country is destroyed. DO whatever, or whoever you want, we have a procedure to bail you out. There is an app for that.  If you are going to spread your legs, there is a possibilty. I thought are public sex ed should of taught this

   I dont know what the stats are, but I am guessing a majority of abortions happen with unwed young women. I dont see married women getting them and if there was I believed that be most horrific thing possible. To kill a baby that God blessed you with as a married couple. Now that is plain murder. And the husband would  be as much to blame for murdering his baby.

  Now really I dont care what anybody says, in fact abortion lines up with your most likable dictators, such as Hitler and stalin, you know the line, natural selection. and of course all of your evolution heros, Dartwin and um, well, thats the only one I know. But to tell me im shoving it down your throat is silly. This should be a non issue, I mean come on, lets make a vacuum and suck a baby out of a women, because he ran out of condoms, and they were in the moment and didnt want to buy any.
    Then lets make this legal to suck babies out of women and tell others its ok to spread your legs if it makes you feel good because now we can vacuum away your problems. As men you should stand up for the defenseless and weak, not complain cause it will cost us a dollar more taxes a year.

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"support for the child after birth and the right to life before birth are entirely different topics and mixing them together just seems like an attempt to cloud the topic/issue."
 
Support for a living human being (albeit one that can not vote) whether it lives in a house or inside a womb is one and the same.  The issue is not what shell it lives under, but simply whether or not it is living and it is human.  Nothing else matters.  Your statement is the classic liberal attempt to cloud the fact that we are talking about a living human being.  It's all they got. 

"They dont want liberal laws imposed on them.

But.............it is fine for them to impose their laws on others.

You cannot have it both ways."

What a laughable pile of trash. 

We'll do this again.  The unborn baby has brain waves.  The unborn baby has a heart beat.  Both the brain activity and heart beat are completely reliant on nourishment from the mother in order to keep both.  The baby has a highy developed nervous system.  The unborn baby has unique and distinctive form.  The baby in question is inside a human mother.   BOTH common sense AND medical science tells us this is a living entity, a living human baby.  That's what all of the above clearly make it.

Leave God out of it if you desire, leave emotion out of it.  Rely only on common sense and medical science.  To kill this living human baby or to support the killing of it means YOU are taking this baby's "rights' away.  YOU are taking the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS from another individual.  That can not be denied.

To favor legal abortion is to favor not only forcing the "rights" of another to be taken away, but the most important rights of all.

 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Meatball Said:
  Here is my opinion, abortion is an escape route. Are moral fabric of this country is destroyed. DO whatever, or whoever you want, we have a procedure to bail you out. There is an app for that.  If you are going to spread your legs, there is a possibilty. I thought are public sex ed should of taught this

   I dont know what the stats are, but I am guessing a majority of abortions happen with unwed young women. I dont see married women getting them and if there was I believed that be most horrific thing possible. To kill a baby that God blessed you with as a married couple. Now that is plain murder. And the husband would  be as much to blame for murdering his baby.

  Now really I dont care what anybody says, in fact abortion lines up with your most likable dictators, such as Hitler and stalin, you know the line, natural selection. and of course all of your evolution heros, Dartwin and um, well, thats the only one I know. But to tell me im shoving it down your throat is silly. This should be a non issue, I mean come on, lets make a vacuum and suck a baby out of a women, because he ran out of condoms, and they were in the moment and didnt want to buy any.
    Then lets make this legal to suck babies out of women and tell others its ok to spread your legs if it makes you feel good because now we can vacuum away your problems. As men you should stand up for the defenseless and weak, not complain cause it will cost us a dollar more taxes a year.

I like how you conveniently forgot to mention the huge role christianity made during nazi germany, a time when the German population was 95% christian.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

EyeKllr Said:
See what I did there.

Some dont get it, maybe Plainsman doesnt.

His post proves the point - both sides have a say - but neither have a right to push it on the other.

As it stands - allowing abortion doesnt mean you have to have one yourself, but it allows others to make their own choices.

Banning it however swings the balance to one sides point of view - being the land of the law.

The status quo was the equal, this new set of laws is not.

So... the fetus gets a choice in the pro-death situation?

