Huckabee: Abortion not states' call

[Dos Equis]

Location, location, location.  Only the mother can feed the unborn (part of her body).  Any one can feed a newborn(not part of her body).  There's your logical distinction. 

I agree with you about your summary statement.  As I've noted, any thinking person would be hard-pressed to choose an abortion.  But what do I know.  I'll never have to make that choice.

I said "In terms of dependency."  Are you saying a newborn is less dependent than an unborn child? 

I have thanked God, repeatedly, that I'm not a woman.  Abortion (and childbirth) are just two of the reasons why.  Horrible position to be in.  I'm glad I'll never have to make that decision too. 

[OzmO]

no worries Bum - I still have my doubts.   I believe you are an inherently dishonest person.

I make a decent living recognizing patterns and maybe I'm wrong about this but I'm still doubtful. 
For example, even if there are two different people you could have access to both accounts.

Anyway, I'll drop it for now

They are not same.   Look at the way they talk and debate. 

[Dos Equis]

no worries Bum - I still have my doubts.   I believe you are an inherently dishonest person.

I make a decent living recognizing patterns and maybe I'm wrong about this but I'm still doubtful.  
For example, even if there are two different people you could have access to both accounts.

Anyway, I'll drop it for now

 

[Decker]

I said "In terms of dependency."  Are you saying a newborn is less dependent than an unborn child? 

I have thanked God, repeatedly, that I'm not a woman.  Abortion (and childbirth) are just two of the reasons why.  Horrible position to be in.  I'm glad I'll never have to make that decision too. 

Dependent on whom?  Before birth, the baby is absolutely dependent on the mother.  After birth, the mother's presence is inconsequential to the survival of the baby.  That's why adoption works.

That mother's primacy over the baby during the term is obvious in a biological sense.  After the term, it is different b/c the baby does not necessarily depend on the biological mother any more.  Any person could care for the kid.

[Dos Equis]

They are not same.   Look at the way they talk and debate. 

You never know Ozmo.  We may have you fooled too.    

But I have to confess that I'm jealous that he has a 21 inch neck.  Freakin incredible hulk.  

[Straw Man]

I said "In terms of dependency."  Are you saying a newborn is less dependent than an unborn child? 

I have thanked God, repeatedly, that I'm not a woman.  Abortion (and childbirth) are just two of the reasons why.  Horrible position to be in.  I'm glad I'll never have to make that decision too. 

you have a weird fucking way of looking at the world.  Have you ever considered that a woman might see the ability to have a child as a blessing rather than a curse?

Here's the problem with abortion - no one - repeat No One can say definitively when life begins and we even have problems sometimes knowing exactly when it ends

Since we don't know we have to make choices without perfect information.   If your religious beliefs tell you that Thou Shall Not Kill then you either have to apply that to everything inluding the Death Penalty and War or you have to admit that you're also making distinctions based on your own personal beliefs.

The procedure of abortion is always a medical issue and we as a society have drawn distinctions about when it can or can't be done.  I'm perfectly comfortable with this situation and it's really a matter of personal choice.

If you are against abortion then you are FREE to not have one

[Straw Man]

They are not same.   Look at the way they talk and debate. 

That's exactly what I'm looking at but I will drop it because it's not relevent to this thread and I apologize to the board for derailing it.

[Dos Equis]

Dependent on whom?  Before birth, the baby is absolutely dependent on the mother.  After birth, the mother's presence is inconsequential to the survival of the baby.  That's why adoption works.

That mother's primacy over the baby during the term is obvious in a biological sense.  After the term, it is different b/c the baby does not necessarily depend on the biological mother any more.  Any person could care for the kid.

That is a distinction without a difference.  The baby cannot survive on its own before and right after birth.  Completely dependent.  

And although this has nothing to do with dependency, unless the mother is giving the baby up for adoption or is incompetent, she is legally obligated to care for the baby.  

[Butterbean]

Stella,

I'm aware BB is "messing" with me.   I just doubt his sincerity.  If you know for certain that they are not the same person then I will take your word for it. 

Thanks

Yes, I'm certain they are not the same person.

Premature babies do exist.  But how is that relevant to laws governing a woman's choice to abortion? 

I wasn't referring to the laws re: a woman's choice but your "host" statement.

I was referring to your statement that the unborn baby is dependent upon the "host" mother to survive.  My point was that some late term "fetuses" may be dependent upon the host but could survive if taken from the host "early."  I don't think I was (or am being?) clear.  Sorry!

