- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,301
- Reaction score
- 9,068
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
-
Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.
Judge Revokes Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Schweddy
- Start date
LiberalFINGER
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 261
- Reaction score
- 5
I say this is outstanding. What we have here is a judge that is willing to look at things that he finds repugnant and still go over it with a fine toothed comb.
I'm glad you posted this, Vague. I realize I'm late to this party, but I was thinking about it and thought I'd post my thoughts.
Again, I find this ruling an inconsistent unreasonable application of law. I know, "Big Surprise".
Even when the death penalty is doled out to convicts of heinous crimes, we no longer put them in front of firing squads or gas chambers or guillotines. We end their lives with little pain and blood comparative to this procedure.
If a baby's life is to be ended in-utero, in keeping with our laws, it should be humane. This "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized" procedure is not necessary to saving the woman.
These people are quite simply afraid of providing any kind of legally sanctioned empathy to the unborn for fear of the compassionate tide that it may turn.
Again, I find this ruling an inconsistent unreasonable application of law. I know, "Big Surprise".
Even when the death penalty is doled out to convicts of heinous crimes, we no longer put them in front of firing squads or gas chambers or guillotines. We end their lives with little pain and blood comparative to this procedure.
If a baby's life is to be ended in-utero, in keeping with our laws, it should be humane. This "gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized" procedure is not necessary to saving the woman.
These people are quite simply afraid of providing any kind of legally sanctioned empathy to the unborn for fear of the compassionate tide that it may turn.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,301
- Reaction score
- 9,068
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Abso-flippin-lutely!
It is truely sick that there are dual standards between murder and abortion.
I love the way you write. Have you ever had anything published?
It is truely sick that there are dual standards between murder and abortion.
I love the way you write. Have you ever had anything published?
Thanks. Nope re: published. Thank you though. I was cursed with the ability to put words together in writing, but in person, I blank on words a lot and am not nearly so eloquent. Now you know my secret. =) I'm like W =).
I wrote a letter about my views on the constitutionality of abortion and have mailed it to about 20 senators, court watchdog groups, Democratic committees and support groups, the Seattle PI and The New York Times.
I wrote a letter about my views on the constitutionality of abortion and have mailed it to about 20 senators, court watchdog groups, Democratic committees and support groups, the Seattle PI and The New York Times.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,301
- Reaction score
- 9,068
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Would you mind sharing?
I am thinking of putting an "articles" system together with various positions on topics.
That is exactly the type of shtuph that would be awesome to put in it.
I am thinking of putting an "articles" system together with various positions on topics.
That is exactly the type of shtuph that would be awesome to put in it.
It's long and it's kinda like my elucidation on the issue with a subsequent argument. My name is Traci in WA if you do use it. Thanks for asking:
This letter is about abortion. I suspect the nation will soon become embroiled in this issue making it imperative that we all come to some common starting point.
I am a conservative person, but I have no religious affiliation at all. I am 26, married for 7 years with a 3 year old daughter.
I have never been outspoken for or against abortion. I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s. I have always been aware of the abortion issue, synonymous with the phrases “right to choose” and “pro-choice”. As a young girl I never really thought about the issue passionately one way or another, but I did know that it would never have been an option for me. I would see anti-abortion bumper stickers like “It’s not a choice, it’s a child” which I struggled to understand. “Of course, it’s a choice,” my head would say, yet I remained perplexed knowing I was obviously missing some point because the thought of abortion just didn’t seem right either.
Then, I had my daughter – a beautiful experience – a beautiful child very much wanted. I tried to think about the abortion issue in a different way to advance my understanding, but I just couldn’t wrap my mind around how anyone who’d had a baby could contemplate an abortion. Again, though, I never questioned another’s right to make that choice – until now.
October 12th, during the town hall debate, President Bush – without even saying the word and without me even knowing at the time the powerful change of argument he had just unfurled in my mind – spoke to the abortion issue in such a way as to lift the fog of incongruent thoughts.
I sat there listening to him answer the Supreme Court question. He talked about strict interpretation. Party line. Check. Then, I saw true emotion flicker through his face and his breathing changed and I could tell that I should listen to what he was about to say because it was important to him. He turned back to the people, to me, and spoke about the Dred Scott case explaining how it was an example of liberal interpretation of the constitution by refusing to acknowledge a black man’s rights based on the 3/5ths clause. I paused my TiVo, turned to my husband and told him, “Oh my. That was about abortion.”
