Socialist-lib-dem claptrap.craigfarmer said:Politics in a free society is not the best place for Emotion. Imagine the society we would have if we made decisions based on "only someone with no heart" type arguments:
1. we kill innocent children (born), women, men, young and old in wars/military action each year. IT IS NECESSARY TO KEEP US FREE. Imagine someone saying, "only someone with no heart" could support the killing of innocent Afgani children. Those who argue we don't do it on purpose are fooling themselves. We lock up criminals each day for the unintended consequences of their behavior, esp. when they knew or should have known it was possible. We as a country must make tough decisions to eliminate our enemies, even when we know thousands of our friends will be harmed in the process.
2. it is very disgusting to know of, and/or view the slaughter of our food. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc. Yet, most of us love to eat the flesh of animals. I know I do.
3. It is not a pleasant site to view what a doctor does to humans in the name of science. They often show these surgeries live on TLC. Most people "with heart" can't watch. I know I can't. They show very graphic and gruesome parts of humans. We take parts out, put plastic and other foreign parts in. We purposefully make people unconscious, then we operate. An emotional person might not want this...
4. Almost every boy is circumsized. This is painful apparently. I don't remember. People "with hearts" might find it barbaric.
Abortion is the killling of a potential human being. Until birth there is only one human being including a fetus that belongs to her. Once the ambilical cord is cut there are two people deserving of human rights protection.
Imagine if we honestly believed a fetus was a human being:
1. would you debate whether its' ok to kill a 60 year old man, a 20 year old girl, a 5 year old? If people went around stabbing them with scissors and suctioning out their brains, would you disagree and then just vote pro-life? No. you would demand that violence be met with righteous violence from the police. Or you'd do something to protect the victim if possible. The fact that people accept the debate, proves that this is theory and not reality.
2. Imagine what would really need to be done to give each unborn child: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A woman would need to be under govt. watch before and during pregnancy all the time, in some way. Technology will allow abortions by a simple pill. Women can harm the fetus through eating the wrong fish, drinking too much alcohol, engaging in dangerous activity. People who honestly believe a fetus is human would have to protect the child the same as a 4 year old. If I give my 4 year old a beer, I'd get arrested, and the state would take my child. There are some women who are told by doctors to stay off their feet 100%, and the women refuse. The govt. would need to protect the child, and force them to stay off their feet. The examples are endless, and the enforcement a nightmare. If the laws aren't expanded drastically, and enforced vigorously, then we wouldn't be treating the unborn children the same as born people.
I know it sounds good, and many people feel good to say I'm "pro-life", but the country we would need to make it truly pro-life would be worse than communism.
That's why just like war, a free society needs to leave abortion rights as a least worst choice.
Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!
How about if you add something to your argument instead of partisan sniping?Fantasea said:Socialist-lib-dem claptrap.
craigfarmer said:Is this scientific, medical, obstetric, or genetic fact? Or is it your own belief? If you portray it as fact, how about a factual citation or two.Abortion is the killling of a potential human being. Until birth there is only one human being including a fetus that belongs to her.
If this is so, then tell me why Gary Petersen was found guilty this year of second degree murder by a California jury in the death of his unborn son who died when his mother, who was pregnant with him, was murdered.Once the ambilical cord is cut there are two people deserving of human rights protection.Imagine if you understood that "fetus" is one of the many stages of human life that begins at conception and continues through many stages until eventual death. Fetus is simply a Latin word that translates to "little one".Imagine if we honestly believed a fetus was a human being:
At no time after conception is this child a part of the woman’s body. It is merely using her womb as an anchorage; Mothers’ contributions are nutrition and oxygen. When a pregnant woman is hospitalized, there are two charts at the end of her bed because the doctors know that there are two patients.
Where can one find justification for the nearly fifty million human lives snuffed out since Roe v. Wade?1. would you debate whether its' ok to kill a 60 year old man, a 20 year old girl, a 5 year old? If people went around stabbing them with scissors and suctioning out their brains, would you disagree and then just vote pro-life? No. you would demand that violence be met with righteous violence from the police. Or you'd do something to protect the victim if possible. The fact that people accept the debate, proves that this is theory and not reality.