[Decker]

That is a distinction without a difference.  The baby cannot survive on its own before and right after birth.  Completely dependent.  

And although this has nothing to do with dependency, unless the mother is giving the baby up for adoption or is incompetent, she is legally obligated to care for the baby.  

That is a major distinction b/c unborn kids NECESSARILY depend on the biological mother.  After birth, ANYONE can care for the kid.

That necessity of reliance on the part of the unborn child frames the practical matter of which entity has primacy in the pregnancy: the mother or the unborn child.  Re survival, the unborn child needs the mother more than the mother needs the unborn child.

[OzmO]

That's exactly what I'm looking at but I will drop it because it's not relevent to this thread and I apologize to the board for derailing it.

Since i first started posting ion GetBIg, I've had many many conversations with both of them.   

BB has a very distinctive style compared to C-500 in the way he forms his arguments. 

C-500 talks more about how he feels about something when debating than BB and BB tends to base his debate points on black and white facts when debating. 

C-500 usually won't engage in ad-hom while BB will usually engage in it for his own personal entertainment. 

C-500 religious views influence his political views greatly and bases many of his arguments on that while BB, in a debate, will point out facts such as studies, polls and research, to back up his conclusions. 

C-500 will debate with you to a point and then drop it altogether while BB will keep debating to the end most of the time.

BB and C-500 are great guys to talk, debate and learn from, but they are 2 distinctly different people.  Something like this is easy to fake for a short time, but very hard to do it over a long period of time without revealing similarities.

[Dos Equis]

That is a major distinction b/c unborn kids NECESSARILY depend on the biological mother.  After birth, ANYONE can care for the kid.

That necessity of reliance on the part of the unborn child frames the practical matter of which entity has primacy in the pregnancy: the mother or the unborn child.  Re survival, the unborn child needs the mother more than the mother needs the unborn child.

I disagree.  The fact is the baby is still dependent.  So if the issue is protecting the dependent baby, it doesn't matter who cares for the child.

Regarding survival, the mother doesn't need the unborn child to survive, so not sure what you mean?      

[Dos Equis]

Since i first started posting ion GetBIg, I've had many many conversations with both of them.   

BB has a very distinctive style compared to C-500 in the way he forms his arguments. 

C-500 talks more about how he feels about something when debating than BB and BB tends to base his debate points on black and white facts when debating. 

C-500 usually won't engage in ad-hom while BB will usually engage in it for his own personal entertainment. 

C-500 religious views influence his political views greatly and bases many of his arguments on that while BB, in a debate, will point out facts such as studies, polls and research, to back up his conclusions. 

C-500 will debate with you to a point and then drop it altogether while BB will keep debating to the end most of the time.

BB and C-500 are great guys to talk, debate and learn from, but they are 2 distinctly different people.  Something like this is easy to fake for a short time, but very hard to do it over a long period of time without revealing similarities.

You know, sometimes you get on my nerves with how well you read me.   

I think we have disagreed on quite a bit, but it has always been good having exchanges with you.  I should go hang out on the Religion board and help you with the whole Biblical hostility thing.   

[loco]

If your religious beliefs tell you that Thou Shall Not Kill

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is not the only thing that makes believers in God want to do what is right, and not what is easy, about this issue.

Proverbs 31:8
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute."

[Straw Man]

Since i first started posting ion GetBIg, I've had many many conversations with both of them.   

BB has a very distinctive style compared to C-500 in the way he forms his arguments. 

C-500 talks more about how he feels about something when debating than BB and BB tends to base his debate points on black and white facts when debating. 

C-500 usually won't engage in ad-hom while BB will usually engage in it for his own personal entertainment. 

C-500 religious views influence his political views greatly and bases many of his arguments on that while BB, in a debate, will point out facts such as studies, polls and research, to back up his conclusions. 

C-500 will debate with you to a point and then drop it altogether while BB will keep debating to the end most of the time.

BB and C-500 are great guys to talk, debate and learn from, but they are 2 distinctly different people.  Something like this is easy to fake for a short time, but very hard to do it over a long period of time without revealing similarities.

Fair enough - keep in mind that people can analyze the exact same data (for example a particular stock) and one will decide it's going down while the other will decide it's going up - same data - opposite conclusion.

I could list a bunch of reason/examples and even with that I can fully acknowledge that I could be wrong.   

Stella is a moderator and I assume she has access to additional info or perhaps she actually knows one or both personally.    I have no reason to doubt her.

