Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2007, 04:52:46 PM
-
He's intellectually honest.
Nov 18, 5:47 PM EST
Huckabee: Abortion not states' call
By WILL LESTER
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was taken aback by the National Right to Life Committee's recent endorsement of Fred Thompson, the ex-Tennessee senator.
"But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life," said Huckabee, who is challenging Thompson's claim that he is the most reliable conservative in the GOP field.
"Fred's never had a 100 percent record on right to life in his Senate career. The records reflect that. And he doesn't support the human life amendment which is most amazing because that's been a part of the Republican platform since 1980," Huckabee said.
In a separate interview aired Sunday, Thompson said Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion, should be overturned, with states allowed to decide whether to permit abortions. "We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade," he said.
Thompson spokeswomen Karen Hanretty said Thompson has a very strong record on abortion. The National Right to Life Committee said when it endorsed him that Thompson "has had a strong, consistent pro-life voting record throughout his political career."
Huckabee also previewed his first television ad of the campaign on the program. The 60-second spot, which features actor Chuck Norris, was to begin running in Iowa on Monday.
"My plan to secure the border. Two words: Chuck. Norris," says Huckabee, who stares into the camera before it cuts away to show Norris standing beside him.
"Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter who'll protect our Second Amendment rights" on gun ownership, says the tough-guy actor, who takes turns addressing viewers.
"There's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard, only another fist," Huckabee says.
"Mike Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business," Norris adds.
"When Chuck Norris does a push-up, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the earth down," Huckabee says.
"Mike's a principled, authentic conservative," says Norris.
In closing, Huckabee says: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse. He tells America how it's going to be. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approved this message. So did Chuck."
Huckabee acknowledged that the ad probably will not change many minds.
"But what it does do is exactly what it's doing this morning," he said. "Getting a lot of attention, driving people to our Web site, giving them an opportunity to find out who is this guy that would come out with Chuck Norris in a commercial."
Thompson's campaign said the ad shows Huckabee is not serious about immigration, an issue in Iowa.
"With his new campaign ad featuring Chuck Norris, Mike Huckabee has confused celebrity endorsement with serious policy. What would Huckabee do to secure America's border against millions of illegal immigrants pouring into our country? According to his ad, 'Two words: Chuck Norris,'" said Thompson campaign spokesman Todd Harris.
Thompson was interviewed by ABC's "This Week."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/H/HUCKABEE?SITE=HIHAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-
Wow is Huckabee wrong. If Roe v. Wade is over-turned, the right to an abortion devolves to a state matter.
-
So called pro-lifers are idiots. Abortion is an ugly reality in this world and we need to accept that. Just tell a 16 year old girl who has been raped and beaten that she will be forced to bear the baby of her rapist...doesn't work too well then does it...
-
I always thought abortion was a procedure, ...and 'right to life' was a political organization. :-\
-
So called pro-lifers are idiots. Abortion is an ugly reality in this world and we need to accept that. Just tell a 16 year old girl who has been raped and beaten that she will be forced to bear the baby of her rapist...doesn't work too well then does it...
Wow. I wasn't aware that a majority of abortions were due to rape. Would you care to back that inference with facts?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
-
Wow. I wasn't aware that a majority of abortions were due to rape. Would you care to back that inference with facts?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
I didn't see any inference claiming the majority of abortions carried any relevance.
-
I always thought abortion was a procedure, ...and 'right to life' was a political organization. :-\
::)
-
Doesn't matter if the law changes.
Abortion will still happen.
but what will change is the fall out from abortion being illegal.
- Health issues from Illegal abortions
- Criminal and Court cost from illegal abortions will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise
-
Doesn't matter if the law changes.
Abortion will still happen.
but what will change is the fall out from abortion being illegal.
- Health issues from Illegal abortions
- Criminal and Court cost from illegal abortions will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise
We already have mothers who get depressed and murder their born children. The law already punishes those women, but that does not stop them. Must we just make that legal too and let those women go unpunished only to prevent these?
- Health issues from women not being able to handle the pressure of raising their born children
- Criminal and Court cost from prosecuting those women will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise for those children that we are able to save
Abortion is the murder of an unborn human life. We can discuss in a different thread abortions in the case of rape or in the case where the mother may die if the baby is not aborted, but let's discuss the many cases in which abortion is nothing but another form of birth control. Legal abortion is letting the murderer go unpunished. We must defend those who cannot defend themselves and we must speak for those who can't speak for themselves.
-
Wow. I wasn't aware that a majority of abortions were due to rape. Would you care to back that inference with facts?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Buttnut, I never said that or implied that, I was merely showing something that does happen and would be a consequence of religious nutcases' policy...
-
Wow is Huckabee wrong. If Roe v. Wade is over-turned, the right to an abortion devolves to a state matter.
What that creationist nutcase wants to do though is universally put a constitutional ban on all abortion...
-
Buttnut, I never said that or implied that, I was merely showing something that does happen and would be a consequence of religious nutcases' policy...
Why should a procedure/law be put in place for 1% of the abortion cases?
-
Huck is the most honest Repub running who is not named Ron Paul.
I might vote for him if he gets the nod. Rudy and McCain and Mitt have all flipflopped repeatedly - these men have no integrity and will flip once they're in office, just as Bush did ("We are not in the business of nationbuilding!", then declining UN's offer to nationbuild Iraq for us).
Huckabee is pro-gun and I love my damn guns. Every candidate (except Kucinish and Paul) is essentially pro war (Iran now) so that's a small issue.
-
Why should a procedure/law be put in place for 1% of the abortion cases?
It's a woman's body. You can't force a woman to do something with her own body.
-
I always thought abortion was a procedure, ...and 'right to life' was a political organization. :-\
::)
I'd wager a dollar the Colossus_500 and Beach Bum are the same person
-
It's a woman's body. You can't force a woman to do something with her own body.
We force men to pay alimony. We force men to deal with pregnancies they want no part of. We force (via laws) men and women not to murder one another but that rule doesn't apply to women, doctors and a fetus? Almost half of abortions are done so out of convenience so please don't bring up rape and try to sway people to believe your argument. You'd have better luck with economics and even then you'd fail with many.
Like I've said before, why do we charge killers with double homicide if a child is not a life until born?
-
Wow is Huckabee wrong. If Roe v. Wade is over-turned, the right to an abortion devolves to a state matter.
He's actually right. If you believe abortion is immoral and murder then you prohibit the practice. You don't let the states decide to permit murder (if that's your belief). It's a very honest assessment.
-
I'd wager a dollar the Colossus_500 and Beach Bum are the same person
::) Leave it to Cuzin Earl to dumb down yet another thread.
Colossus outweighs me by a good 50 pounds (depending on what I have for lunch and dinner) and his neck dwarfs mine. He's smarter than me too. Other than that, we might indeed be the same person. :)
-
It's a woman's body. You can't force a woman to do something with her own body.
It's two bodies.