2. Imagine what would really need to be done to give each unborn child: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A woman would need to be under govt. watch before and during pregnancy all the time, in some way. Technology will allow abortions by a simple pill. Women can harm the fetus through eating the wrong fish, drinking too much alcohol, engaging in dangerous activity. People who honestly believe a fetus is human would have to protect the child the same as a 4 year old. If I give my 4 year old a beer, I'd get arrested, and the state would take my child. There are some women who are told by doctors to stay off their feet 100%, and the women refuse. The govt. would need to protect the child, and force them to stay off their feet. The examples are endless, and the enforcement a nightmare. If the laws aren't expanded drastically, and enforced vigorously, then we wouldn't be treating the unborn children the same as born people.
I know it sounds good, and many people feel good to say I'm "pro-life", but the country we would need to make it truly pro-life would be worse than communism.Why should the wanton, arbitrary, capricious extermination of our greatest human resource, our children, be subject to choice?That's why just like war, a free society needs to leave abortion rights as a least worst choice.
The only time the word "liberal" is safe is when it's being used on a restaurant menu as an adjective to describe the size of portions.Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!
Now, is that better?
Fantasea said:this was due to politics and the so-called culture of life that the republicans want to support. Your opinion that conception is the starting point of life drives that argument-others disagree and we frankly won't change our views...but from Latin, fetus means offspring (dictionary.com), not little one.craigfarmer said:If this is so, then tell me why Gary Petersen was found guilty this year of second degree murder by a California jury in the death of his unborn son who died when his mother, who was pregnant with him, was murdered.Imagine if you understood that "fetus" is one of the many stages of human life that begins at conception and continues through many stages until eventual death. Fetus is simply a Latin word that translates to "little one".
Actually, it is a medical fact that the fetus is medically dependent on the woman for many things and that is why the court considered them one in the same in Roe.At no time after conception is this child a part of the woman’s body. It is merely using her womb as an anchorage; Mothers’ contributions are nutrition and oxygen. When a pregnant woman is hospitalized, there are two charts at the end of her bed because the doctors know that there are two patients.
Because it is the the mothers right to do because of the privacy the court deemed through the 1, 5, 9 and 14th amendments. It isn't murder because the fetus is not a human being yet...but i won't try to prove that because you wouldn't listen to me anyways.Where can one find justification for the nearly fifty million human lives snuffed out since Roe v. Wade?Why should the wanton, arbitrary, capricious extermination of our greatest human resource, our children, be subject to choice?
WTF mate...that is straight up inflamatory, try not using that...its debate, not name-calling (which I have experienced on this forum unfortunately).The only time the word "liberal" is safe is when it's being used on a restaurant menu as an adjective to describe the size of portions.
ShamMol said:Quote:
A staunch liberal would know that the conviction occurred under California law which was enacted by what was arguably the most liberal legislature and signed by the most liberal governor in the land. The Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with it.Originally Posted by Fantasea
If this is so, then tell me why Gary Petersen was found guilty this year of second degree murder by a California jury in the death of his unborn son who died when his mother, who was pregnant with him, was murdered.Imagine if you understood that "fetus" is one of the many stages of human life that begins at conception and continues through many stages until eventual death. Fetus is simply a Latin word that translates to "little one".
this was due to politics and the so-called culture of life that the republicans want to support.
Opinion? Certainly not. I'm not so concieted as to think my opinion, or anyone else's, for that matter, should count in a matter of life or death. However, I think these folks carry sufficient weight to convince anyone who has a functioning mind and has no ax to grind.Your opinion that conception is the starting point of life drives that argument
* In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.
Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.
* "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."
* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
* Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
* Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."
* Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."
* Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."
Views? Is that all you have, views? And you say that you "won't change" them? What will readers gather from that, if not that it is irrational and unreasonable to make so dogmatic a pronouncement? I mean, it's like a person saying, my mind is closed tight and I refuse to let anything penetrate it.-others disagree and we frankly won't change our views...Close enough.but from Latin, fetus means offspring (dictionary.com), not little one.
Only the same things it will continue to be dependent on the mother for the first few years after birth. You'll have to point out the Roe citation to me. I don't recall it.Actually, it is a medical fact that the fetus is medically dependent on the woman for many things and that is why the court considered them one in the same in Roe.Quote: by Fantasea
At no time after conception is this child a part of the woman’s body. It is merely using her womb as an anchorage; Mothers’ contributions are nutrition and oxygen. When a pregnant woman is hospitalized, there are two charts at the end of her bed because the doctors know that there are two patients.