I was pretty pleased with myself for having decoded his message, but I wanted to make sure that his interpretation of the Dred Scott case and my understanding were correct. So as any 20- something would do, I went online to research. I visited various sites on the Dred Scott case and read through the constitution and its amendments. I soon validated my understanding of that moment in history: Some judge looked at a man of color in his court room and refused to acknowledge that man as a person, instead calling him property, not a citizen, and therefore, not afforded basic rights under the constitution. The injustice of this interpretation, this “reasoning”, left me with an uneasy feeling that all of sudden powerfully intensified as I saw how it was the same reasoning behind the pro-choice stance: By saying it’s a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, you have to disclaim unborn babies as persons, viewing them instead as property.
I do not believe unborn babies are property.
The Feminists did a good job indoctrinating my peers and me into the “it’s a right” club. Their catch phrase dug itself into my mind as though it were an unquestionable right, which I now see that it’s not. This is why I could never think or express my views on abortion before. The “It’s a right” argument masterfully, yet dishonestly stops one from thinking about the baby by focusing on the woman. But, no person’s right trumps someone else’s right – there is a limitation of rights amendment. The case for abortion is not for a woman’s unquestionable right to choose, period. But it is for when does that right go away because in exercising it – she would be denying the right to life of the baby she is carrying.
------
How does one conclude unborn babies are persons? Here’s my stab at it: To begin, I looked for definitions of the word “person” and was delighted to see that nowhere did it offer “breathing” as a pre-requisite, and most often, the word “human” is invoked. The word “human” reciprocally invokes “person”. Next, let me relay a lovely logical statement I read about the use of the word “fetus” a few days ago; “Fetus” is a stage of life of a human, just like “neonate”, “infant”, “toddler”, “adolescent” or “adult”. “Fetus” is not a term used in place of “human”. Fetus is a stage of being a human which is a person, thus, a fetus is a person. It seems silly to me to have to prove that an unborn baby is a person. Many people just intuitively know this.
But before I go further, let me tell you what I don’t think are sound reasonings to pin down the personhood of an unborn baby. Obviously, but with all due respect, the Christian belief that ensoulment takes place at conception has no place in a reason-based discussion. There’s also an argument using science, and that is that the DNA is unique at conception and therefore it is a person worthy of allowing to grow to be born. I respect this concept, but it is unrealistic to ask people whom can barley conclude a 5 month gestational aged baby is a person to acknowledge that an infinitesimal and unorganized number of cells makes a person. Personally, I wish that at least we could all agree to grant personhood to an unborn human being as soon as he or she has brain activity of any kind and has physical sensory.
I now look to the 14th amendment to argue that abortions at least past the fetus stage (or earlier as science may eventually prove), are illegal and should be banned.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The framers of the 1868 amendment said, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It does not say “citizen” or “persons born”, it says only “person”. Any person has a right to life unless there is due process of law.
So here is my argument, which to me seems rather simplistic. Does it all really hinge on defining a person as it seems to me to be the case? Again, I went to the internet to research the Roe v. Wade case to see if I was oversimplifying or not seeing all arguments.
As a result of my research of the actual opinion of the Justices in the Roe v. Wade case, I became even more incensed. The entire opinion does hinge on the disregard of an unborn baby as a person.
Justice Blackmun begins his opinion by discussing what he pronounces to be relatively new restrictive criminal abortion laws that came to pass from statutory changes effected in the latter half of the 19th century. He then goes on to discuss the differences between common law, and English and American statutory laws prior to that time. He noted the latter two often viewed abortion before quickening as a misdemeanor and afterwards, manslaughter.
It could be and should be argued that the stricter restrictions of abortion Justice Blackmun laments are in direct correlation with the passing of the 14th amendment. An amendment which was constructed as a response to the depravity that blacks faced when they were refused their rights and considered merely property. I am certain that the intent of the public and politicians in the latter half of the 19th century was to ensure that all humans were protected under the constitution regardless of their form or origin so that callous disregard for human life was never again in constitutional limbo.
So how did the Justices conclude that unborn babies/fetuses were not persons as of 1970? In an example of completely unreasonable and false justification of an action, he claims that the action itself (of abortion) throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was proof that a fetus wasn’t regarded as a person and therefore the termination of their lives should be allowed to continue in a freer way. What type of reasoning bases the quantity of an action as justification for its constitutionality? Poor reasoning, that’s what type. Justice Blackmun then goes on to cite Jewish, Protestant and Renaissance Roman Catholic dogmas as further evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to secular law!? What happened to science and reason. How is it that the progressive stance in the 1970s and now is dependent on going backwards in time when little was known about the prenatal experience and on antiquated religious views of when life begins?