-
::) Leave it to Cuzin Earl to dumb down yet another thread.
Colossus outweighs me by a good 50 pounds (depending on what I have for lunch and dinner) and his neck dwarfs mine. He's smarter than me too. Other than that, we might indeed be the same person. :)
Hey Bum,
There was nothing defamatory in my post so why do you immediately respond with a personal attack?
I've noticed that CL500 uses the same pathetic eyeroll in the same manner as you (i.e no comment - just the eye roll like we're all supposed to know what's going on inside that addled brain of yours). I've also noticed he practically pisses his pants "laughing" at your weak jokes and he often is the only person who jumps in when you're getting your ass kicked - just all observations that make me think that you and CL500 are the same person.
Proceed with your lame Cuz'n Earl "jokes" - you and I both know you only do that as a defense mechanism against your own self-admitted deficiencies.
-
Hey Bum,
There was nothing defamatory in my post so why do you immediately respond with a personal attack?
I've noticed that CL500 uses the same pathetic eyeroll in the same manner as you (i.e no comment - just the eye roll like we're all supposed to know what's going on inside that addled brain of yours). I've also noticed he practically pisses his pants "laughing" at your weak jokes and he often is the only person who jumps in when you're getting your ass kicked - just all observations that make me think that you and CL500 are the same person.
Proceed with your lame Cuz'n Earl "jokes" - you and I both know you only do that as a defense mechanism againt your own self-admitted deficiencies.
::) ::)
-
::) ::)
but you do "know" each other right?
-
We already have mothers who get depressed and murder their born children. The law already punishes those women, but that does not stop them. Must we just make that legal too and let those women go unpunished only to prevent these?
- Health issues from women not being able to handle the pressure of raising their born children
- Criminal and Court cost from prosecuting those women will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise for those children that we are able to save
Abortion is the murder of an unborn human life. We can discuss in a different thread abortions in the case of rape or in the case where the mother may die if the baby is not aborted, but let's discuss the many cases in which abortion is nothing but another form of birth control. Legal abortion is letting the murderer go unpunished. We must defend those who cannot defend themselves and we must speak for those who can't speak for themselves.
I agree. But as i said it will not stop abortion. Abortions will continue no matter what the law. Making it a law only causes more problem then there already are.
-
We already have mothers who get depressed and murder their born children. The law already punishes those women, but that does not stop them. Must we just make that legal too and let those women go unpunished only to prevent these?
- Health issues from women not being able to handle the pressure of raising their born children
- Criminal and Court cost from prosecuting those women will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise for those children that we are able to save
Abortion is the murder of an unborn human life. We can discuss in a different thread abortions in the case of rape or in the case where the mother may die if the baby is not aborted, but let's discuss the many cases in which abortion is nothing but another form of birth control. Legal abortion is letting the murderer go unpunished. We must defend those who cannot defend themselves and we must speak for those who can't speak for themselves.
Well said sir. The "health" issues involving pressure are just part of being an adult. If you cannot handle this then you have bigger issues as a person and adult. Could it be that we have no contingency plan for the cessation of abortion because women have become more reliant on it than other contraceptive methods? I believe so. Women complaining about pregnancy are pathetic. If they are not ready at any point to be a mother physically, financially or emotionally then they should not have sex.
The prevalence of abortion has risen over the years but where were all those needy orphans that went unfed and unclothed, eventually starving naked in the street? Our problem is 1.) a reliance on birth control rather than educating women and girls about safe sex (a problem with many presidents and a sign of more liberal attitudes toward sex seen since the 60's), 2.) the overabundance of illegals in this country that divert funds from any needy US children, 3.) the idiocy of teens and adults in regards to the lack of using normal birth control.
-
We force men to pay alimony. We force men to deal with pregnancies they want no part of. We force (via laws) men and women not to murder one another but that rule doesn't apply to women, doctors and a fetus? Almost half of abortions are done so out of convenience so please don't bring up rape and try to sway people to believe your argument. You'd have better luck with economics and even then you'd fail with many.
Like I've said before, why do we charge killers with double homicide if a child is not a life until born?
So in the few cases of rape and incest a woman must be forced to carry to term?
-
So in the few cases of rape and incest a woman must be forced to carry to term?
What would suggest then? Only abortions for health risks (life or death) and rape? Tell how that would play out.
What still amuses me is how the rights of a woman are supported at the expense of another human life. Men get paid more than women but nobody dies because of it. Women hear men talk about their dick length and sexual conquests but nobody dies. So to assert power over their body they kill a baby. Cool. ::)
-
What would suggest then? Only abortions for health risks (life or death) and rape? Tell how that would play out.
What still amuses me is how the rights of a woman are supported at the expense of another human life. Men get paid more than women but nobody dies because of it. Women hear men talk about their dick length and sexual conquests but nobody dies. So to assert power over their body they kill a baby. Cool. ::)
Honestly I don't care much about the issue of arbortion. I am Independent with libertarian tendencies. This isn't my main beef. It's a tough issue and different people will come down on different sides.
-
I agree. But as i said it will not stop abortion. Abortions will continue no matter what the law. Making it a law only causes more problem then there already are.
You agree? I was disagreeing with your statement. How can you agree and disagree at the same time?
It's not about stopping abortion. It's about punishing murderers of innocent lives. It's about defending those you can't defend themselves. It's about speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
Again, we send criminals to prison, and it ends up costing the state lots of money to do that. That doesn't stop crime, but are we now going to just let crimes go unpunished because crime "will continue no matter what the law"?
-
You agree? I was disagreeing with your statement. How can you agree and disagree at the same time?
It's not about stopping abortion. It's about punishing murderers of innocent lives. It's about defending those you can't defend themselves. It's about speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
Again, we send criminals to prison, and it ends up costing the state lots of money to do that. That doesn't stop crime, but are we now going to just let crimes go unpunished because crime "will continue no matter what the law"?
Abortion is a lousy procedure.
The woman has a superior right in the matter though. Until the child is born, it is cargo. Granted it is human potential. But the argument that "it's a woman's choice b/c it's her body" still trumps anything anti-abortion activists can put forward.
For the moment, some abortions are not a crime. That's the law. Speculation about leveling murder charges is just that.
-
Abortion is a lousy procedure.
The woman has a superior right in the matter though. Until the child is born, it is cargo. Granted it is human potential. But the argument that "it's a woman's choice b/c it's her body" still trumps anything anti-abortion activists can put forward.
For the moment, some abortions are not a crime. That's the law. Speculation about leveling murder charges is just that.
human potential?
THAT IS TOTAL CRAP!!!
-
So if a fetus is not a life and is just a leech killing the host, shouldn't we kill all the
leeches calves inside the cow? We don't want leech ridden diseased live stock, plus the damn thieves are stealing milk from me!! ::)
-
human potential?
THAT IS TOTAL CRAP!!!
I agree with my alter ego. Hey we are like twins: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096320/
You're Arnold. I'm Danny. :D
-
Abortion is a lousy procedure.
