Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The woman in "Roe" is now a STAUNCH Anti Abortion advocate
Yeah, I thought I had seen her on an interview.
It makes sense. She had the baby and her instinct was awakened, I would guess.
People spend all this time trying to suppress what we are-- animals-- and when the right situation comes up, all that reasonable stuff is just blown away when you actually experience it.
According to surveys, millions of people believed there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion AND believed that we had found them after the invasion. If you're going to question the validity of anything found in Wikipedia, then run an appeal to authority based on what such a grossly unreliable source as millions of people happen to believe, you aren't being very consistent in your standards regarding sources.
Meanwhile, either there are objective criteria for determining what a "human being" is or there are not. If there are, then these need to be stated. As you (and others) wish to make a definitive claim on the matter, one that should be broadly accepted and applied outside your own personal domain, you owe the rest of us considerable further explanation than what you have so far provided. What evidence can you offer for there being such objective criteria? What evidence can you offer for the criteria that you personally have decided to use being included on that larger list? Until you can accomplish such tasks as these, your claim-making boils down to little more than personal opinion-spouting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday
Half the states disagree with you in that they allow for the charge of MURDER if someone inflicts harm on the birth mother resulting in the death of the child.
That's a bit vague on linguistics. Neither a birth mother nor her child can exist until post-birth. Assuming that what you meant was pregnant woman and fetus, these state laws obviously vary by state, but it might be worthwhile to check into how many of them exist as extensions of the property interests of the pregnant woman, not as reflections of any interests of a fetus. If you come across any mention of a woman's intent or presumed intent to continue her pregnancy included in the text of such a law, then it is the former that you are dealing with, not the latter.
No, it isn't at all. This pie-eyed vision of the fetus as the equivalent of a two-and-a-half-year old toddler with the zoom factor set to some small percentage is completely at odds with reality. A fetus at the stages of development when elective abortions are typically elected is an incredibly primitive organism that lacks virtually all of the capacities that would characterize a toddler. The capacities of a fetus in fact fare only marginally well in comparison to those of a varriety of other primitive organisms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
Funny how when a woman is pregnant with a wanted baby she'll have no problem calling it what it is -A BABY!
What you are seeing here is quite literally a woman on drugs. Such cooings are a part of a natural bonding process that is triggered and advanced by the production and release of an assortment of hormones and other chemicals associated with pregnancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOJOG
Unwanted, it's "just a fetus."
Yes, you've perhaps unwittingly stumbled into the fact that wanted and unwanted pregnancies are two very different things. The anti-abortion side is deservedly famous for assuming that pregnancy is defined exclusively by the circumstances of a wanted pregnancy, and that others are deserving of no recognition or consideration at all. In fact, they need to pretend that these other circumstances do not so much as exist. Fortunately for many anti-abortionists, pretending is something that comes rather easily to them.
The systematic destruction of religious beliefs. It's the one understanding that is needed for total domination. You can't control religion which means you can't control the people. Religion calls for man to be weary of controlling life. Abortion throws that in the garbage.
Rant. The only side seeking "domination" is yours. There isn't a pro-choice poster here or anywhere else who would not leave you to your own devices and desires in the matter. All the would be dictators come straight out of the incongruously named "pro-life" lobby...
And it's unique every single time it's been a conception in every single bedroom. But let's disassociate that...
The "human" argument fails of sufficiency. The "life" argument fails of sufficiency. The combined "human life" argument fails of sufficency, and so does "unique". While they will diverge over time as the result of random biological processes, the DNA of fraternal twins and triplets etc. is indeed identical for significant portions of the time during which they might electively be aborted. Is it okay to abort fraternal twins because neither is unique? If not, then the point of uniqueness is one that is entirely moot. It neither confers nor denies anything and is therefore irrelevant...
Actually life imprisonment cost the state and federal government more than the death penalty. I did a study for a class and the facts point to life in prison costing more, strongly due to the fact, that even with life in prison, there are still an insurmountable number of appeals filed every year, by these same inmates. So, it would not slow the appeal process down that much.