 

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"I like how you conveniently forgot to mention the huge role christianity made during nazi germany, a time when the German population was 95% christian."

What does that have to do with abortion, especially in todays world?  I think you know it has nothing to do with it, but how else can you attempt to paint somebody as a hypocrit?  That's one poor attempt, but often used by the blind liberal.

 

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

Alpine Said:
"I like how you conveniently forgot to mention the huge role christianity made during nazi germany, a time when the German population was 95% christian."

What does that have to do with abortion, especially in todays world?  I think you know it has nothing to do with it, but how else can you attempt to paint somebody as a hypocrit?  That's one poor attempt, but often used by the blind liberal.

Dude, he didn't open that can of worms.  He was responding to another poster who used Hitler and Stalin as examples.

Your inability to attribute quotes makes your posts hard to follow.  Just so you know.

marker9911's picture
marker9911
Offline
Joined: 1/31/02

beminoid31 Said:
 

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

Wrong Farnorth.  The "can of worms" is not what I was at all concerned with OR addressing.  I fully understood his angle. Your inability to comprehend the big picture vs. the small picture has been made apparent.  Just so you know.

 

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

The last two lines of the above poster (will we see it a 3rd time?) illustrate the issue well.  "Don't like your rights taken away?   Don't take away someone else's right."

That's what abortion does.  It takes away the rights of another.  The most important right of all, without it there can be no other rights.  The right to life.  By killing an innocent living human being that "right" has been taken and destroyed.

Yes, don't take away someone else's right.  Don't kill them.

 

Marbleyes's picture
Marbleyes
Offline
Joined: 2/28/08

Calling everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you a liberal is way over used there hannity.

Unfortunately for the pro life crowd, abortions will not stop no matter what laws are made. Did laws stop drug use? Murders? Rapes? Speeding? Gun violence? You ripping the tag off of your mattress? You get the point.

 

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07
bringingtherain: please read this and then research what happened to Christians in Nazi Germany and whether Einstein (likely a hero of yours) really said what he is quoted as having said below.

Then blast Christianity again so we can see your disdain for Christianity in all its glory.

Have fun. I know you will.


"Not you, Herr Hitler, but God is my Führer." These defiant words of Pastor Martin Niemoller were echoed by millions of Germans. And Hitler raged: "It is Niemoller or I."

So this second Christmas of Hitler's war finds Niemoller and upwards of 200,000 other Christians (some estimates run as high as 800,000) behind the barbed wire of the frozen Nazi concentration camps. Here men bear mute witness that the Christ—whose birth the outside world celebrates unthinkingly at Christmas—can still inspire a living faith for which men and women even now endure imprisonment, torture and death as bravely as in centuries past.

More than 80% of the prisoners in the concentration camps are not Jews but Christians, and the best tribute to the spirit of Germany's Christians comes from a Jew and agnostic (TIME, Sept. 23) — the world's most famous scientist, Albert Einstein. Says he:

"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks....

"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."

 

beminoid31's picture
beminoid31
Offline
Joined: 12/26/08

 Either way you look at it you're going to take someone's rights away. Like it says above it....don't like abortion? Don't get one. How many of you pro-life people have protested outside an abortion clinic? I'm guessing none. That shows how important it is to you in everyday life. Probably never thought of it until jack tard signed the bill. What I'm trying to say is, if it ain't broke don't fix it. 

cant drink all day unless you start in the morning.
Im only one man
GET SOME!!!!!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

 here is the funny part... that sentence was meant to support the anti-abortion/pro-life position... you know... the side you are on.  you are so hell bent on arguing with anyone who you don't think is ultra conservative or right wing that you can't even tell when we agree with you anymore.  

to be clear about what i meant:  i believe the issue of whether or not an unborn child deserves the same rights and protection as a born child and at what point is a completely different issue about who is responsible for the care and support of that child once it is outside the womb and how that responsibility should be carried out.  

it seems to me that the pro-choice/abortion group is just attempting to cloud the waters when they say that "if you are pro-life/anti-abortion, you had also better be willing to be the person who supports the unwanted child once they are born".

don't get me wrong... i think that argument has some merit.  but, they really are two separate issues.  we can decide what rights and protections the unborn child is afforded and at what point... and tackle the issue of how to support them if the parent(s) aren't doing it in a whole different debate... for example... nobody disputes that a 2 year old child in the same position of having parents who don't want him or support him shouldn't be "terminated".  but, we often disagree about who should support them and how we should go about it.  

have i made that clear enough now?  or do you want to continue to disagree with me and call me out because you labeled me as a "liberal" in you mind long ago and therefore, nothing i ever say could possibly have merit? 