The woman has a superior right in the matter though. Until the child is born, it is cargo. Granted it is human potential. But the argument that "it's a woman's choice b/c it's her body" still trumps anything anti-abortion activists can put forward.
For the moment, some abortions are not a crime. That's the law. Speculation about leveling murder charges is just that.
Word G-money Decker...an adult woman has family ties, obligations, etc. Her choice must be prioritised.
-
I agree with my alter ego. Hey we are like twins: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096320/
You're Arnold. I'm Danny. :D
glad to see you admit it
What other names do you go by and why do you keep posting links to movies??
-
Word G-money Decker...an adult woman has family ties, obligations, etc. Her choice must be prioritised.
Then so should her sexual acts. Every sexual act has the possibility for pregnancy unless one person is infertile.
-
glad to see you admit it
What other names do you go by and why do you keep posting links to movies??
[sigh] Somebody get this kid a sense of humor already. Try this . . . just because I care:
http://www.amazon.com/Humor-Work-Dummies-Conversation-TableTalk/dp/1572813830/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195624441&sr=1-2
-
Then so should her sexual acts. Every sexual act has the possibility for pregnancy unless one person is infertile.
If a woman is raped, it is her fault then?
-
If a woman is raped, it is her fault then?
That's not what your post was about, was it?
-
That's not what your post was about, was it?
Indeed, it was about just that...
-
Indeed, it was about just that...
Again, that is such as small population of the abortion cases which hardly makes it a case for abortion. Obligations and family ties? How do you make a legitimate inference about rape? It's more like "my parents will kill me" because I'm a slut and don't want them to know, I don't want to lose my job when I come back from pregnancy so "I kill my baby behind my husband's back", or "I can really support this child but I am too young to settle down."
-
human potential?
THAT IS TOTAL CRAP!!!
Let me rephrase. The baby inside the woman is dependent upon the woman as a host for its survival. The woman is in the superior biological position.
That is a biological fact.
She runs the show. It's her body and her choice.
I don't care for the procedure, but I'm not going to bullshit myself to score points.
It's a very emotionally charged issue.
-
[sigh] Somebody get this kid a sense of humor already. Try this . . . just because I care:
http://www.amazon.com/Humor-Work-Dummies-Conversation-TableTalk/dp/1572813830/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195624441&sr=1-2
can't you speak for yourself. You are the only one here who thinks links to a movie or book is somehow funny.
I am glad to see you've admitted that you're Colussus_500. I give you credit for not lying about it.
It does make it a bit weird when one realizes how many times you've had conversations with yourself
-
Let me rephrase. The baby inside the woman is dependent upon the woman as a host for its survival. The woman is in the superior biological position.
That is a biological fact.
She runs the show. It's her body and her choice.
I don't care for the procedure, but I'm not going to bullshit myself to score points.
It's a very emotionally charged issue.
Premature babies which some people call fetuses can live outside of the "host" body.
Also, the infant that has been born is also dependent upon someone for it's survival.
can't you speak for yourself. You are the only one here who thinks links to a movie or book is somehow funny.
I am glad to see you've admitted that you're Colussus_500. I give you credit for not lying about it.
It does make it a bit weird when one realizes how many times you've had conversations with yourself
Straw Man, Beach Bum was just messing w/you. Colossus and Beach Bum are not the same person.
-
You agree? I was disagreeing with your statement. How can you agree and disagree at the same time?
It's not about stopping abortion. It's about punishing murderers of innocent lives. It's about defending those you can't defend themselves. It's about speaking for those who can't speak for themselves.
Again, we send criminals to prison, and it ends up costing the state lots of money to do that. That doesn't stop crime, but are we now going to just let crimes go unpunished because crime "will continue no matter what the law"?
Punishment does stop crime (it deters it), but when it comes to abortion it's different. Making it illegal will not change the amount of times it's done because there are plenty of people who don't consider it murder and will help and fight for the mother's right to choose.
-
Straw Man, Beach Bum was just messing w/you. Colossus and Beach Bum are not the same person.
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.
-
Premature babies which some people call fetuses can live outside of the "host" body.
Also, the infant that has been born is also dependent upon someone for it's survival.
...
Premature babies do exist. But how is that relevant to laws governing a woman's choice to abortion?
So after the child is born it depends on another for survival. How is that relevant to laws governing a woman's choice to abortion?
Until that baby is born, it is part of the mother's anatomy...part of her body. That natural consideration is a matter of practicality.
Is there more to it than that? Yes. A pregnant woman is likely aware that she carries a little person in her. But since it is her body and the little person is wholly dependent on this particular woman, I would say that the baby's interests are necessarily subordinated to that woman's interests and not vice-versa.
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.
-
Premature babies which some people call fetuses can live outside of the "host" body.
Also, the infant that has been born is also dependent upon someone for it's survival.
Straw Man, Beach Bum was just messing w/you. Colossus and Beach Bum are not the same person.
Oh thanks a lot Stella. I was going to have fun with this one. :D
-
Premature babies do exist. But how is that relevant to laws governing a woman's choice to abortion?
So after the child is born it depends on another for survival. How is that relevant to laws governing a woman's choice to abortion?
Until that baby is born, it is part of the mother's anatomy...part of her body. That natural consideration is a matter of practicality.
Is there more to it than that? Yes. A pregnant woman is likely aware that she carries a little person in her. But since it is her body and the little person is wholly dependent on this particular woman, I would say that the baby's interests are necessarily subordinated to that woman's interests and not vice-versa.
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.
Decker this is the typical attempt by pro choice people to dehumanize the baby. In terms of dependency, there is no logical distinction between a baby in the womb being fed by the placenta and umbilical cord and the newborn baby being fed by his mother's breast.
This is a very complicated issue, but there is no question that it involves two people. The issue, without sugarcoating it, is whether a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to kill her baby.
-
Decker this is the typical attempt by pro choice people to dehumanize the baby. In terms of dependency, there is no logical distinction between a baby in the womb being fed by the placenta and umbilical cord and the newborn baby being fed by his mother's breast.
This is a very complicated issue, but there is no question that it involves two people. The issue, without sugarcoating it, is whether a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to kill her baby.
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.
-
Oh thanks a lot Stella. I was going to have fun with this one. :D
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
::)
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :-\
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :D
-
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."
-
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.
-
"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?
-
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. :D
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
Doesn't matter if the law changes.
Abortion will still happen.
but what will change is the fall out from abortion being illegal.
- Health issues from Illegal abortions
- Criminal and Court cost from illegal abortions will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise
Yeah, so let's murder unborn babies for the health of the economy. That's more important. Our society just keeps getting better and better. ::)
-
Yeah, so let's murder unborn babies for the health of the economy. That's more important. Our society just keeps getting better and better. ::)
And let's contribute to the greatest problem the world faces: Overpopulation. Of course to you who believes that the world will be consumed in glorious fire as your imaginary godmand slays all non-Christians, that doesn't matter much... :o
-
Yeah, so let's murder unborn babies for the health of the economy. That's more important. Our society just keeps getting better and better. ::)
Once again fails to see the bigger picture.
