PDA

View Full Version : Video: Vote Your Conscience, Catholic Vote 2008



megimoo
09-13-2008, 02:48 PM
Video: Vote Your Conscience, Catholic Vote 2008

A inspirational and educational film on voting for Catholics and all people of faith. Video at link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61wj4tJICcc

PoliCon
09-13-2008, 04:06 PM
wow. Nuff said.

GrumpyOldLady
09-14-2008, 07:34 AM
I'm in AWE!!

I wish I were rich. I'd buy air time for that in Philadelphia. (Heavy Catholic Population)

Amazing! Thanks for posting it. I'll be emailing the link everywhere!

Katiebug
09-14-2008, 08:18 AM
I'm not Catholic, but live in a heavily Catholic area/state. I found that video really touching - will be forwarding it to several friends!

wilbur
09-14-2008, 12:03 PM
The religious right's insatiable fixation with abortion is a hamstring on conservative politics.

Lets stop pretending that abortion is stoppable through law. It's harder to keep a baby alive during pregnancy than it is to kill it.

If you actually want to end what you consider to be infanticide, then you have to change peoples minds, not the laws. Studies have shown that even in countries where abortion is illegal, they have roughly the same amount of abortions compared to countries with less restrictions. So unless you just want it on the books that abortion is illegal, and don't really care to much about actually stopping the deaths of unborn children, you need to focus your efforts elsewhere.

Put your money where your mouth is conservatives... quit trying to get the government to solve problems that you should solve yourself.

megimoo
09-14-2008, 12:19 PM
The religious right's insatiable fixation with abortion is a hamstring on conservative politics.

Lets stop pretending that abortion is stoppable through law. It's harder to keep a baby alive during pregnancy than it is to kill it.

If you actually want to end what you consider to be infanticide, then you have to change peoples minds, not the laws. Studies have shown that even in countries where abortion is illegal, they have roughly the same amount of abortions compared to countries with less restrictions. So unless you just want it on the books that abortion is illegal, and don't really care to much about actually stopping the deaths of unborn children, you need to focus your efforts elsewhere.

Put your money where your mouth is conservatives... quit trying to get the government to solve problems [that you should solve yourself.
Wilbur speaking of putting money where your mouth is just who's side pushed Roe Vs Wade into the Supreme Court hm-mm ?
How about we post a few links to an abortion clinic with dead baby parts laying all over the Abortion tables ?
The last time I posted those links all hell broke loose from the bleeding heart liberal phonies !

Are You sure that you aren't liberal ,you sure talk like one ?

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 12:19 PM
That was a terrific video. As for your comments, Wilbur, many of us do put our money where our mouths are. We not only want it illegal, but we do something, on however small a scale, to help those make the right choice when it comes to their babies. And it has nothing to do with internet posting.

GrumpyOldLady
09-14-2008, 12:27 PM
If you actually want to end what you consider to be infanticide, then you have to change peoples minds,.

True.

And how are we going to change people's minds when the Culture-of-Death prevails in the media and in the education systems? The media controls the entertainment and news industries. The education system is brainwashing the future generations.


That's why we need to get pro-life politicians into positions that they can make a difference.

linda22003
09-14-2008, 12:50 PM
"Row vs. Wade"? Those are two ways of crossing a shallow river, not a Supreme Court decision. :rolleyes:

linda22003
09-14-2008, 12:51 PM
And how are we going to change people's minds when the Culture-of-Death prevails in the media and in the education systems? The media controls the entertainment and news industries. The education system is brainwashing the future generations.


That's why we need to get pro-life politicians into positions that they can make a difference.

Your post is rather a non-sequitur. If the media and educational systems are so powerful, how will the prolife politicians get elected, and what exactly do you expect them to do?

wilbur
09-14-2008, 01:17 PM
True.

And how are we going to change people's minds when the Culture-of-Death prevails in the media and in the education systems? The media controls the entertainment and news industries. The education system is brainwashing the future generations.


That's why we need to get pro-life politicians into positions that they can make a difference.

How did Martin Luther King change a culture of racism?

megimoo
09-14-2008, 01:31 PM
How did Martin Luther King change a culture of racism?Mass protests and political pressure !