Alpine Said:

"support for the child after birth and the right to life before birth are entirely different topics and mixing them together just seems like an attempt to cloud the topic/issue."
 
Support for a living human being (albeit one that can not vote) whether it lives in a house or inside a womb is one and the same.  The issue is not what shell it lives under, but simply whether or not it is living and it is human.  Nothing else matters.  Your statement is the classic liberal attempt to cloud the fact that we are talking about a living human being.  It's all they got. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

and i ain't so sure whats wrong with the videos posted by dakota.  truth kind of hurts and is hard to face sometimes.  it is exactly that kind of information that a lot of state legislatures based their decisions on when they decided when the cut off date for abortions should be.  an unborn child at 20 weeks is EXACTLY like a child at full gestation... only about 1/10 of the size minus a couple of things not being fully developed.

and eyekiller... even though i can understand the pro-choice/abortion argument very early in the pregnancy and in very extreme situations, i don't quite understand your utter disdain and hatred for those that feel otherwise... because i would think most can agree they "have their heart in the right place".  for goodness sake, they are just trying to protect what they consider to be a human life.  agree or disagree... for me its impossible not to respect that train of thought even tho i might disagree with the contention that life begins the moment the sperm enters the egg.  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

ahhhh, what we are saying is that it IS broke and has been for some time now.

""support for the child after birth and the right to life before birth are entirely different topics and mixing them together just seems like an attempt to cloud the topic/issue."

I said - Support for a living human being (albeit one that can not vote) whether it lives in a house or inside a womb is one and the same.  The issue is not what shell it lives under, but simply whether or not it is living and it is human.  Nothing else matters.  Your statement is the classic liberal attempt to cloud the fact that we are talking about a living human being.  It's all they got. 

I did not state myself clearly, in that I was not  addressing you.  I was addressing how liberals attempt to approach this issue as a whole.  I should have more clearly stated in what part of your statement I agreed with and in which part of my statement I was not directly addressing yours at all. 

I get back to one, and only one issue.  Is it living, and is it human??  Nothing else matters.  If it is living and it is human, then this human has the same rights as you and I do.  This,is the only issue.

Yes, for those that ask how we are to care for these children or that we supporters of life should then be responsible is laughable.  WE ALL are responsible.  But that is not what is at issue. 

Is it, or is it not life?  Is it, or is it not human?

 

EyeKllr's picture
EyeKllr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 8/27/06

During the first term the fetus has no brain - just a barely developed begginings of a stem.

Unfortunately the Anti Abortion types have really skewed the reality in their bid to ban abortion.

So much incorrect information out there.

Makes me wonder why they lie so much.......is it to win a point, convert those who dont know biology and development?

Is "winning" so important to them.

Personally I detest it, and I do not believe in abortion.

Never have.

But it is about legislation rights and freedoms and swinging the pendulum to one side or the  other.

I dont like that.

And that is where I am coming from.

One can use all the self serving misinformation out there to try and bolster thier cries to ban things - but it is still just about controling people and imposing one sides beliefs on others.

That isnt right, never has been and never will be.

Patience Suchka.......

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Alpine Said:
"I like how you conveniently forgot to mention the huge role christianity made during nazi germany, a time when the German population was 95% christian."

What does that have to do with abortion, especially in todays world?  I think you know it has nothing to do with it, but how else can you attempt to paint somebody as a hypocrit?  That's one poor attempt, but often used by the blind liberal.