The owning of slaves was also once deemed a right under the Constitution, wasn't it?Because it is the the mothers right to do because of the privacy the court deemed through the 1, 5, 9 and 14th amendments.Quote: by Fantasea
Where can one find justification for the nearly fifty million human lives snuffed out since Roe v. Wade?Why should the wanton, arbitrary, capricious extermination of our greatest human resource, our children, be subject to choice?
Evidently, you are unaware that prior to Roe v. Wade, the crime was illegal abortion and it was the abortionist, not the woman, who was prosecuted.It isn't murder because the fetus is not a human being yet...I listen. I may not agree, but I listen. How else could I fill your screen with all this stuff?but i won't try to prove that because you wouldn't listen to me anyways.
I can't help that your posts incite people to call you names. However, I was responding to a statement with which I disagreed. I called no one a name.Quote: by Fantasea
The only time the word "liberal" is safe is when it's being used on a restaurant menu as an adjective to describe the size of portions.
WTF mate...that is straight up inflamatory, try not using that...its debate, not name-calling (which I have experienced on this forum unfortunately).
So there you have it. A full plate. What are you going to do with it?
Fantasea said:I prefer to see Samuel Armas while he was still in the womb. This one has a happy ending.
http://www.pagerealm.com/handhope/
Urethra Franklin said:Ask all the questions you wish. I'll answer all to the best of my ability.I notice you avoid answering the questions.Originally Posted by Fantasea
I prefer to see Samuel Armas while he was still in the womb. This one has a happy ending.
http://www.pagerealm.com/handhope/
And people should be warned that clicking on your link provokes the appearance of very hard to get rid of ads. Thanks for that.
In the matter of the Samuel Armas link, I just took a look and it's working just fine. Perhaps your PC or your ISP is at fault.
You didn't comment on whether you saw a full screen image of little Samuel in action. Did you see it? If so, what did you think?
Argumentum ad misercordiam, that's it.Fantasea said:You didn't comment on whether you saw a full screen image of little Samuel in action. Did you see it? If so, what did you think?
Fantasea said:frankly, i don't trust that site. you can tell that it isn't even professional because it is on a free host for crying out loud. I saw it, what i saw was a fetus, pure and simple.Urethra Franklin said:Ask all the questions you wish. I'll answer all to the best of my ability.
In the matter of the Samuel Armas link, I just took a look and it's working just fine. Perhaps your PC or your ISP is at fault.
You didn't comment on whether you saw a full screen image of little Samuel in action. Did you see it? If so, what did you think?
Fantasea said:Urethra Franklin said:Ask all the questions you wish. I'll answer all to the best of my ability.
In the matter of the Samuel Armas link, I just took a look and it's working just fine. Perhaps your PC or your ISP is at fault.
You didn't comment on whether you saw a full screen image of little Samuel in action. Did you see it? If so, what did you think?
Re-read previous posts and start with the questions you've avoided so far.
I couldn't get past all the pop-up ads to actually see anything.
ShamMol said:I wouldn't have expected Samuel to appear on the Planned Parenthood website, would you? That is, of course unless PP was going to resume the position on life in the womb that it held prior to Roe v. Wade. You do remember what that was, don't you?Fantasea said:frankly, i don't trust that site. you can tell that it isn't even professional because it is on a free host for crying out loud. I saw it, what i saw was a fetus, pure and simple.
Of course the stage of human development at that point was fetal; one of the many phases of human development along the unbroken continuum of human life from conception to natural death. How many of these phases can you name?
During which phase do the obstetric or genetic professionals to whom you subscribe state that human life begins?
You must admit, however, that Little Samuel surprised the hell out of the doctor, didn't he? The doctor performs in utero surgery on a patient and gets a handshake. Wow!
Four question marks for you.
Fantasea said:for your reading pleasure-the stages of "human developement" as you put. "human developement cycle" now if you look to about 6-7 months, around that area, you see my definition of when life begins, you know, concious thought. so, while it is still human life, it is not a person worthy of our protection until the time when it can conciously think (also referred to as a decisive view). I could care less about the fetus you call little samuel, considering that it is just meant to drum up support for your side and prevent actual debating on the subject.ShamMol said:I wouldn't have expected Samuel to appear on the Planned Parenthood website, would you? That is, of course unless PP was going to resume the position on life in the womb that it held prior to Roe v. Wade. You do remember what that was, don't you?