LibraryLady
09-14-2008, 01:44 PM
Very few people are one issue voters. And even fewer base it on abortion.


Will the Abortion Issue Help or Hurt McCain? (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110002/Will-Abortion-Issue-Help-Hurt-McCain.aspx)

However, as Gallup polling in 2008 and all recent past elections shows, only a small fraction of Americans are highly activated on the abortion issue. Most Americans downgrade the importance of abortion to their vote, saying either that it's not a major issue for them (37%), or that it's just one of many important issues they consider (49%). Only 13% of Americans told Gallup in May 2008 that they vote only for candidates for major offices who share their views on abortion.

That may largely explain why 32% of Republican women call themselves pro-choice, yet only 7% of Republican women are voting for Obama. Similarly, in contrast to the 37% of Democratic women who say they are pro-life, only 9% are voting for McCain. Abortion is simply not a pivotal issue for these voters.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 01:56 PM
The religious right's insatiable fixation with abortion is a hamstring on conservative politics.Lets stop pretending that abortion is stoppable through law. It's harder to keep a baby alive during pregnancy than it is to kill it.The secular left's insatiable fixation with abortion is a hamstring on "liberal" politics. OR WAIT - I keep forgetting - is the left ever guilty even when they are just as firmly entrenched and firmly fixated on a single side of a single issue. Where were the pro-life democrats at the DNC convention?

Truth is - the left is more to blame that the right here when it comes to abortion. The left sees pregnancy as a disease - as a punishment. The left has a wholly negative view of life and of procreation.

The right is willing to allow abortions in the cases of rape and incest and to save the life of the mother. It's the left that wants them legal no matter why - no matter when - no matter how. So save the BS for someone who is actually ignorant on the subject.


If you actually want to end what you consider to be infanticide, then you have to change peoples minds, not the laws. Studies have shown that even in countries where abortion is illegal, they have roughly the same amount of abortions compared to countries with less restrictions. evidence? Which countries? What studies prove this? Or are you just making an empty claim?


So unless you just want it on the books that abortion is illegal, and don't really care to much about actually stopping the deaths of unborn children, you need to focus your efforts elsewhere. You're overlooking something. When abortion is illegal - there is a penalty for it. People think twice when they know that they will have to pay a price. See that's something the left likes to ignore. They want sex to be cheep and meaningless.


Put your money where your mouth is conservatives... quit trying to get the government to solve problems that you should solve yourself.rotfl. Practice what you preach. There are crisis pregnancy centers all over the country and guess what - they are not being funded by the government - or by the left like planned parenthood abortion mills are. So when you guys get PP off the government dole - then you can preach at us about putting YOUR money where your mouth is.


ETA: overturning the judicial travisty that is Roe v Wade will not make it illegal despite what some would like to believe - it would merely negate the idiocy that says a mother has a federally guaranteed right to murder her children in utero.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 01:59 PM
How did Martin Luther King change a culture of racism?according to you guys on the left - it's not changed. This country is just as racist as it ever was if not more so. And lets not forget that the civil rights movement was co-opted and turned into a government program. Now we have Affirmative action and the welfare state and the total destruction of the black family.

wilbur
09-14-2008, 03:56 PM
Very few people are one issue voters. And even fewer base it on abortion.


Will the Abortion Issue Help or Hurt McCain? (http://www.gallup.com/poll/110002/Will-Abortion-Issue-Help-Hurt-McCain.aspx)

This is encouraging. However, it still dismays me when I see videos like the one in the OP of this thread.

wilbur
09-14-2008, 03:56 PM
according to you guys on the left - it's not changed. This country is just as racist as it ever was if not more so. And lets not forget that the civil rights movement was co-opted and turned into a government program. Now we have Affirmative action and the welfare state and the total destruction of the black family.

You will never really comprehend what I say till you stop insisting that I am left wing.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 03:57 PM
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it's certianly not a fish.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 04:01 PM
If you dont like abortions, dont have them.

If you dont like gay marriage, dont be gay and get married.

It's very simple.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 04:07 PM
If you dont like abortions, dont have them.