Babies will be murdered regardless of the law.
We have to raise the moral standard of our society, similar to the same moral standard that causes us not to kill the innocent children of terrorist becuase we fear they will grow up and take revenge.
-
Once again fails to see the bigger picture.
Babies will be murdered regardless of the law.
We have to raise the moral standard of our society, similar to the same moral standard that causes us not to kill the innocent children of terrorist becuase we fear they will grow up and take revenge.
Talking to a bible thumper like this is a waste of time. He sees everything through the lense of his 'holy book of holes'...no room for discussion there...
-
And let's contribute to the greatest problem the world faces: Overpopulation. Of course to you who believes that the world will be consumed in glorious fire as your imaginary godmand slays all non-Christians, that doesn't matter much... :o
Oh, that's a new one. So now the problem is overpopulation? So now abortion is population control? Why don't you also throw in there the elder and the crippled. ::)
-
Once again fails to see the bigger picture.
Babies will be murdered regardless of the law.
We have to raise the moral standard of our society, similar to the same moral standard that causes us not to kill the innocent children of terrorist becuase we fear they will grow up and take revenge.
No. You said it's for the health of the economy. Now you are changing your story again, flip flopper.
Doesn't matter if the law changes.
Abortion will still happen.
but what will change is the fall out from abortion being illegal.
- Health issues from Illegal abortions
- Criminal and Court cost from illegal abortions will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise
-
Oh, that's a new one. So now the problem is overpopulation? So now abortion is population control? Why don't you also throw in there the elder and the crippled. ::)
Seriously, I mean then we wouldn't have to pay them Social Security. Even if you make a case for overpopulation, it still doesn't make the act any different than a contract murder. A woman's control over her body should end when it comes to killing the LIFE inside her.
-
Seriously, I mean then we wouldn't have to pay them Social Security. Even if you make a case for overpopulation, it still doesn't make the act any different than a contract murder. A woman's control over her body should end when it comes to killing the LIFE inside her.
There's no money in Social Security anymore.
I happen to disagree with you. There are emergency situations where it comes down to the fetus or the woman and it should be obvious that the woman's life should be prioritised. And since you are so keen on controlling womens' lives, if she is raped and forced by fundy nutcases like to give birth, you should have a legal obligation to raise the kid as well..
-
There's no money in Social Security anymore.
I happen to disagree with you. There are emergency situations where it comes down to the fetus or the woman and it should be obvious that the woman's life should be prioritised. And since you are so keen on controlling womens' lives, if she is raped and forced by fundy nutcases like to give birth, you should have a legal obligation to raise the kid as well..
You did not say anything about emergency situations and you did not say anything about rape above. You said population control. So don't change your story now and address the two posts above.
-
There's no money in Social Security anymore.
I happen to disagree with you. There are emergency situations where it comes down to the fetus or the woman and it should be obvious that the woman's life should be prioritised. And since you are so keen on controlling womens' lives, if she is raped and forced by fundy nutcases like to give birth, you should have a legal obligation to raise the kid as well..
Here we go with the rape scenario again. Even if that 1% of cases happens, give it up for adoption.
-
No. You said it's for the health of the economy. Now you are changing your story again, flip flopper.
I answered it exactly:
Babies will be murdered regardless of the law.
is the same as:
Doesn't matter if the law changes.
Abortion will still happen.
this right here is a list of things that will happen if abortion is illegal:
but what will change is the fall out from abortion being illegal.
- Health issues from Illegal abortions
- Criminal and Court cost from illegal abortions will cost tax payers more
- Foster care and welfare costs will rise
this is my solution:
We have to raise the moral standard of our society, similar to the same moral standard that causes us not to kill the innocent children of terrorist becuase we fear they will grow up and take revenge.
Keep trying loco.
Maybe you'll find something eventually ::)
-
What difference does it make if abortions will still be performed if it is outlawed? There isn't a crime in this country that has been outlawed that isn't still being committed somewhere. That shouldn't even be part of the analysis IMO.
-
What difference does it make if abortions will still be performed if it is outlawed? There isn't a crime in this country that has been outlawed that isn't still being committed somewhere. That shouldn't even be part of the analysis IMO.
Outlawing abortions will not stop abortions in this country.
However, outlawing abortions in this country will create more problems.
Stopping abortions starts with the person not the law.
PS: go Warriors!
-
Outlawing abortions will not stop abortions in this country.
However, outlawing abortions in this country will create more problems.
Stopping abortions starts with the person not the law.
you're being way too rational
-
Outlawing abortions will not stop abortions in this country.
However, outlawing abortions in this country will create more problems.
Stopping abortions starts with the person not the law.
PS: go Warriors!
The moral tone of the country and women particular shows this will not be changing any time soon. The biggest problem in this country would be foster children/costs but that could be alleviated in a few different ways. 1.) kick all the illegals out to free up $, 2.) allow for easier adoptions so parents don't have to go to Vietnam to get a child, 3.) mass distribute contraception in the poor neighborhoods.
-
The moral tone of the country and women particular shows this will not be changing any time soon. The biggest problem in this country would be foster children/costs but that could be alleviated in a few different ways. 1.) kick all the illegals out to free up $, 2.) allow for easier adoptions so parents don't have to go to Vietnam to get a child, 3.) mass distribute contraception in the poor neighborhoods.
Every thing you put there sounds great, of course there are down sides to every solution.
I do strongly agree with your first sentence. It's too bad we cannot rise above it.
-
can either of you expand on your feelings about the moral tone of the country and women in particular?
is the problem SEX, unwanted pregnancy or something else.
What is it about womens morals in particular??
-
Every thing you put there sounds great, of course there are down sides to every solution.
I do strongly agree with your first sentence. It's too bad we cannot rise above it.
I think we should rise above it and I welcome it but if you conversed with and understood the mentality of women in my age range (assuming we are not in the same) you would see how morally bankrupt women are now compared to our mothers. The thing is that we still see women as pure but they are not. Most are sluttier than guys because girls can get sex whenever they want. This obviously doesn't represent all women but a growing number. They know they can get abortions and there is no stigma attached to it like there used to be.
As for my solutions, well, I think I could guess a few downsides but I could counter. Shall we battle in the cage? I warn you, I'm a master(de)bater....
can either of you expand on your feelings about the moral tone of the country and women in particular?
is the problem SEX, unwanted pregnancy or something else.
What is it about womens morals in particular??
The liberal nature of sex, particularly unprotected unsafe sex. I know a 21 year old girl, who went to high school in an affluent area ended up not going to college, got knocked up at 20 and is now on her second pregnancy because for a second time she decided to not use contraception with her bf. He is an idiot too but unless he wants to rape her, he isn't getting any. She is the gatekeeper to her vagina. Sex isn't the problem, it's women having unprotected and/or drunk sex which leads to a lot of problems. They think they can't get pregnant but they do.