Why didn't you ask meatball the same question? I responded to the fact that he brought up hitler, and that he neglected to mention the role of christianity in the death of so many people.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

espringers Said:
 here is the funny part... that sentence was meant to support the anti-abortion position... you know... the side you are on.  you are so hell bent on arguing with anyone who you don't think is ultra conservative or right wing that you can't even tell when we agree with you anymore.  

to be clear about what i meant:  i believe the issue of whether or not an unborn child deserves the same rights and protection as a born child and at what point is a completely different issue about who is responsible for the care and support of that child once it is outside the womb and how that responsibility should be carried out.  

it seems to me that the pro-choice group is just attempting to cloud the waters when they say that "if you are pro-life, you had also better be willing to be the person who supports the unwanted child once they are born".

don't get me wrong... i think that argument has some merit.  but, they really are two separate issues.  we can decide what rights and protections the unborn child is afforded... and tackle the issue of how to support them if the parent(s) aren't doing it in a whole different debate... for example... nobody disputes that a 2 year old child in the same position of having parents who don't want him or support him shouldn't be "terminated".  but, we often disagree about who should support them and how we should go about it.  

have i made that clear enough now?  or do you want to continue to disagree with me and call me out because you labeled me as a "liberal" in you mind long ago and therefore, nothing i ever say could possibly have merit? 


Alpine Said:

"support for the child after birth and the right to life before birth are entirely different topics and mixing them together just seems like an attempt to cloud the topic/issue."
 
Support for a living human being (albeit one that can not vote) whether it lives in a house or inside a womb is one and the same.  The issue is not what shell it lives under, but simply whether or not it is living and it is human.  Nothing else matters.  Your statement is the classic liberal attempt to cloud the fact that we are talking about a living human being.  It's all they got. 

That's a hoot espringers.  It appeared right away that Alpine had scanned your post and somehow labeled you a Liberal and therefore there was no longer any reason to actually read your post.  Just pick on a single quote instead of the whole picture as he so loves to talk about.

I gave up even trying to figure out the point of his long post.  He still hasn't figured out why "bringing" responed to "meatball" the way he did.  Probably never will.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

haha, Guy....What I said isn't wrong, no way around that. Just keeping it simple.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Farnorth Said:

espringers Said:
 here is the funny part... that sentence was meant to support the anti-abortion position... you know... the side you are on.  you are so hell bent on arguing with anyone who you don't think is ultra conservative or right wing that you can't even tell when we agree with you anymore.  

to be clear about what i meant:  i believe the issue of whether or not an unborn child deserves the same rights and protection as a born child and at what point is a completely different issue about who is responsible for the care and support of that child once it is outside the womb and how that responsibility should be carried out.  

it seems to me that the pro-choice group is just attempting to cloud the waters when they say that "if you are pro-life, you had also better be willing to be the person who supports the unwanted child once they are born".

don't get me wrong... i think that argument has some merit.  but, they really are two separate issues.  we can decide what rights and protections the unborn child is afforded... and tackle the issue of how to support them if the parent(s) aren't doing it in a whole different debate... for example... nobody disputes that a 2 year old child in the same position of having parents who don't want him or support him shouldn't be "terminated".  but, we often disagree about who should support them and how we should go about it.  

have i made that clear enough now?  or do you want to continue to disagree with me and call me out because you labeled me as a "liberal" in you mind long ago and therefore, nothing i ever say could possibly have merit? 


Alpine Said:

"support for the child after birth and the right to life before birth are entirely different topics and mixing them together just seems like an attempt to cloud the topic/issue."
 
Support for a living human being (albeit one that can not vote) whether it lives in a house or inside a womb is one and the same.  The issue is not what shell it lives under, but simply whether or not it is living and it is human.  Nothing else matters.  Your statement is the classic liberal attempt to cloud the fact that we are talking about a living human being.  It's all they got. 

That's a hoot espringers.  It appeared right away that Alpine had scanned your post and somehow labeled you a Liberal and therefore there was no longer any reason to actually read your post.  Just pick on a single quote instead of the whole picture as he so loves to talk about.

I gave up even trying to figure out the point of his long post.  He still hasn't figured out why "bringing" responed to "meatball" the way he did.  Probably never will.