[Straw Man]

"Thou Shall Not Kill" is not the only thing that makes believers in God want to do what is right, and not what is easy, about this issue.

Proverbs 31:8
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute."

I assume you're also against the death penalty and you're also a pacifist

Also, does the desititute include the poor and homeless?  Do the Christians stick up for them with the same fervor and passion?

[OzmO]

You know, sometimes you get on my nerves with how well you read me.   

I think we have disagreed on quite a bit, but it has always been good having exchanges with you.  I should go hang out on the Religion board and help you with the whole Biblical hostility thing.   

heheheh. 

Part of what i do in working with people, is spotting things like that.  Of course, i am wrong sometimes.

I'm not hostile to the Bible, I just question what other people accept as.

[loco]

I assume you're also against the death penalty and you're also a pacifist

Also, does the desititute include the poor and homeless?  Do the Christians stick up for them with the same fervor and passion?

Yes

[Straw Man]

Yes

fair enough - then you are consistent in your beliefs and no one should ever force you to have an abortion, be an executioner or go to war

[loco]

fair enough - then you are consistent in your beliefs and no one should ever force you to have an abortion, be an executioner or go to war

But I'm compelled to oppose legal abortion, to defend the rights of the unborn babies and to speak up for the unborn babies.

[Straw Man]

But I'm let to oppose legal abortion, to defend the rights of and speak up for the unborn.

What does "I'm let to" mean?

you can defend anyone or anything you want.  You have that freedom in this country.

[loco]

What does "I'm let to" mean?

you can defend anyone or anything you want.  You have that freedom in this country.

Sorry!  I've modified my post above.

[Cap]

We are allegedly an intelligent species.  One would think that a woman fully aware of what a pregnancy is would never willingly choose an abortion.  But that's not the case. 
 

So why then do women engage in unsafe sexual practices that lead to their pregnancy if they do not want these children?  Raising a child to 18 is much more expensive than the jumbo pack of condoms at Costco.

Only in this country will the ACLU and other liberal idiots defend some moron and try to get him off death row or help them get free and support "women's choice" which is cold blooded murder of a defenseless person.  It is no different than stabbing your daughter or son in the head while they sleep.  To make the comparison to the death penalty is idiotic because those people had a chance at life and blew it and if you want to quote scriptures then look at Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

[Decker]

So why then do women engage in unsafe sexual practices that lead to their pregnancy if they do not want these children?  Raising a child to 18 is much more expensive than the jumbo pack of condoms at Costco.

Only in this country will the ACLU and other liberal idiots defend some moron and try to get him off death row or help them get free and support "women's choice" which is cold blooded murder of a defenseless person.  It is no different than stabbing your daughter or son in the head while they sleep.  To make the comparison to the death penalty is idiotic because those people had a chance at life and blew it and if you want to quote scriptures then look at Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

Here's why unwanted pregnancies happen:  Sex is fun.  Sometimes the contraception fails and sometimes people don't use contraception.  But it's the funness of sex which makes it something people do.  Also, people can be irresponsible.  The Bible is one long story tracking the irresponsibility of the chosen people.

I didn't compare the death penalty to abortion.  I really don't support either.

But as I noted, it is a biological fact that the woman is in control of her body.  As long as the child is wholly part of the woman's body, she has the freedom to do as she pleases.

Now the law has curbed that freedom to outlaw very late term abortions in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman is in control and responsible for herself and her passenger.

Why do you attribute some moral component to me?  I think that I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[Cap]

Here's why unwanted pregnancies happen:  Sex is fun.  Sometimes the contraception fails and sometimes people don't use contraception.  But it's the funness of sex which makes it something people do.  Also, people can be irresponsible.  The Bible is one long story tracking the irresponsibility of the chosen people.

I didn't compare the death penalty to abortion.  I really don't support either.

But as I noted, it is a biological fact that the woman is in control of her body.  As long as the child is wholly part of the woman's body, she has the freedom to do as she pleases.

Now the law has curbed that freedom to outlaw very late term abortions in some cases, but that doesn't change the fact that the woman is in control and responsible for herself and her passenger.

Why do you attribute some moral component to me?  I think that I'm just pointing out the obvious.

A parent is always in control of their child so why is it okay to kill your child when they are in your womb but not 2 years down the road when there is even more inconvenience?  How can you differentiate murdering your child?  Having a doctor stab your baby in the head is no different than paying a hitman to whack your husband/wife.