If our constitution is supposed to grow with us as a society as intended, then we should be bringing facts of science, technology and reason into our interpretations in order to do ourselves justice. The unborn are not specifically excluded, and it is quite clear to me and many other citizens that there is ample proof that they are deserving of their personhood and constitutional right to life.
We have an undeniably righteous basis from which to demand a social policy change. Maybe not for eradicating abortion completely, but certainly for limiting greatly its position as an unquestionable right.
This letter is about abortion. I suspect the nation will soon become embroiled in this issue making it imperative that we all come to some common starting point.
I am a conservative person, but I have no religious affiliation at all. I am 26, married for 7 years with a 3 year old daughter.
I have never been outspoken for or against abortion. I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s. I have always been aware of the abortion issue, synonymous with the phrases “right to choose” and “pro-choice”. As a young girl I never really thought about the issue passionately one way or another, but I did know that it would never have been an option for me. I would see anti-abortion bumper stickers like “It’s not a choice, it’s a child” which I struggled to understand. “Of course, it’s a choice,” my head would say, yet I remained perplexed knowing I was obviously missing some point because the thought of abortion just didn’t seem right either.
Then, I had my daughter – a beautiful experience – a beautiful child very much wanted. I tried to think about the abortion issue in a different way to advance my understanding, but I just couldn’t wrap my mind around how anyone who’d had a baby could contemplate an abortion. Again, though, I never questioned another’s right to make that choice – until now.
October 12th, during the town hall debate, President Bush – without even saying the word and without me even knowing at the time the powerful change of argument he had just unfurled in my mind – spoke to the abortion issue in such a way as to lift the fog of incongruent thoughts.
I sat there listening to him answer the Supreme Court question. He talked about strict interpretation. Party line. Check. Then, I saw true emotion flicker through his face and his breathing changed and I could tell that I should listen to what he was about to say because it was important to him. He turned back to the people, to me, and spoke about the Dred Scott case explaining how it was an example of liberal interpretation of the constitution by refusing to acknowledge a black man’s rights based on the 3/5ths clause. I paused my TiVo, turned to my husband and told him, “Oh my. That was about abortion.”
I was pretty pleased with myself for having decoded his message, but I wanted to make sure that his interpretation of the Dred Scott case and my understanding were correct. So as any 20- something would do, I went online to research. I visited various sites on the Dred Scott case and read through the constitution and its amendments. I soon validated my understanding of that moment in history: Some judge looked at a man of color in his court room and refused to acknowledge that man as a person, instead calling him property, not a citizen, and therefore, not afforded basic rights under the constitution. The injustice of this interpretation, this “reasoning”, left me with an uneasy feeling that all of sudden powerfully intensified as I saw how it was the same reasoning behind the pro-choice stance: By saying it’s a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, you have to disclaim unborn babies as persons, viewing them instead as property.
I do not believe unborn babies are property.
The Feminists did a good job indoctrinating my peers and me into the “it’s a right” club. Their catch phrase dug itself into my mind as though it were an unquestionable right, which I now see that it’s not. This is why I could never think or express my views on abortion before. The “It’s a right” argument masterfully, yet dishonestly stops one from thinking about the baby by focusing on the woman. But, no person’s right trumps someone else’s right – there is a limitation of rights amendment. The case for abortion is not for a woman’s unquestionable right to choose, period. But it is for when does that right go away because in exercising it – she would be denying the right to life of the baby she is carrying.
------
How does one conclude unborn babies are persons? Here’s my stab at it: To begin, I looked for definitions of the word “person” and was delighted to see that nowhere did it offer “breathing” as a pre-requisite, and most often, the word “human” is invoked. The word “human” reciprocally invokes “person”. Next, let me relay a lovely logical statement I read about the use of the word “fetus” a few days ago; “Fetus” is a stage of life of a human, just like “neonate”, “infant”, “toddler”, “adolescent” or “adult”. “Fetus” is not a term used in place of “human”. Fetus is a stage of being a human which is a person, thus, a fetus is a person. It seems silly to me to have to prove that an unborn baby is a person. Many people just intuitively know this.