Chargers's picture
Chargers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/7/09

the only problem with what you said is that the courts have ruled against all of this and at this point that is all that matters. i have a hard time believing if it was as black and white as what you are saying the court would have ruled differently. just sayin.  

Alpine Said:
"support for the child after birth and the right to life before birth are entirely different topics and mixing them together just seems like an attempt to cloud the topic/issue."
 
Support for a living human being (albeit one that can not vote) whether it lives in a house or inside a womb is one and the same.  The issue is not what shell it lives under, but simply whether or not it is living and it is human.  Nothing else matters.  Your statement is the classic liberal attempt to cloud the fact that we are talking about a living human being.  It's all they got. 

"They dont want liberal laws imposed on them.

But.............it is fine for them to impose their laws on others.

You cannot have it both ways."

What a laughable pile of trash. 

We'll do this again.  The unborn baby has brain waves.  The unborn baby has a heart beat.  Both the brain activity and heart beat are completely reliant on nourishment from the mother in order to keep both.  The baby has a highy developed nervous system.  The unborn baby has unique and distinctive form.  The baby in question is inside a human mother.   BOTH common sense AND medical science tells us this is a living entity, a living human baby.  That's what all of the above clearly make it.

Leave God out of it if you desire, leave emotion out of it.  Rely only on common sense and medical science.  To kill this living human baby or to support the killing of it means YOU are taking this baby's "rights' away.  YOU are taking the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS from another individual.  That can not be denied.

To favor legal abortion is to favor not only forcing the "rights" of another to be taken away, but the most important rights of all.

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
controling people and imposing one sides beliefs on others.

That isnt right, never has been and never will be.
 

I understand what your saying, but sometimes there is no way to duck responsibility.  Keep in mind that total freedom without virtue is a recipe for social decay.  You accuse others of forcing their will, but we all do that.  Every law our nation makes forces will.  How many laws that are on the books now do you support?  Surely you support some.  Remember my comment about freedom without virtue?  There is no doubt in my mind that your a good person, but if you are you are forcing your will through government process.  If you are not your not a responsible citizen. 

Now for everyone's thought.  We all draw lines or we have no principles at all.  The only real question is where do we as individuals draw our lines.  When the majority draw a line in one particular area our government forms laws that forces society to conform to that line.  Lets get real about all this silly talk about "forcing". 

So where should the abortion lines be drawn?  Up to birth, six months, one month, none at all?  When does life begin.  Well science gets pulled into the political too.  In many instances science says life begins with a single viable cell.  Then we talk about abortion and scientists start to backpedal on their definition for their own personal reasons not biological reasons.  I think there is no argument when life begins.  The pro abortion people can argue when a child is human, but not when life begins.  The truth is life begins at conception, it's just that the child is a parasite on the mother for nine months.  Some are parasites for 20 to 30 years and beyond.  I hope no one is living in their mothers basement right now.    Actually if your at home debating with us your still not free living.  Come on you little fetusus go get a job.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

BringingTheRain Said:
haha, Guy....What I said isn't wrong, no way around that. Just keeping it simple.

"the huge role christianity made during nazi germany"

Got some proof?

Didn't think so.

 

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"the only problem with what you said is that the courts have ruled against all of this and at this point that is all that matters. i have a hard time believing if it was as black and white as what you are saying the court would have ruled differently. just sayin."

The courts gave the voter (mother) all the consideration and the unborn baby zero consideration.  Of course, with the improvement in medical technology since the early 1970's it's really easy to prove that what we are talking about here is indeed life.  The courts did not consider life.  Hopefully one day this presentation can be made again with human life the focus.  We can not be a civilized society until we do.  

 

MuskyManiac's picture
MuskyManiac
Offline
Joined: 1/7/04

Wow, I'm surprised with 17 pages of replys everyone hasn't found common ground on this issue.  I know my mind has been changed by reading some of the highly intellectual posts. 

Please, spring, get here fast....everyone has cabin fever!

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

EyeKllr Said:
During the first term the fetus has no brain - just a barely developed begginings of a stem.

Unfortunately the Anti Abortion types have really skewed the reality in their bid to ban abortion.

So much incorrect information out there.