If you dont like gay marriage, dont be gay and get married.

It's very simple.And what if you believe abortion is murder? what then? In the same vain - what if you don't think killing lefties is murder. What if you think that they are arguably just parasites and a disease on this country - and killing them is just a medical procedure?

linda22003
09-14-2008, 04:09 PM
And what if you believe abortion is murder? what then?

If Roe is overturned, can you get along with the fact that in many states it will remain legal? I've had people who are pro-life say they have no problem with that, as long as "the people" get a voice rather than a Supreme Court.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 04:10 PM
If Roe is overturned, can you get along with the fact that in many states it will remain legal? I've had people who are pro-life say they have no problem with that, as long as "the people" get a voice rather than a Supreme Court.

That is the political aspect of the issue, not the moral aspect.

linda22003
09-14-2008, 04:11 PM
But if you think it's murder, how can you live with it being legal some places?

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 04:12 PM
But if you think it's murder, how can you live with it being legal some places?

I generally don't consider suicide over other people's actions.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 04:13 PM
And what if you believe abortion is murder? what then? In the same vain - what if you don't think killing lefties is murder. What if you think that they are arguably just parasites and a disease on this country - and killing them is just a medical procedure?

If you think abortion is murder then don't do it. If you think killing Democrats is OK then I urge to try and pull it off.

linda22003
09-14-2008, 04:13 PM
"Live with it" ="tolerate". Keep up. I know it's Sunday and our brains are relaxing, but really. :D

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 04:23 PM
If Roe is overturned, can you get along with the fact that in many states it will remain legal? I've had people who are pro-life say they have no problem with that, as long as "the people" get a voice rather than a Supreme Court.Nothing else can go forward as long as that travesty that is Roe v Wade stands. I am more than willing to work to have laws written to make abortion illegal except in certain rare cases.

Personally - I am more than willing to allow it to be a choice for rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Rape is so completely damaging - I know from experience - and appalling that it takes a strong - a VERY strong woman to carry a pregnancy that results to term. Incest is so wrong - and usually is the cause of very young pregnancies - so I'm willing to allow abortion in such cases as well - a very rare occurrence. And when it comes to a choice between one life and another - It's just as wrong to leave other children orphaned. It's a choice of lesser evils. These three grey areas are something that need to be considered.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 04:24 PM
But if you think it's murder, how can you live with it being legal some places?The same way I live with stoning's in Saudi Arabia.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 04:25 PM
If you think abortion is murder then don't do it. If you think killing Democrats is OK then I urge to try and pull it off.Oh so you're okay with killing lefties as long as the person does not get caught?

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 04:26 PM
"Live with it" ="tolerate". Keep up. I know it's Sunday and our brains are relaxing, but really. :D

Ahhh. Okay, I can put the cyanide away.

My belief is that the closer the issue is to the people, the less likely it is that it will remain legal. And again, the return to the states is a legal/political issue. The rest of it is the moral issue.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 04:28 PM
Oh so you're okay with killing lefties as long as the person does not get caught?

Yea but anybody dumb enough to think that way would never get away with murder.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 04:57 PM
Yea but anybody dumb enough to think that way would never get away with murder.


And yet you think just that way about murdering babies in utero.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 06:01 PM
It's not a baby, it is a fetus. The difference is monumental.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 06:28 PM
It's not a baby, it is a fetus. The difference is monumental.

Explain the difference to me please.

linda22003
09-14-2008, 06:29 PM
My belief is that the closer the issue is to the people, the less likely it is that it will remain legal.

I think it's exactly the opposite. People are used to it being legal. They, or family members, or friends, have had abortions. They think there's always the possibility someone they care about might need one in the future. Pretty much anyone who can get pregnant now does not remember a time when it was illegal.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 06:38 PM
I think it's exactly the opposite. People are used to it being legal. They, or family members, or friends, have had abortions. They think there's always the possibility someone they care about might need one in the future. Pretty much anyone who can get pregnant now does not remember a time when it was illegal.

I understand your point, but I disagree with it. While I do believe many have taken advantage of its legality, despite their own personal abhorrence of the practice, I think most when really put to the test of asking if it should be legal, would say no...at least in time.