But before I go further, let me tell you what I don’t think are sound reasonings to pin down the personhood of an unborn baby. Obviously, but with all due respect, the Christian belief that ensoulment takes place at conception has no place in a reason-based discussion. There’s also an argument using science, and that is that the DNA is unique at conception and therefore it is a person worthy of allowing to grow to be born. I respect this concept, but it is unrealistic to ask people whom can barley conclude a 5 month gestational aged baby is a person to acknowledge that an infinitesimal and unorganized number of cells makes a person. Personally, I wish that at least we could all agree to grant personhood to an unborn human being as soon as he or she has brain activity of any kind and has physical sensory.
I now look to the 14th amendment to argue that abortions at least past the fetus stage (or earlier as science may eventually prove), are illegal and should be banned.
The 14th Amendment, Section 1 states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The framers of the 1868 amendment said, “…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” It does not say “citizen” or “persons born”, it says only “person”. Any person has a right to life unless there is due process of law.
So here is my argument, which to me seems rather simplistic. Does it all really hinge on defining a person as it seems to me to be the case? Again, I went to the internet to research the Roe v. Wade case to see if I was oversimplifying or not seeing all arguments.
As a result of my research of the actual opinion of the Justices in the Roe v. Wade case, I became even more incensed. The entire opinion does hinge on the disregard of an unborn baby as a person.
Justice Blackmun begins his opinion by discussing what he pronounces to be relatively new restrictive criminal abortion laws that came to pass from statutory changes effected in the latter half of the 19th century. He then goes on to discuss the differences between common law, and English and American statutory laws prior to that time. He noted the latter two often viewed abortion before quickening as a misdemeanor and afterwards, manslaughter.
It could be and should be argued that the stricter restrictions of abortion Justice Blackmun laments are in direct correlation with the passing of the 14th amendment. An amendment which was constructed as a response to the depravity that blacks faced when they were refused their rights and considered merely property. I am certain that the intent of the public and politicians in the latter half of the 19th century was to ensure that all humans were protected under the constitution regardless of their form or origin so that callous disregard for human life was never again in constitutional limbo.
So how did the Justices conclude that unborn babies/fetuses were not persons as of 1970? In an example of completely unreasonable and false justification of an action, he claims that the action itself (of abortion) throughout the 19th and 20th centuries was proof that a fetus wasn’t regarded as a person and therefore the termination of their lives should be allowed to continue in a freer way. What type of reasoning bases the quantity of an action as justification for its constitutionality? Poor reasoning, that’s what type. Justice Blackmun then goes on to cite Jewish, Protestant and Renaissance Roman Catholic dogmas as further evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!! What happened to secular law!? What happened to science and reason. How is it that the progressive stance in the 1970s and now is dependent on going backwards in time when little was known about the prenatal experience and on antiquated religious views of when life begins?
If our constitution is supposed to grow with us as a society as intended, then we should be bringing facts of science, technology and reason into our interpretations in order to do ourselves justice. The unborn are not specifically excluded, and it is quite clear to me and many other citizens that there is ample proof that they are deserving of their personhood and constitutional right to life.
We have an undeniably righteous basis from which to demand a social policy change. Maybe not for eradicating abortion completely, but certainly for limiting greatly its position as an unquestionable right.
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,301
- Reaction score
- 9,068
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
This was so increadible, I had to get the system up right now. 
There should be a new link above called Articles.
WKL815, you should have permission to post in it.
Would you post this in the letters section?
There should be a new link above called Articles.
WKL815, you should have permission to post in it.
Would you post this in the letters section?
Pacridge
DP Veteran
OK. so like here's the deal. I got pregant. You know because nobody told me you could get preggers if ya, like, you know, did it standing up and all. And anyway I like just kinda forgot about being, ya know, preggers and all, for like, gezz I don't know must've been like four months maybe five?, I don't know. Life's just so hard and all. Anyway now I want an abortion. That's OK, right?vauge said:
I'm sorry, as anybody whose read my crap on here knows, I'm a fairly liberal guy. But this abortion stuff bothers me. Not all the time. There's times when maybe it can't be avoided, I'm certain there are. But partial birth abortions? Give me a F**king break here people. There are tons of groups out there that are willing to help these women through whatever mess they got themselves into and killing a human just because it hasn't been born yet doesn't quite fly.
Last edited:
Pacridge
DP Veteran
I glad you and I agree on this issue. I think a lot of American would agree on many more issues if the party spin were removed. As for me being a liberal- not sure I truely fit that bill in all regards. I'm normally conservative on fiscal issues and generally liberal on social issue. Well other than this abortion issue anyway. Basically don't think we should be spending money we don't have and thought this country was founded on liberty.WKL815 said:
I also agree with Vague's assesment of your writing skills. I certainly wish I had half the talent you possess. Your arguement is well written, concise, logical and to the point.