-
I think we should rise above it and I welcome it but if you conversed with and understood the mentality of women in my age range (assuming we are not in the same) you would see how morally bankrupt women are now compared to our mothers. The thing is that we still see women as pure but they are not. Most are sluttier than guys because girls can get sex whenever they want. This obviously doesn't represent all women but a growing number. They know they can get abortions and there is no stigma attached to it like there used to be.
As for my solutions, well, I think I could guess a few downsides but I could counter. Shall we battle in the cage? I warn you, I'm a master(de)bater....
We've discussed this before and i agree with most everything you say regarding abortion, the only difference is i don't think making illegal will do any good but instead do more harm. The thing is i don't strongly agree it should be legal so i wouldn't be a good candidate for the master (de)bater.... ;D
-
We've discussed this before and i agree with most everything you say regarding abortion, the only difference is i don't think making illegal will do any good but instead do more harm. The thing is i don't strongly agree it should be legal so i wouldn't be a good candidate for the master (de)bater.... ;D
I know. I just threw that in because of "the Cage" thread. ;D
-
The liberal nature of sex, particularly unprotected unsafe sex. I know a 21 year old girl, who went to high school in an affluent area ended up not going to college, got knocked up at 20 and is now on her second pregnancy because for a second time she decided to not use contraception with her bf. He is an idiot too but unless he wants to rape her, he isn't getting any. She is the gatekeeper to her vagina. Sex isn't the problem, it's women having unprotected and/or drunk sex which leads to a lot of problems. They think they can't get pregnant but they do.
well there are no shortage of idiots of either sex. I'm still not sure I understand the immorality part - especially as being the greater burden of the women. I see morality more as arbitrary rule following of region, religious or ethnic group. For example - wearing a short skirt can be considered immoral in the Pakistan or Afghanistan but still be perferctly fine in Europe or the US. Some religous folks see dancing as immoral where other dont' have a problem with it.
I think person in your example is just plain old fashion stupidity combined with immaturity rather than being a moral issue - IMO
Now if she abandoned her child, abused it, etc.. I would see that as immoral not to mention illegal
-
well there are no shortage of idiots of either sex. I'm still not sure I understand the immorality part - especially as being the greater burden of the women. I see morality more as arbitrary rule following of region, religious or ethnic group. For example - wearing a short skirt can be considered immoral in the Pakistan or Afghanistan but still be perferctly fine in Europe or the US. Some religous folks see dancing as immoral where other dont' have a problem with it.
I think person in your example is just plain old fashion stupidity combined with immaturity rather than being a moral issue - IMO
Now if she abandoned her child, abused it, etc.. I would see that as immoral not to mention illegal
Her morals as far as sex go show that she can't keep them zipped up. I know women far worse and hear them openly talk about sex more than my male friends. Stupidity is surely an issue with these women but the liberal mind set about sex is increasing more with women but it is worse with them because they allow men to have sex. Call yourself suave but a women lets you bone her. The free-sex mindset is more problematic with women as a result.
-
Her morals as far as sex go show that she can't keep them zipped up. I know women far worse and hear them openly talk about sex more than my male friends. Stupidity is surely an issue with these women but the liberal mind set about sex is increasing more with women but it is worse with them because they allow men to have sex. Call yourself suave but a women lets you bone her. The free-sex mindset is more problematic with women as a result.
ok so your're saying the moral issue is about sex? What if the woman was on the pill or some other contraceptive with all other activity being the same as in your example.
Still immoral?
-
ok so your're saying the moral issue is about sex? What if the woman was on the pill or some other contraceptive with all other activity being the same as in your example.
Still immoral?
I originally said in my first response that it was dealing with liberal unprotected sex. There is still the likelihood of conception in your example. A big problem is that many don't use both. Regardless, taking sex as lightly as they do is the moral issue. Combine that with the ease with which women partake in abortion, and you have two immoral actions.
-
I originally said in my first response that it was dealing with liberal unprotected sex. There is still the likelihood of conception in your example. A big problem is that many don't use both. Regardless, taking sex as lightly as they do is the moral issue. Combine that with the ease with which women partake in abortion, and you have two immoral actions.
in my example the woman in on birth control so although conception might be possible it is highly unlikely and that isolates the issue of promiscuity. I have a problem understanding how one can say that the same action can be more immoral if a woman does it than if a man does it, especially given the fact that, as a general rule, men are more sexually driven than woman and also tend to be the sexual aggressors.
-
in my example the woman in on birth control so although conception might be possible it is highly unlikely and that isolates the issue of promiscuity. I have a problem understanding how one can say that the same action can be more immoral if a woman does it than if a man does it, especially given the fact that, as a general rule, men are more sexually driven than woman and also tend to be the sexual aggressors.
Promiscuity has nothing to do with pregnancy but rather many sexual partners and sex is considered casual. Granted, I am picking on women because unless they are raped, they control sex. If your wife doesn't want to have sex with you, either you commit marital rape or go to bed with an erection. Both men and women are immoral these days but women have the final say. I think men talk sexual more than they act. It's easy to say you got laid but another to actually do it. Women, IMO, are just as sexual if not more so than men, they just don't go around like walking "hard-ons". Men tend to be aggressors, but women hold the true power there.
-
Promiscuity has nothing to do with pregnancy but rather many sexual partners and sex is considered casual. Granted, I am picking on women because unless they are raped, they control sex. If your wife doesn't want to have sex with you, either you commit marital rape or go to bed with an erection. Both men and women are immoral these days but women have the final say. I think men talk sexual more than they act. It's easy to say you got laid but another to actually do it. Women, IMO, are just as sexual if not more so than men, they just don't go around like walking "hard-ons". Men tend to be aggressors, but women hold the true power there.
Personally, I have no problem with sexual freedom or if you prefer the term, promiscuity. It's a personal choice. One chooses it and lives with the consequences. I don't see how one sex (in this case male) can judge the other sex as being somehow morally more responsible just because, as you suggest, she has the "final say". I don't see how that makes any difference. If sex is consensual then both parties are equally responsible for the outcome good or bad.
Then again, I see nothing immoral about sex in the first place. As long as it's consensual and between legal adults it's not an issue for me.
Males judging woman more harshly for the same exact behaviour makes no sense and reminds me of the misogynistic attitudes of Islam
Can you give me an example where the roles are reversed i.e same actions but where the male is held to a higher moral standard?
-
Personally, I have no problem with sexual freedom or if you prefer the term, promiscuity. It's a personal choice. One chooses it and lives with the consequences. I don't see how one sex (in this case male) can judge the other sex as being somehow morally more responsible just because, as you suggest, she has the "final say". I don't see how that makes any difference. If sex is consensual then both parties are equally responsible for the outcome good or bad.
Then again, I see nothing immoral about sex in the first place. As long as it's consensual and between legal adults it's not an issue for me.