In the short term, I think there will be very few states that will completely outlaw the practice. In the long term, however, I believe that will change.

GrumpyOldLady
09-14-2008, 06:53 PM
It's not a baby, it is a fetus. The difference is monumental.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/76.htm

He or she is a baby.
This one is 21 weeks in the womb.
He holds the hands of the surgeon who is saving his life.

JB
09-14-2008, 06:54 PM
Explain the difference to me please.Kick.

and make sure it's monumental.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:02 PM
It's not a baby, it is a fetus. The difference is monumental.How do you figure - both are stages in a human life.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:03 PM
Explain the difference to me please.

A fetus cant survive outside the womb, a baby can. One is pretty much a parasite.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:04 PM
http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/76.htm

He or she is a baby.
This one is 21 weeks in the womb.
He holds the hands of the surgeon who is saving his life.

Chances of me clicking a link that says "bibletopics": 0%. Keep theology away, I dont buy any of it.

JB
09-14-2008, 07:08 PM
It's not a baby, it is a fetus.When does the latter become the former?

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:12 PM
A fetus cant survive outside the womb, a baby can. One is pretty much a parasite.

Lots of preemies end up surviving outside of the womb with the assistance of things like respirators, etc. Are they still a fetus?

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:13 PM
A fetus cant survive outside the womb, a baby can. One is pretty much a parasite.So . . . s it development that makes the difference in your opinion?

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:17 PM
Lots of preemies end up surviving outside of the womb with the assistance of things like respirators, etc. Are they still a fetus?

You're pushing it and you know it. No fetus in the 1st trimester has a chance in hell at survival.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:18 PM
You're pushing it and you know it. No fetus in the 1st trimester has a chance in hell at survival.

So then you are revising your statement that prior to the end of the 1st trimester, it's a fetus, after that, it's a baby?

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:20 PM
So then you are revising your statement that prior to the end of the 1st trimester, it's a fetus, after that, it's a baby?

No I'm saying after that the lines might become a little blurred. But let's get serious, once you carry for that long the chances of getting an abortion (minus medical emergencies) go down drastically.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:22 PM
So . . . s it development that makes the difference in your opinion?yooo hooo blinky! BLINKY!!!! YOO HOOO!!!

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:24 PM
yooo hooo blinky! BLINKY!!!! YOO HOOO!!!

I know where you're going and it's stupid. So is masturbation equivalent to abortion? How about condoms?

Hell, women's periods "kill more babies" by that logic than abortion ever could.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:25 PM
No I'm saying after that the lines might become a little blurred. But let's get serious, once you carry for that long the chances of getting an abortion (minus medical emergencies) go down drastically.

Blurred? I thought it was clear....fetus versus baby? How can it suddenly be grey? What has changed in two answers for you?

LibraryLady
09-14-2008, 07:25 PM
Philly, if McCain was pro choice and Obama was pro-life, which one would you support?

If they had the same stance on everything else and the voting record to match their abortion stance.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:26 PM
Philly, if McCain was pro choice and Obama was pro-life, which one would you support?

If they had the same stance on everything else and the voting record to match their abortion stance.

When you say "had the same stance" do you mean they have their same current stance (i.e. Obama on raising taxes and McCain on lowering, etc.)?

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:27 PM
Blurred? I thought it was clear....fetus versus baby? How can it suddenly be grey? What has changed in two answers for you?

Well when you keep the goalposts in one place for 5 minutes I can try and be more definitive. But I'll play along for arguments sake:

Sure, after the first trimester a fetus becomes a baby. Now -- what's the problem with 1st trimester abortions?

JB
09-14-2008, 07:27 PM
You're pushing it and you know it. No fetus in the 1st trimester has a chance in hell at survival.So it's OK to kill a person that depends on another person for its survival?

By the way, one second after the cord is snipped, a baby does not have a chance in hell at survival either.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:29 PM
So it's OK to kill a person that depends on another person for its survival?

By the way, one second after the cord is snipped, a baby does not have a chance in hell at survival either.