I found one thing interesting within the text of your essay. In speaking regarding President Bush's speach you said- "I was pretty pleased with myself for having decoded his message." I found this interesting because I too find myself "decoding" his messages all the time. Yet I constatntly hear conservatives say that's what they like about the man- "He say's what he means and he means what he says, you know what this man stands for." Yet I find he says one thing and then usually does a completely different thing. The only times he does tend to stick with what he says is on these no cost issues. Everything else it's a complete opposite. "I support the troops" no not really. "My tax cuts went to the lower and middle class" certainly not. Most times when I decode his message I find I don't like it once it's been decoded.
Pac , =)
I have a democrat in my office who I have much respect for and I have recently acquired enough guts to participate in the hallway debates among my co-workers. This threw them off at first but everybody listens and we all call BS when we hear it.
So one day, we all took a test from politicalcompass.net and got our "scores". Then I printed off the questions on which you could agree or disagree and we sat around the table and discussed how we answered. It was pretty cool. My favorite statement was this:
It is a waste of time to rehabilitate some criminals.
With this, all the republicans answered "strongly agree" and the democrats answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree".
I was incredulous. "Do you mean to tell me that you think we should try to rehabilitate every criminal, even if they are horribly messed up beyond repair? We should waste our resources further?" I asked.
"That's not what I'm saying. That's not how I read the statement.", he said.
So I made everyone be quiet until I comprehended the statement they same way he had. It took me a few seconds, but all of sudden I was able to read it the way he had and agreed that I would have answered the same too had I read the statement that way.
I read the statement as "Some criminals can not be rehabilitated, so it is a waste of time to try."
He read the statement as "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate at least some of the criminals."
Frankly, it's a semantical stretch to me to interpret the statement like he did. My mind defaults to the other. This to me shows the fundamental difference in how people view their world. I read the statement the way I did because I think about the person, in this case the criminal, and what the person is capable of - my base philosophy centers around personal responsibility. But he looked at the sentence and saw the action rather than the person - rehabilitating - something that could be done to help at least "some" of the criminals.
It's an admirable mindset to think first of what can be done for the better and want to make it happen and it is undeniable that we are all better off for having almost all types of people in the world. But I argue that if you never think about what the other person is willing to do or capable of doing, you set yourself up for being taken advantage of or worse - harmed.
But please don't think my understanding of why the ideal democrat is good means that I accept the liberal as "progressive" BS. Liberals get their name (I accept you do not accept the label - good for you) because they constantly liberally interpret laws and social norms to advance their own agendas. Like in my letter, their "progressive" stance doesn't consider the baby, and bases their lack of empathy with the unborn on antiquated religious and non-scientific views. And further, they took the Roe v Wade opinion to mean abortions at will just because keeping the baby would cause a financial hardship and hurt the woman's "mental health". They are just like the Democrats in the South and liberals in the courts who kept asserting that black people weren't worthy of citizenship according to our constitution in the 19th century because it was better for them financially to keep the slave labor in fields - nevermind the humanity of those people.
I have a democrat in my office who I have much respect for and I have recently acquired enough guts to participate in the hallway debates among my co-workers. This threw them off at first but everybody listens and we all call BS when we hear it.
So one day, we all took a test from politicalcompass.net and got our "scores". Then I printed off the questions on which you could agree or disagree and we sat around the table and discussed how we answered. It was pretty cool. My favorite statement was this:
It is a waste of time to rehabilitate some criminals.
With this, all the republicans answered "strongly agree" and the democrats answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree".
I was incredulous. "Do you mean to tell me that you think we should try to rehabilitate every criminal, even if they are horribly messed up beyond repair? We should waste our resources further?" I asked.
"That's not what I'm saying. That's not how I read the statement.", he said.
So I made everyone be quiet until I comprehended the statement they same way he had. It took me a few seconds, but all of sudden I was able to read it the way he had and agreed that I would have answered the same too had I read the statement that way.
I read the statement as "Some criminals can not be rehabilitated, so it is a waste of time to try."
He read the statement as "It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate at least some of the criminals."