Makes me wonder why they lie so much.......is it to win a point, convert those who dont know biology and development?

Is "winning" so important to them.

Personally I detest it, and I do not believe in abortion.

Never have.

But it is about legislation rights and freedoms and swinging the pendulum to one side or the  other.

I dont like that.

And that is where I am coming from.

One can use all the self serving misinformation out there to try and bolster thier cries to ban things - but it is still just about controling people and imposing one sides beliefs on others.

That isnt right, never has been and never will be.

Too me and many others it appears that you have not fully attained complete brain structure, and therefore we should have the choice to abort you.....

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Wags86's picture
Wags86
Offline
Joined: 12/14/10

and let the jabs and name calling begin. Took exactly 16 more pages than i thought it would take

 

 "I get what you're saying:  Like a sausage replica featuring a Polander holding a sacred illumination device." 

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

so whats  your position on fertilized eggs or embryos involving a couple hundred or so cells frozen in a lab for fertilization treatment or leftover after the same treatment?  or your position on the plan B pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb?  since life begins at "conception" for you, what would you propose be done with those fertilized eggs or embryos that are considered extra?  do we need to make every attempt to give them a chance at "life" and try and find surrogate mothers to implant them in?  if not, then you must support ending any and all types of fertilization treatments because having leftover eggs or embryos is almost a certainty at some point.  

Plainsman Said:

So where should the abortion lines be drawn?  Up to birth, six months, one month, none at all?  When does life begin.  Well science gets pulled into the political too.  In many instances science says life begins with a single viable cell.  Then we talk about abortion and scientists start to backpedal on their definition for their own personal reasons not biological reasons.  I think there is no argument when life begins.  The pro abortion people can argue when a child is human, but not when life begins.  The truth is life begins at conception, it's just that the child is a parasite on the mother for nine months.  Some are parasites for 20 to 30 years and beyond.  I hope no one is living in their mothers basement right now.    Actually if your at home debating with us your still not free living.  Come on you little fetusus go get a job.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Ponder this: Anyone adult or child, mentally handi-capped, physically handi-capped or otherwise incapable of surviving by their own means; is very similar a child within the womb which is not viable without the mother. So using the not viable arguement we could choose to "abort" all of those that in anyway inconvience us if they are not viable without the protective womb of family, or GOVT. assistance programs. Sound crazy? YES, but the exact logic that many pro-choicers use.

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

      BTR are you kidding, how did this turn into christian genocide. You want to debate WWII history . Hitler was all about natural selection, strongest survives, aka abortion, kill the handicapped, mental, political, jews christians, it didnt matter.
     He even set up houses where SS officers would go and impregnant german women so he could form his own breed of superior race.

 England a protestant nation, USA christian nation fought this evil, how about russia where churches were shut down , and your god was stalin and his communist state.Look what they did, he killed anybody they thought was threat to the state. This is what happens when respect for life is gone.

Hitler believed in evolution and selective breeding, can you imagine when a country aborts babies because they are female. This is about sucking a baby out of some woman. It doesnt matter if you are a christian or not 

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Meatball Said:
      BTR are you kidding, how did this turn into christian genocide. You want to debate WWII history . Hitler was all about natural selection, strongest survives, aka abortion, kill the handicapped, mental, political, jews christians, it didnt matter.
     He even set up houses where SS officers would go and impregnant german women so he could form his own breed of superior race.

 England a protestant nation, USA christian nation fought this evil, how about russia where churches were shut down , and your god was stalin and his communist state.Look what they did, he killed anybody they thought was threat to the state. This is what happens when respect for life is gone.

Hitler believed in evolution and selective breeding, can you imagine when a country aborts babies because they are female. This is about sucking a baby out of some woman. It doesnt matter if you are a christian or not 

Bingo! This isn't a religous issue, its an issue of human decency and respect for the life of an individual.

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

marker9911's picture
marker9911
Offline
Joined: 1/31/02

Nothing we can do about it now...accept dont vote for the jack*** that signed it...thats about all we can do...

walleyepike1976's picture
walleyepike1976
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/29/10

walleyepike1976 Said:
So I ask this at what point does the mothers life become less important than babies life?  I keep getting asked about my beliefs and seriously would like to know the answer to this question.  I believe mothers health trumps pre outside of womb baby viability.  If the baby is viable outside the womb then they can deliver and try to keep them both alive. 