Males judging woman more harshly for the same exact behaviour makes no sense and reminds me of the misogynistic attitudes of Islam
Can you give me an example where the roles are reversed i.e same actions but where the male is held to a higher moral standard?
Rape. Domestic violence.
As far as the misogyny tones, I see your point. I guess lost in that post was some level of the fact that men have always been sexual deviants IMO. We have always been horny SOBs looking for sex. Women have become progressively more liberal with their bodies and as that has increased, things have gotten worse. It is tough because even I don't want a sexually repressive society but I think women have dropped below the level of even men and it has caused a lot of problems. With regards to abortion, as women have become "looser" (as my grandma would say) there have been more bastard children and also more abortions. Virginity has never been an option for men but is a joke now for women. Look at Myspace or Facebook and you'll see what I mean. I'm not a prude and think you need to marry the person you want to have sex with but I'm also not a big fan of abortions, bastard children, and STDs which all result from unsafe and rampant sex. All I'm saying is that one should have fun but think about the consequences. Women simply don't have to anymore because abortion is the perfect fail safe, and they know it.
-
Outlawing abortions will not stop abortions in this country.
However, outlawing abortions in this country will create more problems.
Stopping abortions starts with the person not the law.
PS: go Warriors!
Using that rationale, what's the difference between outlawing abortion on one hand and murder, stealing, and drug sales/use, etc. on the other? Outlawing murder, stealing, drug sales/use, etc. doesn't stop those crimes either. Outlawing those things has resulted in enormous expenditures on law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and incarceration.
-
The moral tone of the country and women particular shows this will not be changing any time soon. The biggest problem in this country would be foster children/costs but that could be alleviated in a few different ways. 1.) kick all the illegals out to free up $, 2.) allow for easier adoptions so parents don't have to go to Vietnam to get a child, 3.) mass distribute contraception in the poor neighborhoods.
Would foster children really be a problem? I doubt women would abandon their children in droves. I think if a woman is "forced" to have a baby, she will likely take care of that baby.
-
Would foster children really be a problem? I doubt women would abandon their children in droves. I think if a woman is "forced" to have a baby, she will likely take care of that baby.
I think foster children are great and after hearing stories of foster parents being denied adoptions rights, I was appalled. We get babies from other countries but we don't help the ones here. I stated it as a problem in the sense that this specific argument is the one that opposition to my thinking presents. They say it will cost more in terms of welfare and foster care.
As for being forced, whether by law or beliefs, I have a family member and the previously mentioned friend who have/had illegitimate children and the former was adopted and the latter has kept her two. Neither have the financial means to really have children, based on education and income, but they have made due and are not living on Skid Row.
-
I think foster children are great and after hearing stories of foster parents being denied adoptions rights, I was appalled. We get babies from other countries but we don't help the ones here. I stated it as a problem in the sense that this specific argument is the one that opposition to my thinking presents. They say it will cost more in terms of welfare and foster care.
As for being forced, whether by law or beliefs, I have a family member and the previously mentioned friend who have/had illegitimate children and the former was adopted and the latter has kept her two. Neither have the financial means to really have children, based on education and income, but they have made due and are not living on Skid Row.
Understood.
I know of many examples of "unwanted" childbirths and have never seen an instance where either the mother or her family did not care for the child. We have an example in my church right now. Teen pregnancy. Grandma is helping raise the kid and brings the kid to church every week. The teen is working and taking care of her kid too.
-
PS: go Warriors!
Yeah Baby! ;D I was screaming my head off. That's the most fun I've ever had a football game. The place was crazy. Throat is sore. I sound like Louis Armstrong. :D Round two is next week against UW. I guess I should start drinking some tea or something.
-
Using that rationale, what's the difference between outlawing abortion on one hand and murder, stealing, and drug sales/use, etc. on the other? Outlawing murder, stealing, drug sales/use, etc. doesn't stop those crimes either. Outlawing those things has resulted in enormous expenditures on law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and incarceration.
Because killing someone outside the womb is universally accepted as murder by our society where as aborting a fetus isn't.
-
Because killing someone outside the womb is universally accepted as murder by our society where as aborting a fetus isn't.
True.
I was referring to your mention of the increased costs associated with outlawing abortion. How is that different than costs associated with outlawing any other act?
-
True.
I was referring to your mention of the increased costs associated with outlawing abortion. How is that different than costs associated with outlawing any other act?
No different other than incurring a cost where there was none to begin with.
-
No different other than incurring a cost where there was none to begin with.
I wonder if we can put a price tag on protecting human life? I've had this discussion in the death penalty context. It costs more to execute someone (with the years of legal proceedings) than have them spend life in prison. I don't like the fact that it takes 15 or 20 years to execute someone, but I wonder if you can really put a price tag on people facing death. I relate this to the abortion context too. I'm thinking we should probably remove the cost element from the equation.
-
Because killing someone outside the womb is universally accepted as murder by our society where as aborting a fetus isn't.
Unbelievable. So if killing the elder and the crippled becomes "universally accepted", then you will embrace it and condone it. ::)
So the unborn babies do not have a say so in this? They must die because society has made it "universally accepted" to kill them and not call it murder? Well, it is not so "universally accepted". I do not accept it, and neither do many out there who oppose legal abortions.
-
Unbelievable. So if killing the elder and the crippled becomes "universally accepted", then you will embrace it and condone it. ::)
So the unborn babies do not have a say so in this? They must die because society has made it "universally accepted" to kill them and not call it murder? Well, it is not so "universally accepted". I do not accept it, and neither do many out there who oppose legal abortions.
No.
Your are really thick headed and desperate aren't you loco?
here's what that response was from:
Using that rationale, what's the difference between outlawing abortion on one hand and murder, stealing, and drug sales/use, etc. on the other? Outlawing murder, stealing, drug sales/use, etc. doesn't stop those crimes either. Outlawing those things has resulted in enormous expenditures on law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and incarceration.
becuase it was based on this:
Outlawing abortions will not stop abortions in this country.
However, outlawing abortions in this country will create more problems.
Stopping abortions starts with the person not the law.
I'm not going to vote for something (a law) that's going to cause more problems and not stop the problem to begin with.
But i will live my life and influence any and all around me not to have an abortion.
-
I'm not going to vote for something (a law) that's going to cause more problems and not stop the problem to begin with.
Don't we all do that already? We vote to outlaw various acts, but all we do is slow those acts down and then spend enormous amounts of money on law enforcement, the courts, and locking people up.
-
Don't we all do that already? We vote to outlaw various acts, but all we do is slow those acts down and then spend enormous amounts of money on law enforcement, the courts, and locking people up.
The difference here is that i don't believe outlawing abortion will significantly slow it down becuase of what i said earlier. You see the same thing with drug use. But you won't see the same thing with murder or theft.
People universally see murder and theft as something wrong but people don't universally see drug use (including alcohol and cigarettes) as something wrong. Until abortion is viewed as murder in the same amount of people as homicide and theft is, making abortion illegal will not stop it or slow it down.
Everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die. (in other words, people don't want to take responsibility for their actions)
-
The difference here is that i don't believe outlawing abortion will significantly slow it down becuase of what i said earlier. You see the same thing with drug use. But you won't see the same thing with murder or theft.
People universally see murder and theft as something wrong but people don't universally see drug use (including alcohol and cigarettes) as something wrong. Until abortion is viewed as murder in the same amount of people as homicide and theft is, making abortion illegal will not stop it or slow it down.
Everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die. (in other words, people don't want to take responsibility for their actions)
What about pedophilia? I recall hearing or reading a while back that the recidivism rate is about 90 percent. In other words, the law doesn't stop and arguably doesn't significantly slow instances of pedophilia. We still outlaw it because we are doing what we can to protect innocent children. It's the right thing to do.
We can draw the same parallels to property crime in Hawaii (astronomically high), murder in some of the big cities, drugs all over the place. We outlaw conduct to protect the public and potential victims and we don't base those laws on economics and/or typically whether the law will stop the conduct.
I think if abortion is outlawed there is no way abortion will continue at its current pace. If doctors who perform illegal abortions are subject to the loss of their licenses and/or prison, they will by and large stop performing the procedures.
-
Rape. Domestic violence.
As far as the misogyny tones, I see your point. I guess lost in that post was some level of the fact that men have always been sexual deviants IMO. We have always been horny SOBs looking for sex. Women have become progressively more liberal with their bodies and as that has increased, things have gotten worse. It is tough because even I don't want a sexually repressive society but I think women have dropped below the level of even men and it has caused a lot of problems. With regards to abortion, as women have become "looser" (as my grandma would say) there have been more bastard children and also more abortions. Virginity has never been an option for men but is a joke now for women. Look at Myspace or Facebook and you'll see what I mean. I'm not a prude and think you need to marry the person you want to have sex with but I'm also not a big fan of abortions, bastard children, and STDs which all result from unsafe and rampant sex. All I'm saying is that one should have fun but think about the consequences. Women simply don't have to anymore because abortion is the perfect fail safe, and they know it.
You started wtith the premise that women should be held to a higher moral standard (as defined by you) for the act of consensual sex but then when asked to provide an example of a situation where men are held to a higher standard you've cited rape and domenstic violence, neither of which is anything equivalent to a consensual act between two adults. I'm not so sure that men are held to a higher standard in either case. Maybe it just seems that way because they commit 99% of the rapes and probably 90% of the domestic violence.
I know we've veered off topic here but it seems like you might have some anger towards women. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're saying that access to legal abortion has allowed women to have sex without consequence (the same criticism was levied when the pill became legal) thereby causing women to become "loose" which has resulted in rampant, unsafe sex which has created the problem of "bastard children", stds, etc... and extrapolating, the "solution" to the problem of "loose women" is to make abortion illegal??
You also said that virginity has never been an option for men but is now a joke for women and I don't really understand what you mean by this statement.
I really sense a latent anger toward women which I think is actually pretty common among certain segment of the religious right/anti-abortion crowd
-
You asked for situations where actions by both sexes are the same and men are held to a higher standard. Women have the battered women defense, what do men have? In those two situations, the laws are set up against men and not women. Hell, society chastises men who admit rape and DV. Men commit 85% of the REPORTED DV but the other acts are considered mutual combat or are not reported. Is that fair to men?
To your second paragraph, yes that is the problem and that could be the solution IMO. It won't happen overnight but as abortion has become rampant women have become a lot worse. I have anger at the impunity women operate with on a number of levels and we excuse it because of differences in pay or under the guise of equal rights and female power. Look at rape (where women lie all the time), DV (where men get arrested for mutual combat), and divorce (where men end up in financial ruin because of their wife).
Re: virginity. Men, as a majority, have never really valued virginity. To be a male virgin is a joke to other males. For women, it used to be something highly valued and now it is not. Society has seen the biggest change in women and their sexuality, not men. I don't hate women but I'm sick of hearing the excuses for women's behavior.
-
You asked for situations where actions by both sexes are the same and men are held to a higher standard. Women have the battered women defense, what do men have? In those two situations, the laws are set up against men and not women. Hell, society chastises men who admit rape and DV. Men commit 85% of the REPORTED DV but the other acts are considered mutual combat or are not reported. Is that fair to men?
To your second paragraph, yes that is the problem and that could be the solution IMO. It won't happen overnight but as abortion has become rampant women have become a lot worse. I have anger at the impunity women operate with on a number of levels and we excuse it because of differences in pay or under the guise of equal rights and female power. Look at rape (where women lie all the time), DV (where men get arrested for mutual combat), and divorce (where men end up in financial ruin because of their wife).
Re: virginity. Men, as a majority, have never really valued virginity. To be a male virgin is a joke to other males. For women, it used to be something highly valued and now it is not. Society has seen the biggest change in women and their sexuality, not men. I don't hate women but I'm sick of hearing the excuses for women's behavior.
Thanks for making that more clear
-
What about pedophilia? I recall hearing or reading a while back that the recidivism rate is about 90 percent. In other words, the law doesn't stop and arguably doesn't significantly slow instances of pedophilia. We still outlaw it because we are doing what we can to protect innocent children. It's the right thing to do.
Pedophilia is a very small part of the population. the part of the population who feel it's a mother's right to chose is at least 50% don't you think? I might be mistaken, but i would think that if it was smaller, the law would have been changed by now.
We can draw the same parallels to property crime in Hawaii (astronomically high), murder in some of the big cities, drugs all over the place. We outlaw conduct to protect the public and potential victims and we don't base those laws on economics and/or typically whether the law will stop the conduct.
what's the ratio of those who think theft is wrong to those who think mother's should have the right to choose? that's my point. It's the same with drugs and the same in reverse with pedophiles.
I think if abortion is outlawed there is no way abortion will continue at its current pace. If doctors who perform illegal abortions are subject to the loss of their licenses and/or prison, they will by and large stop performing the procedures.
When it was outlawed abortions happened in basements. If it's outlawed today, it will still happen at nearly the same rate as it does today when it's legal becuase people have access to information and services far greater than they did when it was illegal. there are far more people who fundamentally believe it's a mother's right to choose including a large percentage of law enforcement.
It would be as much of a waste of time and money as it is to stop alcohol and pot.
-
Pedophilia is a very small part of the population. the part of the population who feel it's a mother's right to chose is at least 50% don't you think? I might be mistaken, but i would think that if it was smaller, the law would have been changed by now.
what's the ratio of those who think theft is wrong to those who think mother's should have the right to choose? that's my point. It's the same with drugs and the same in reverse with pedophiles.
When it was outlawed abortions happened in basements. If it's outlawed today, it will still happen at nearly the same rate as it does today when it's legal becuase people have access to information and services far greater than they did when it was illegal. there are far more people who fundamentally believe it's a mother's right to choose including a large percentage of law enforcement.