Frankly, it's a semantical stretch to me to interpret the statement like he did. My mind defaults to the other. This to me shows the fundamental difference in how people view their world. I read the statement the way I did because I think about the person, in this case the criminal, and what the person is capable of - my base philosophy centers around personal responsibility. But he looked at the sentence and saw the action rather than the person - rehabilitating - something that could be done to help at least "some" of the criminals.
It's an admirable mindset to think first of what can be done for the better and want to make it happen and it is undeniable that we are all better off for having almost all types of people in the world. But I argue that if you never think about what the other person is willing to do or capable of doing, you set yourself up for being taken advantage of or worse - harmed.
But please don't think my understanding of why the ideal democrat is good means that I accept the liberal as "progressive" BS. Liberals get their name (I accept you do not accept the label - good for you) because they constantly liberally interpret laws and social norms to advance their own agendas. Like in my letter, their "progressive" stance doesn't consider the baby, and bases their lack of empathy with the unborn on antiquated religious and non-scientific views. And further, they took the Roe v Wade opinion to mean abortions at will just because keeping the baby would cause a financial hardship and hurt the woman's "mental health". They are just like the Democrats in the South and liberals in the courts who kept asserting that black people weren't worthy of citizenship according to our constitution in the 19th century because it was better for them financially to keep the slave labor in fields - nevermind the humanity of those people.
So, I guess what I finally want to say, it that when you hear what someone is saying and you're matching against your other knowledge on whether or not call BS, don't just pick one thing as the "AH! gotcha" thing and stop. I don't know why you don't think W supports our troops, but I can state for an absolute fact that he does it the best way he - as a commander in chief for our country - knows how.
But I do suspect I can understand why you think his claim about tax cuts for everyone doesn't add up in your mind...
For some reason you cozy up to the fact that the top 1% got the biggest tax relief dollar-wise as proof he's just kickin' back to his cronies. But can you acknowledge that those 1% were responsible for one third of all income taxes. And if you extend out to the top 10%, they paid two thirds? 10% of the people pay 2/3 of all income taxes dollar-wise. It's just then a mathematical consequence that when you lower everyone's taxes, those who pay the most, are going to, dollar-wise, get to keep more. But that still means that lowering the tax rates across the board put more money in the other 90% of the income earners pockets too - people-wise. And let's not forget getting rid of the marriage penalty tax and increasing dependent credits.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=307
You say you're fiscally conservative, but exactly how much money does a "rich" person have to give the government in order to be worthy? Please tell me you didn't just latch on to the "fiscally conservative" mantra because the democrats in congress are poo-pooing the Republican's silly desire to both keep defending America and encourage economic growth by letting every American keep some of their own money in their own pocket where it belongs?
But I do suspect I can understand why you think his claim about tax cuts for everyone doesn't add up in your mind...
For some reason you cozy up to the fact that the top 1% got the biggest tax relief dollar-wise as proof he's just kickin' back to his cronies. But can you acknowledge that those 1% were responsible for one third of all income taxes. And if you extend out to the top 10%, they paid two thirds? 10% of the people pay 2/3 of all income taxes dollar-wise. It's just then a mathematical consequence that when you lower everyone's taxes, those who pay the most, are going to, dollar-wise, get to keep more. But that still means that lowering the tax rates across the board put more money in the other 90% of the income earners pockets too - people-wise. And let's not forget getting rid of the marriage penalty tax and increasing dependent credits.
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=307
You say you're fiscally conservative, but exactly how much money does a "rich" person have to give the government in order to be worthy? Please tell me you didn't just latch on to the "fiscally conservative" mantra because the democrats in congress are poo-pooing the Republican's silly desire to both keep defending America and encourage economic growth by letting every American keep some of their own money in their own pocket where it belongs?
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 14,301
- Reaction score
- 9,068
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
This is exactly my personal goal as a member of this forum. Being able to interpet and understand the other position. I think it will make me a better person when making a descision at the polls.
My overall goal as the webmaster is of course a melting pot where everyone has a voice.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pacridge
DP Veteran
WKL815 said:
J
Jufarius87
this judge is a moron who most likely has little expertise in science more specifically human biology
do any of you liberals even know what your fighting for half way through the full delivery that take a wire pierce the baby's(yes babys not fetal matters) skull and pull it out
at that point IT IS MORE DANGEROUS because of stooping the delivery process and jamming a sharp wire inside a person than a natural delivery
think about what your fighting for
do any of you liberals even know what your fighting for half way through the full delivery that take a wire pierce the baby's(yes babys not fetal matters) skull and pull it out
at that point IT IS MORE DANGEROUS because of stooping the delivery process and jamming a sharp wire inside a person than a natural delivery
think about what your fighting for
heyjoeo
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 1
That's a terrible strategy. What you are trying to do is take something that is considered "repulsive" and associate it with a practice in order to degrade that practice even if the two are not related at all.