Of course the stage of human development at that point was fetal; one of the many phases of human development along the unbroken continuum of human life from conception to natural death. How many of these phases can you name?
During which phase do the obstetric or genetic professionals to whom you subscribe state that human life begins?
You must admit, however, that Little Samuel surprised the hell out of the doctor, didn't he? The doctor performs in utero surgery on a patient and gets a handshake. Wow!
Four question marks for you.
First, I can never resist this. Well, since you say you could care less, just how much less could you care? :lol:ShamMol said:for your reading pleasure-the stages of "human developement" as you put. "human developement cycle" now if you look to about 6-7 months, around that area, you see my definition of when life begins, you know, concious thought. so, while it is still human life, it is not a person worthy of our protection until the time when it can conciously think (also referred to as a decisive view). I could care less about the fetus you call little samuel, considering that it is just meant to drum up support for your side and prevent actual debating on the subject.Originally Posted by Fantasea
I wouldn't have expected Samuel to appear on the Planned Parenthood website, would you? That is, of course unless PP was going to resume the position on life in the womb that it held prior to Roe v. Wade. You do remember what that was, don't you?
Of course the stage of human development at that point was fetal; one of the many phases of human development along the unbroken continuum of human life from conception to natural death. How many of these phases can you name?
During which phase do the obstetric or genetic professionals to whom you subscribe state that human life begins?
You must admit, however, that Little Samuel surprised the hell out of the doctor, didn't he? The doctor performs in utero surgery on a patient and gets a handshake. Wow!
Four question marks for you.
Ah, lifeissues.net, how fun and incredibly unbalanced, at least I provided a balanced one.Fantasea said:First, I can never resist this. Well, since you say you could care less, just how much less could you care? :lol:
In one of the four questions above, I asked, "During which phase do the obstetric or genetic professionals to whom you subscribe state that human life begins?" Instead, you did not challenge the question but apear to be agreeing that, indeed human life begins at conception. It is good to know that because it makes the rest of the discussion easier.
You divide human life into two types. That when it is capable of conscious thought, which deserves to be protected, and that when it is not capable of conscious thought, and therefore, "not a person worthy of protection." Is that correct?
If so, why are not the many other persons, of all biological ages, not capable of conscious thought lumped into the caregory of, "not a person worthy of protection"?
Are there any obstetricians or genetecists whom you can cite who subscribe to your definition of "not a person worthy of protection"? Or, is your definition just a kind of "urban myth"?
Evidently, there are quite a few folks in positions of authority who don't quite agree with you.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/air/air_vol11no1_1997.html
I see! I see that you have not challenged my questions, since you have repeatedly avoided and not defended your original bogus claims then, according to this statement that you made you now believe:Fantasea said:Instead, you did not challenge the question but apear to be agreeing that, indeed human life begins at conception. It is good to know that because it makes the rest of the discussion easier.
Planned Parenthood longer publishes this kind of stuff.ShamMol said:Originally Posted by Fantasea
First, I can never resist this. Well, since you say you could care less, just how much less could you care?
In one of the four questions above, I asked, "During which phase do the obstetric or genetic professionals to whom you subscribe state that human life begins?" Instead, you did not challenge the question but apear to be agreeing that, indeed human life begins at conception. It is good to know that because it makes the rest of the discussion easier.
You divide human life into two types. That when it is capable of conscious thought, which deserves to be protected, and that when it is not capable of conscious thought, and therefore, "not a person worthy of protection." Is that correct?
If so, why are not the many other persons, of all biological ages, not capable of conscious thought lumped into the caregory of, "not a person worthy of protection"?
Are there any obstetricians or genetecists whom you can cite who subscribe to your definition of "not a person worthy of protection"? Or, is your definition just a kind of "urban myth"?
Evidently, there are quite a few folks in positions of authority who don't quite agree with you.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/a...11no1_1997.html
Ah, lifeissues.net, how fun and incredibly unbalanced, at least I provided a balanced one.