It would be as much of a waste of time and money as it is to stop alcohol and pot.
With the exception of groups like pedophiles, NAMBLA, and at times the ACLU, I'd say pretty much the entire population believes pedophilia is wrong. The point I was trying to make is that despite the fact pedophilia is outlawed, the law doesn't appear to be a strong deterrent to pedophiles, meaning the law doesn't prevent those crimes from occurring.
I'm addressing two of the points you raised: (a) outlawing abortion will not stop or even reduce abortions and (b) the increased costs associated with outlawing abortion is a reason we should not outlaw abortion. Whether a majority of the country believes abortion is murder really doesn't factor into those two points.
What I'm saying is you cannot separate those two reasons from most other crimes in this country.
We will have to agree to disagree on whether illegal abortions would occur at the same rate as legal abortions. I just can't see that happening. I don't think there is any way doctors will risk their livelihoods and prison. I'm sure some would, but they would likely be the exception and not the rule.
-
With the exception of groups like pedophiles, NAMBLA, and at times the ACLU, I'd say pretty much the entire population believes pedophilia is wrong. The point I was trying to make is that despite the fact pedophilia is outlawed, the law doesn't appear to be a strong deterrent to pedophiles, meaning the law doesn't prevent those crimes from occurring.
I'm addressing two of the points you raised: (a) outlawing abortion will not stop or even reduce abortions and (b) the increased costs associated with outlawing abortion is a reason we should not outlaw abortion. Whether a majority of the country believes abortion is murder really doesn't factor into those two points.
What I'm saying is you cannot separate those two reasons from most other crimes in this country.
We will have to agree to disagree on whether illegal abortions would occur at the same rate as legal abortions. I just can't see that happening. I don't think there is any way doctors will risk their livelihoods and prison. I'm sure some would, but they would likely be the exception and not the rule.
i don't disagree outlawing abortion would decrease abortions, i just don't think it will decrease anything close to something significant, just like pot.
-
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.
Circumstances for the child before and after birth differ. Before birth, the child is part of the woman's body. After birth, the child is not part of the woman's body b/c he/she is a sentient creature.
That's the differentiation.
-
I agree with my alter ego. Hey we are like twins: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096320/
You're Arnold. I'm Danny. :D
;D HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAA ;D
-
Let me rephrase. The baby inside the woman is dependent upon the woman as a host for its survival. The woman is in the superior biological position.
That is a biological fact.
She runs the show. It's her body and her choice.
I don't care for the procedure, but I'm not going to bullshit myself to score points.
It's a very emotionally charged issue.
No disrespect, Deck. Honestly, it's no use in the efforts you put forth to argue against it.
Rephrase it to your heart's content... Dress it up nice and pretty all you want with words like 'procedure', , 'choice', and 'biological fact' yadayadayada.....
It's still 100% bonafide C R A P !!!!!!
-
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. :)
22 inches, bro! I worked too hard to dismiss that one inch! lol :P
-
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.
Why you gotta be airing my laundry like that, OzmO? >:( ;) :D ;D
Like I've always said, bro. When you come to that place that I hope you do soon, you are going to be a force to reckon with. God help the unbeliever who faces you, bro!
-
22 inches, bro! I worked too hard to dismiss that one inch! lol :P
Sorry mang! That oughta be against the law. :)
And you better not agree with me too often. People are taking notes. . . . :D
-
Sorry mang! That oughta be against the law. :)
LOL!!!! ;)
And you better not agree with me too often. People are taking notes. . . . :D
So I see! Takin' good notes too! ;D
-
Texas Court: Fetus Death Can Be Murder
4 days ago
AUSTIN, Texas(AP) — Texas laws allow the killing of a fetus to be prosecuted as murder, regardless of the fetus' stage of development, but they do not apply to abortions, the state's highest criminal court has ruled.
Wednesday's ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals rejected an appeal by Terence Lawrence, who said his right to due process was violated because he was prosecuted for two murders for killing a woman and her 4- to 6-week-old fetus.
The court ruled unanimously that state laws declaring a fetus an individual with protections do not conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that protects a woman's right to an abortion.
"The Supreme Court has emphasized that states may protect human life not only once the fetus has reached viability but 'from the outset of the pregnancy,'" the court said. "The Legislature is free to protect the lives of those whom it considers to be human beings."
Lawrence was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life for the 2004 shooting death of his girlfriend, Antwonyia Smith, and the couple's unborn child. Lawrence shot Smith after learning she was pregnant with his child, according to court documents.
Lawrence's appeal argued that he should not have been prosecuted for the death of the fetus because it was not viable. Supreme Court precedent in abortion cases has established that states have no compelling interest to interfere before a fetus would be old enough to live outside the mother's womb, he said.
However, the court said abortion precedent is based on the premise that a woman wants to have the procedure.
"The 'compelling state interest' test, along with the accompanying 'viability' threshold, has no application to a statute that prohibits a third party from causing the death of the woman's unborn child against her will," Presiding Judge Sharon Keller wrote.
-
Texas Court: Fetus Death Can Be Murder
Supreme Court precedent in abortion cases has established that states have no compelling interest to interfere before a fetus would be old enough to live outside the mother's womb, he said.
However, the court said abortion precedent is based on the premise that a woman wants to have the procedure.
So a fetus is considered by the courts to be a human being, and to kill him/her is considered murder by the courts unless the mother wants him/her killed? ::)
Thanks for the post, Colossus_500!
-
So a fetus is considered by the courts to be a human being, and to kill him/her is considered murder by the courts unless the mother wants him/her killed? ::)
Thanks for the post, Colossus_500!
Yeah, I loved how the first half of the article reads 'fetus', but the second half is 'human being'. Like there's a difference! ::)
-
No disrespect, Deck. Honestly, it's no use in the efforts you put forth to argue against it.
Rephrase it to your heart's content... Dress it up nice and pretty all you want with words like 'procedure', , 'choice', and 'biological fact' yadayadayada.....
It's still 100% bonafide C R A P !!!!!!
I don't care for abortion any more than you do. But I can see why a woman would say that it's her body and her choice.
Let's go to the other side of the spectrum and make these women seeking or getting an abortion murderers. Now we have women tried for murder and receiving the death penalty or life in jail. Men will not get off easy either since they are as responsible as the woman for the health of that child's safety. So we are then looking at a man's criminal culpability in either helping the woman to secure an abortion or some sort of criminal negligence in not stopping her from committing the crime...I would say that, as a father, he would have some sort of special duty.
So now we have our court system and our jails occupied by these new kind of murderers.
What about abortions that are medical necessities? Do we let the mother die? Or do we charge the mother, father and doctor with murder if the doctor performs the abortion to save the mother's life?
Same goes for incest, rape and fetuses with horrendous birth defects that would likely result in death anyways.
I don't like abortion any more than you do. But I see the merit in a woman claiming that, until that child is born, it is part of her body and she has the final say in that respect.