Nobody wants to humor me with an answer to this simple question.

Here is my full take if you are Pro-life the woman has no rights when she becomes pregnant.  The baby trumps the mother in every circumstance wether the mother is in danger of dying or not.  Pro-life means no abortion period not even exceptions.  That is the true Prolife stance.  You can not be pro-life and believe in exceptions its not possible.

Pro-choice/ pro-abortion gives the woman rights to herself to make the best informed decision for herself.  I do not believe it should be used as birth control but there has to be exceptions allowed in extraordinary circumstances.  The mother should have rights as well as the baby.  laws need to be structured to try and protect all parties mother, baby and doctors.  Where is that balance between mother and baby?  I dont know exactly what it is.  I dont know the answers to the all the questions.  I am just simply putting my opinion out there.  Do I wish that a decision like this never would have to be made?  Yes but thats not the real world

Obi-Wan's picture
Obi-Wan
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/13/12

can abortions be preformed as late as 20 to 22 weeks?   15 years ago our daughter was born at 26 weeks due to a problem in the pregnancy.  She was 12" long and 1 lb 4 oz.  She was in ICU for 12 weeks before she was allowed to come home.  She required very little medical help in the 12 weeks,  she was kept just because of her size.   She is now 15 years old and has been healthy with no problems.    I don't believe in abortion and think it is morally wrong but I am not going to tell someone else what they believe .  I do have a problem with how far along in the pregnancy that abortions are allowed.     I am not sure if I agree with 6 weeks as the new law will have but I definetly do not agree with 20 or 22 weeks

Meatball's picture
Meatball
Offline
Joined: 3/8/12

I agree if the mothers life is in threat of dying,they should have the option. either way it sucks.

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

marker9911 Said:
Nothing we can do about it now...accept dont vote for the jack*** that signed it...thats about all we can do...

Did he write the law?

 

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

walleye... i wouldn't hold your breath waiting for an answer.  the questions that require any thought very seldom get any attention.

and obi-wan... i think in ND they allow them up to about 24 weeks.  i am pretty sure they don't give an exact date.  they might use the term "viable outside the womb" or something to that nature.  which given current medical care is consistently right in that area.  and i too have a serious problem with them being allowed so late.  whether anyone wants to admit it or not... aborting an unborn child at that point is hardly any different than killing a child once its born.  they look the same and feel the same pain.  my sister had a child delivered sometime just after 23 weeks i think... and aside from the fact that he was only a pound and would fit in your hand, he was a baby in every sense of the word.  it took quite a few medical procedures, a million bucks from the insurance company and 24/7 care for the next 12-16 weeks.  but, he is now a bit over 2 years old and healthy as any kid. 

worse yet... there are a few states that allow them past that point.  i think new jersey might be one that allows them right up until full term in certain circumstances. 

the line needs to be drawn somewhere that is for sure. 

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

marker9911's picture
marker9911
Offline
Joined: 1/31/02

guywhofishes Said:

marker9911 Said:
Nothing we can do about it now...accept dont vote for the jack*** that signed it...thats about all we can do...

Did he write the law?

nope but he signed it

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03

espringers Said:
so whats  your position on fertilized eggs or embryos involving a couple hundred or so cells frozen in a lab for fertilization treatment or leftover after the same treatment?  or your position on the plan B pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb?  since life begins at "conception" for you, what would you propose be done with those fertilized eggs or embryos that are considered extra?  do we need to make every attempt to give them a chance at "life" and try and find surrogate mothers to implant them in?  if not, then you must support ending any and all types of fertilization treatments because having leftover eggs or embryos is almost a certainty at some point.  