Views are just that, views. Views cannot suffice when human lives are in the balance.Honestly, I am not going to indulge you. Everyone can agree that human life that can be defined as human starts at conception. Everyone can agree that when the baby is born it is a person, but not everyone is going to agree that it begins at conception. The fact is that that is what my view is and that is what your view is,
I've looked but have never found any. If you can provide a name or two, I would be grateful. All those I've found cite research that shows human life begins at conception and that the stage to stage of growth and development inside the womb is simply continues after birth and on to old age without interruption. Do you have a credentialed name that disagrees with that?but some geneticists don't believe it begins at conception.
This is not a matter to be determined by agreement based upon emotions such as, I think, I feel, I believe. It's not an item for a show of hands. The determination must be based solely on the scientific, medical, obstetric, and genetic facts. When human life is at stake, is it reasonable to settle for less?There are quite a few very vocal folks who agree with you, but there sure as hell are more people in the world than that. This world is not only anti-abortion people and people who believe life begins at conception.
As you have, yourself read, that opinion contains no scientific, medical, obstetric, or genetic fact that justifies abortion. It is based simply and solely upon emotion.And it really doesn't matter because it is allowable to have an abortion and basically nothing (save for a complete reversal of the roe ruling and a shift of the court from conservative to uber-conservative) will change that.
It was not my intention to offend you. If I have done so, then I apologize.As to urban myth, in my opinion, you have no right to say that because i don't call your views idiotic, i just say that i won't agree with them. It is my views and that can never be considered an urban myth. you just refuse to believe that any other posistion besides yours could have any merit whatsoever.
Ill respond to the other stuff later, kinda tired, but this one I want to respond to badly. Please actually read the case. It is not based on emotion, but on the right to be secure in yourself-aka the woman's right to privacy. Now what is that privacy based upon, why the bill of rights. Can you guess which amendments the court used, why 1, 5, 9 AND 14....hmm...that sure doesn't sound emotional to me... You didn't offend me by the way, you are just blatantly wrong, sorry you confused those two things.Fantasea said:As you have, yourself read, that opinion contains no scientific, medical, obstetric, or genetic fact that justifies abortion. It is based simply and solely upon emotion.It was not my intention to offend you. If I have done so, then I apologize.
However, in the substantive matter of that comment, "Are there any obstetricians or geneticists whom you can cite who subscribe to your definition of "not a person worthy of protection"?
Urethra Franklin said:There is a flaw in your terminology. I think you mean to say aborted foetus, not child. Your English is very bad.
ShamMol said:Originally Posted by Fantasea
As you have, yourself read, that opinion contains no scientific, medical, obstetric, or genetic fact that justifies abortion. It is based simply and solely upon emotion.It was not my intention to offend you. If I have done so, then I apologize.
However, in the substantive matter of that comment, "Are there any obstetricians or geneticists whom you can cite who subscribe to your definition of "not a person worthy of protection"?
Ill respond to the other stuff later, kinda tired, but this one I want to respond to badly. Please actually read the case. It is not based on emotion, but on the right to be secure in yourself-aka the woman's right to privacy. Now what is that privacy based upon, why the bill of rights. Can you guess which amendments the court used, why 1, 5, 9 AND 14....hmm...that sure doesn't sound emotional to me... You didn't offend me by the way, you are just blatantly wrong, sorry you confused those two things.
Oh...really quickly (cause i am really tired and really lazy right now), here is just one that i found from my ap history site for your credentialed guy..."Dr. LeJeune's opinion was disputed by Dr. Irving Ray King, the gynecologist who performed the IVF procedures in this case. Dr. King is a medical doctor who had practiced as a sub-speciality in the areas of infertility and reproductive endocrinology for 12 years. He established the Fertility Center of East Tennessee in Knoxville in 1984 and had worked extensively with IVF and cryopreservation. He testified that the currently accepted term for the zygote immediately after division is "preembryo" and that this term applies up until 14 days after fertilization. He testified that this 14-day period defines the accepted period for preembryo research. At about 14 days, he testified, the group of cells begins to differentiate in a process that permits the eventual development of the different body parts which will become an individual." Read up on section three, that's where i found it
Not really, its for legality. The woman's right to privacy, if you read what i posted, is based upon the bill of rights, which was the thing that allowed the constitution to become ratified if you remember history (states held out till that was included). So, its legal and that is what matters, no matter your view on it.Fantasea said:I like to begin at the beginning and work my way through to the end. That way I can have a full understanding of who said what, and how the legal opinions were formed.