I believe that is what we call in english, propoganda....
I believe that is what we call in english, propoganda....
Contrarian
Active member
While late to the debate, I must say that the insights and dialogue provided by WKL815 were, even though I may not agree with everything said, totally outstanding. Vauge is correct. You have a gift and a future as a writer.
You opinion that abortion, can be considered as a matter of degree for those who possess reason and the intellectual consistency to draw those conclusions. Philosophically, as civilized people, a life is a life, a person is a person and extinguishing a life if wrong. Your comparison to Dred Scott and the 3/5th rule is interesting, but is a convenient parallel drawn from a different place in time. As you pointed out, we have grown both intellectually and morally since that time, but the "property" issue used by the pro-choice camp refers to the ownership of ones own body and future. The premise that killing is bad, is true for those secular,reasonable and freethinking people as it is for those who stand upon religious dogma. If that premise is an absolute, than we must examine the issues of abortion alongside the death penalty, and even our right as a people to initiate military action where our representatives (soldiers) are given a mandate to kill on our behalf.
When is killing OK? Is it a matter of degree as WKL examines? At what point is it OK to act? Before a fetus moves? If a man is a serial sex offender? If a country is suspected of having WMD and having an al Queda connection? What if you are not sure... or worse, just wrong? Tell that to a panic riddled Mom given a death sentence if she attempts delivery; or an innocent person on death row in Texas(good luck); Or 10 yr old Iraqi girl caught in the crossfire in a "suspected" insurgent house.
It appears that our society has created a scale of judgement and varying justifications for their actions. The irony is that many individual opinions swing 180 degrees when discussion those varied, yet parallel issues (abortion, capital punishment and military action) without the introspection afforded by WKL815. You don't have to look far for that divergent opinion, inability to connect the dots and lack of intellectual consistency... our President.
You opinion that abortion, can be considered as a matter of degree for those who possess reason and the intellectual consistency to draw those conclusions. Philosophically, as civilized people, a life is a life, a person is a person and extinguishing a life if wrong. Your comparison to Dred Scott and the 3/5th rule is interesting, but is a convenient parallel drawn from a different place in time. As you pointed out, we have grown both intellectually and morally since that time, but the "property" issue used by the pro-choice camp refers to the ownership of ones own body and future. The premise that killing is bad, is true for those secular,reasonable and freethinking people as it is for those who stand upon religious dogma. If that premise is an absolute, than we must examine the issues of abortion alongside the death penalty, and even our right as a people to initiate military action where our representatives (soldiers) are given a mandate to kill on our behalf.
When is killing OK? Is it a matter of degree as WKL examines? At what point is it OK to act? Before a fetus moves? If a man is a serial sex offender? If a country is suspected of having WMD and having an al Queda connection? What if you are not sure... or worse, just wrong? Tell that to a panic riddled Mom given a death sentence if she attempts delivery; or an innocent person on death row in Texas(good luck); Or 10 yr old Iraqi girl caught in the crossfire in a "suspected" insurgent house.
It appears that our society has created a scale of judgement and varying justifications for their actions. The irony is that many individual opinions swing 180 degrees when discussion those varied, yet parallel issues (abortion, capital punishment and military action) without the introspection afforded by WKL815. You don't have to look far for that divergent opinion, inability to connect the dots and lack of intellectual consistency... our President.
Hoot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 1,686
- Reaction score
- 18
- Location
- State of Confusion
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Great thread everyone.
I commend all of you.
Abortion...
I guess the bottom line for me is... if abortion is outlawed, the rich and well-to-do will still have access to abortions on demand.
Can anyone deny this?
And as I stated earlier...perhaps in another thread...with the advent of pills such as RU-486 and 'morning after' pills, abortions will never go away.
If these pills are outlawed, we will have the black market fullfilling this need.
The only solution is a full range of readily available contraceptions.
If this means giving condoms out in kindergarten, then do it.
It's certainly preferable to abortion.
I commend all of you.
Abortion...
I guess the bottom line for me is... if abortion is outlawed, the rich and well-to-do will still have access to abortions on demand.
Can anyone deny this?