Poor studies are done all the time. You'd have to post the methodology for yours so that its aptness could be assessed. One approach for instance would be to measure those budgetary costs of maintaining a death penalty option that are above and beyond those that would have been incurred in a maximum life-without-parole system, and then divide those excess costs by the number of executions carried out. If you did that in a high-execution rate state such as Florida for the period 1976 (when the death penalty was made permissible again) through 2000, you would find that the state shelled out a total of $24 million per execution. You can lock up a lot of people for a long time for $24 million...
What is the difference between killing an Iraqi child or pregnant Iraqi mother and abortion? Why are the Republicans so willing to murder innocent people overseas but so hell bent against abortion? I don't see any difference.
I'm sure. The innocence I refer to is pragmatic. The imperfection you refer to is a tool for self-improvement. (IMO)
Pragmatic in the sense that you will adapt innocence to mean whatever you want it to mean, depending on circumstances. It is meanwhile the guilty who are most often encouraged toward self-improvement. Encouraging the innocent to do even better than that seems a bit non sequitur-ish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I never met a piece of gravel I didn't like.
Why didn't you answer the question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Which post are you refering to? The link takes me to another thread and the original quote isn't there.
My bad on the link...copy and paste error. Then again, the quote was yours and it was in the same post as the other points I responded and correctly linked to. I should have thought the link error to have been a surmountable problem on your end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I just skimmed over it and figured you were wiggling out of corners.
The making of unwarranted assumptions is a bad habit to allow oneself to fall into. You seem to be at particualr risk in this area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I think it's more than that. By supporting it, the far left (communists/socialists) furthers their agenda to sever what they consider to be irrational attachments to our instinct and our attachment to morality... which opens the crevice through which they enter our lives.
Back to the communist nonsense again, eh. Do you realize how weak that is? Do you understand how intellectually dishonest it is to be resorting to Red Scare tactics every time you leave yourself painted into a corner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
Once a woman has an abortion, it would be quite rare, IMO, to come back to the side of decency. Once the deed is done, she has the choice to support the leftists who support her immorality (relatively speaking, of course) or accept responsibility for violating her nature.
Who is defining decency and morality here? You? Is there some obligation on the part of any of the rest of us to conform to what you -- for reasons that you can't manage to elucidate -- happen to have arrived at in building what appears to be a particularly paranoid belief system? Do you have any qualification either to speak to the "nature" of women? I really don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Thousand
I guess, also, it's a pretty sharp way to induce self-training for the population to become more leftist. If a person begins with the premise that abortion is okay-- never being exposed to it-- then they'll bend themselves to reject their feelings about babies. The intellectual side cuts off the instinctual side.
George Bush is about all anyone would need to influence the population to become more leftist. And we've got the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, ********, and Gonzalez warming up in the bullpen. McCain? Palin? Destined for the scrapheap of history.
Ever been close enough to a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy for her to have wanted or sought out your advice and counsel? It doesn't sound like it. Once you're in that situation, there are no good ways out. What's important in the end is not what decision is ultimately made, but that the woman is as sure as she can be that the decision she makes is the best one for her that she can make at the time. Whatever path is actually chosen, pursuing it with a knowledge that if the decision were to be made over again, it would still come out the same way is what ultimately sustains people. Your senseless ramblings by comparison are utterly worthless.
The woman in "Roe" is now a STAUNCH Anti Abortion advocate
For some, there's pretty good money to be had in allowing yourself to be used as a right-wing tool. Otherwise, her personal views never did and still don't have any material bearing on the matter...
What is the difference between killing an Iraqi child or pregnant Iraqi mother and abortion? Why are the Republicans so willing to murder innocent people overseas but so hell bent against abortion? I don't see any difference.
Touche.
Between the initial Shock and Awe indiscriminate bombing of residential areas and the later dramatic increase in recent years due to lack of doctors, hospitals, medicine, child mortality has gone through the roof - estimates are 1 out of 8 children now die before 5 years old.
I guess Muslim babies don't count.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