Plainsman Said:

So where should the abortion lines be drawn?  Up to birth, six months, one month, none at all?  When does life begin.  Well science gets pulled into the political too.  In many instances science says life begins with a single viable cell.  Then we talk about abortion and scientists start to backpedal on their definition for their own personal reasons not biological reasons.  I think there is no argument when life begins.  The pro abortion people can argue when a child is human, but not when life begins.  The truth is life begins at conception, it's just that the child is a parasite on the mother for nine months.  Some are parasites for 20 to 30 years and beyond.  I hope no one is living in their mothers basement right now.    Actually if your at home debating with us your still not free living.  Come on you little fetusus go get a job.

None of that is at issue.  That just clouds the conversation.

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

Plainsman Said:

espringers Said:
so whats  your position on fertilized eggs or embryos involving a couple hundred or so cells frozen in a lab for fertilization treatment or leftover after the same treatment?  or your position on the plan B pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb?  since life begins at "conception" for you, what would you propose be done with those fertilized eggs or embryos that are considered extra?  do we need to make every attempt to give them a chance at "life" and try and find surrogate mothers to implant them in?  if not, then you must support ending any and all types of fertilization treatments because having leftover eggs or embryos is almost a certainty at some point.  

Plainsman Said:

So where should the abortion lines be drawn?  Up to birth, six months, one month, none at all?  When does life begin.  Well science gets pulled into the political too.  In many instances science says life begins with a single viable cell.  Then we talk about abortion and scientists start to backpedal on their definition for their own personal reasons not biological reasons.  I think there is no argument when life begins.  The pro abortion people can argue when a child is human, but not when life begins.  The truth is life begins at conception, it's just that the child is a parasite on the mother for nine months.  Some are parasites for 20 to 30 years and beyond.  I hope no one is living in their mothers basement right now.    Actually if your at home debating with us your still not free living.  Come on you little fetusus go get a job.

None of that is at issue.  That just clouds the conversation.

Really?  Since when?  Have you read the "personhood" Bill?  They passed that one too.

The voters will actually get to vote on that one.

buckmaster81's picture
buckmaster81
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/9/03

Have any of you here actually read any of these bills or are you all pining over skewed info you have recieved from media sources???

Hunt Hard and NEVER GIVE UP

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

well its and issue if you take the position that life begins as soon as the sperm enters the egg.  it might not be an issue with any of the bills except the personhood bill.  but, if you take the position that life begins at conception and all life deserves the same protection... like you and i think a lot of others on the 100% pro-life side seem to be taking... i would be interested to know how you reconcile questions like the ones posed.  sure it might not answer the specific debate about these particular bills.  but, i've been asking out of curiosity since this thread began and i don't think i've gotten one single answer... i know somebody answered it a few weeks back when this was brought up and they were honest enough to say something along the lines of "i don't think we should play god and be messing with fertilization treatments and or artificial insemmination" or something along those lines.  which is a viewpoint i respect.  but, i would just like to hear some other takes from folks who take the same hardline position about life at conception that you seem to be taking.  i ask cause i find it thought provoking.  not because i am going to jump down your throat about it just because i am likely to disagree with you.   

Plainsman Said:

espringers Said:
so whats  your position on fertilized eggs or embryos involving a couple hundred or so cells frozen in a lab for fertilization treatment or leftover after the same treatment?  or your position on the plan B pill that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb?  since life begins at "conception" for you, what would you propose be done with those fertilized eggs or embryos that are considered extra?  do we need to make every attempt to give them a chance at "life" and try and find surrogate mothers to implant them in?  if not, then you must support ending any and all types of fertilization treatments because having leftover eggs or embryos is almost a certainty at some point.  

Plainsman Said:

So where should the abortion lines be drawn?  Up to birth, six months, one month, none at all?  When does life begin.  Well science gets pulled into the political too.  In many instances science says life begins with a single viable cell.  Then we talk about abortion and scientists start to backpedal on their definition for their own personal reasons not biological reasons.  I think there is no argument when life begins.  The pro abortion people can argue when a child is human, but not when life begins.  The truth is life begins at conception, it's just that the child is a parasite on the mother for nine months.  Some are parasites for 20 to 30 years and beyond.  I hope no one is living in their mothers basement right now.    Actually if your at home debating with us your still not free living.  Come on you little fetusus go get a job.

None of that is at issue.  That just clouds the conversation.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

Pages