And as I stated earlier...perhaps in another thread...with the advent of pills such as RU-486 and 'morning after' pills, abortions will never go away.
If these pills are outlawed, we will have the black market fullfilling this need.
The only solution is a full range of readily available contraceptions.
If this means giving condoms out in kindergarten, then do it.
It's certainly preferable to abortion.
heyjoeo said:
If you are not familiar with the procedure, you might wish to visit the website below and then comment on it.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
J
Jufarius87
hmm i was partially incorrect in my description but what that website said is more gruesome that what i said
tell me something do you really beleive that "fetus" is any less of a child when the differnce by law is whether its head has been delivered or not
you are killing a child if u beleive this is legal you must by common sense beleive it is ok to murder a delivered child for a specified amount of time
tell me something do you really beleive that "fetus" is any less of a child when the differnce by law is whether its head has been delivered or not
you are killing a child if u beleive this is legal you must by common sense beleive it is ok to murder a delivered child for a specified amount of time
heyjoeo
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 1
Fant, that "description of an abortion" is from the National Right to Life Organization. I would NEVER believe anything they said. It's all geared to make you say "OMG! THAT FETUS LOOKS LIKE A BABY AND THEY ARE KILLING IT!"
Who can make the decision that a fetus is a living breathing child? Juf, are you a scientist? Fant, do you have a PhD in biology?
Who can make the decision that a fetus is a living breathing child? Juf, are you a scientist? Fant, do you have a PhD in biology?
heyjoeo said:
With every new post you reinforce in the minds of readers that your position on abortion is based solely upon personal emotion and your own beliefs.
So long as you simply deny the facts presented and are unable to supply a fact based rebuttal, one can only feel sorrow for you.
Consider that no one, that is no one at all, has thus far, in this forum, presented a single medical or scientific fact that justifies the aborting of nearly fifty million children in the US since Roe v. Wade.
Sometimes it helps to use an example to illustrate the significance of a large number. Here's one.
According to the latest US census, the population of the following list of states equals 50,000,000.
Alaska
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming
mect
New member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I believe that it is fairly well established that performing a partial birth abortion is almost universally more dangerous to the mother than a natural delivery. This being the case, the arguement that there is no clause for when the mother's life is in danger is rather weak. The problem with the abortion issue is that most people completely miss the issue. It is not about women's rights. It really isn't even about whether the fetus is a human life or not. It's about the value of the fetus. Whether you equate the fetus with a human life is up to you (I personally do). The question is, does the fetus have equal value to a human life. Does the value of the fetus depreciate the younger it is. If you equate the value at conception equal to that of a person, then regardless of the definition of the "what the fetus" is, equivalent to murder. So the question was posed earlier, in what circumstances is killing justified. Well, I could probably be persuaded to agree if the mothers life is in danger (as in these circumstances the mothers usually is as well). However, for the case of "I didn't mean too get pregnant", that's rediculous. However you "define" the fetus, those against abortion feel that it is of equal value and therefore killing the fetus is the equivalent to murder, if we are being all proper in seperating terms. So, how do we determine the value of the fetus. Well, that is really the key of the issue. I believe that like all moral issues that are affected by law, it should be voted on, and the voice of the american people should decide. So at this point many people are probably thinking, this is where freedom of choice comes into the arguement. The mother should be allowed to make that decision, not have it made for her. This, like others have pointed out, would be like saying the the early settlers have been allowed to decide the value of their slaves. At that point in time, the slaves were also not seen to be "the same". One major difference is that in the case of equality based on race, the minorities were able to fight for there own rights, something that a fetus, or since I'm writing this, an unborn child cannot do. I would like to make a couple of final points to conclude. If a fetus is valued as a human child, then the world is guilty of a moral crime which puts the haulocost to shame. If it is not and abortion is illegal (in all cases but where the mother's life is in danger), then a lot of people are held responsible for their actions and inconvenienced and life is not fair because the father of the child is inconvenienced the same amount. Also, to respond to a commment made earlier, there are also large discrepencies in the logic of many liberals ie killing a serial killer is bad but abortion is okay. I don't care what level you put a fetus at, it has to be worth more than a serial killer.
mect
New member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Sorry, I should start proof reading my posts before I submit them. I meant to put that the father is not heald equally accountable in my life isn't fair segment. (I know there are a couple of other typos, but I think the meaning was still clear.) And by the way, while I am against abortion, I think that fathers who don't support their "partner" and do their best to carry as much of the load as possible should be hung from the nearest tree.