First is the decision made by the Circuit Court which was overturned on appeal to the Appellate Court.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/court/frozen-o.htm#~c32
It was clearly based upon factual testimony.
Next came the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court.
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/streiffer/BioandLawF99Folder/Readings/Davis_v_Davis.pdf
It clearly dismissed the facts and relied solely upon the same kind of logic that is found in Roe v. Wade.
Finally, this contains the complete testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune in the Davis case. It also contains testimony of Dr. Lejeune and Dr. Bernard Nathanson in earlier case.
http://www.naapc.org/downloads/symphony.pdf
All in all, quite compelling reading. Bottom line, it shows that the quest is not for truth, but for political correctness.
A small group of legal minds putting their heads together agreed that since they weren't sure what was going on inside a womb, the contents had no value. At least that was their alibi. Had they the courage stand up to the PC crowd, they wouldn't have had to rustle up the ridiculous idea of privacy.ShamMol said:Not really, its for legality. The woman's right to privacy, if you read what i posted, is based upon the bill of rights, which was the thing that allowed the constitution to become ratified if you remember history (states held out till that was included). So, its legal and that is what matters, no matter your view on it.
you opinion is that it is an atrocity. now, read this from your precisous right to life website (nrlc.com)Fantasea said:A small group of legal minds putting their heads together agreed that since they weren't sure what was going on inside a womb, the contents had no value. At least that was their alibi. Had they the courage stand up to the PC crowd, they wouldn't have had to rustle up the ridiculous idea of privacy.
A declaration of legality cannot legitimize an atrocity.
From that shady (i put that cause that is what you will call it) polling, you can tell two things, most people do not think that abortion should be legal under any circumstance, but 80% think that it should be legal in at least some to most circumstances. hmm...i actually post this because i am sick of debating this topic and feel that i have presented it well enough, but hey, go ahead and maybe i will change my mind tomorrow and try actually posting.The Gallup organization, which has tracked this issue even longer, shows fewer people ready to accept the current policy of abortion on demand today than at any time since the 1970s, when abortion was just beginning to become a part of the national experience. In its most recent poll published in USA Today (1/22/98), only 23% were willing to endorse the idea that abortion should be legal under any circumstances. A total of 75% said either that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances (58%) or illegal in all circumstances (17%).
You argue privacy; I argue life.ShamMol said:you opinion is that it is an atrocity. now, read this from your precisous right to life website (nrlc.com) From that shady (i put that cause that is what you will call it) polling, you can tell two things, most people do not think that abortion should be legal under any circumstance, but 80% think that it should be legal in at least some to most circumstances. hmm...i actually post this because i am sick of debating this topic and feel that i have presented it well enough, but hey, go ahead and maybe i will change my mind tomorrow and try actually posting.
Oh, and that small group of legal minds are supposed to be and are the most qualified people in the country, supposedly, to read and interpret the constitution. They used the bill of rights (which they do in almost every case) to justify it citing the 1, 5, 9, and 14th amendments as the foundation for that right to privacy and it hasn't been struct down yet as being unconstitutional. Seems to be pretty damn airtight.
Hmm...well, obviously we have very different views of what constitutes a human person. you also mention the pc crowd, i wasn't around then so i can't speak to that, but maybe you could provide some evidence of this so maybe i can see this perspective. oh, and try not to use a pro-life website if you can, if you can't fine, but just try, lol.Fantasea said:You argue privacy; I argue life.
No matter how you slice it and dice it, the truth never changes. A life is a life. The cowardly men in black threw a sop to the PC crowd to shut them up, never dreaming that in just thirty-two years, the pile of infant corpses would be nearly fifty million high and counting.
The law of unintended consequences is merciless.
It is odd and disturbing that someone is asked to prove that a baby in the womb is a living human.(basic biology) This way of thinking is a terrible path and I don't like where it is headed.ShamMol said:Hmm...well, obviously we have very different views of what constitutes a human person. you also mention the pc crowd, i wasn't around then so i can't speak to that, but maybe you could provide some evidence of this so maybe i can see this perspective. oh, and try not to use a pro-life website if you can, if you can't fine, but just try, lol.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?