That baby is not biologically reliant on the mother for survival.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:29 PM
Well when you keep the goalposts in one place for 5 minutes I can try and be more definitive. But I'll play along for arguments sake:

Sure, after the first trimester a fetus becomes a baby. Now -- what's the problem with 1st trimester abortions?

I will answer your question, but first please explain where I've moved the goalposts. I have had the same consistent question...you have changed your answers. How is that my doing?

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:30 PM
I know where you're going and it's stupid. So is masturbation equivalent to abortion? How about condoms?

Hell, women's periods "kill more babies" by that logic than abortion ever could.*yawn* dissemble and spin all you like - either it's a human life - or it's not. a sperm is not a human life. An unfertilized egg is not a human life. And spontaneous abortion commonly called miscarriages are NOT murder.

LibraryLady
09-14-2008, 07:30 PM
When you say "had the same stance" do you mean they have their same current stance (i.e. Obama on raising taxes and McCain on lowering, etc.)?

You know what I meant.
If the only thing that changed was their views on abortion.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:30 PM
I will answer your question, but first please explain where I've moved the goalposts. I have had the same consistent question...you have changed your answers. How is that my doing?

Well you're moving them now again... stay on topic.

You're going after my rather irrelevant definition of when a fetus become a baby. That isn't the argument, the argument is over the morality of terminating a fetus.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:31 PM
*yawn* dissemble and spin all you like - either it's a human life - or it's not. a sperm is not a human life. An unfertilized egg is not a human life. And spontaneous abortion commonly called miscarriages are NOT murder.

What about a poorly strewn together mass of cells? Is that human life?

Where does human life actually start, and is terminating any of those building blocks akin to murder like you've been saying over and over again for the past few hours?

Shannon
09-14-2008, 07:34 PM
What is it with people who defend killing babies? I will never understand it.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:35 PM
What about a poorly strewn together mass of cells? Is that human life?

Where does human life actually start, and is terminating any of those building blocks akin to murder like you've been saying over and over again for the past few hours? So a zygote is a mere mass of poorly strewn cells is that it?

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:36 PM
You know what I meant.
If the only thing that changed was their views on abortion.

Actually, I figured it out as I was typing my question, but my initial read I was confused. Sorry...600 miles of driving this weekend...brain is a bit slow!

Anyway...it's a good question and I'm not certain I know the answer. I would probably vote 3rd party. I had a really tough time with Giuliani because of that issue, even though I liked him otherwise. If it came to it, I was really torn because he would have been the first pro-choicer that I've voted for for a major office.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:36 PM
Human life starts at conception.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:39 PM
Well you're moving them now again... stay on topic.

I am not off topic. You are making accusations. Back them up. How have I changed the goal posts? You stated that an aborted being is a fetus, a non-aborted, delivered to term being is a fetus. Then you stated that a non-viable being is a fetus. Then you revised and indicated that a 1st trimester being is a fetus.

Again, what goal posts have I moved?


You're going after my rather irrelevant definition of when a fetus become a baby. That isn't the argument, the argument is over the morality of terminating a fetus.

Now you have changed the goal posts. Since you are arguing that a fetus is morally acceptable to abort, it is relevant that we define a fetus and why you reach that conclusion.

Come on Blinky. Your professors must require some logical analysis in your papers. Practice. Show me that pursuit of a college degree has some meaning today.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:39 PM
So a zygote is a mere mass of poorly strewn cells is that it?

Answer the questions.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:40 PM
Now you have changed the goal posts. Since you are arguing that a fetus is morally acceptable to abort, it is relevant that we define a fetus and why you reach that conclusion.

Come on Blinky. Your professors must require some logical analysis in your papers. Practice. Show me that pursuit of a college degree has some meaning today.

My personal definition is irrelevant, only you're evaluation of the morality of terminating a fetus. Unless you dont believe in such thing as a fetus.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:42 PM
Answer the questions.In order to answer yours I need mine answered. :)

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:44 PM
In order to answer yours I need mine answered. :)

Yes I meant Zygote in more general terms, now go ahead.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:45 PM
Yes I meant Zygote in more general terms, now go ahead. A zygote is the beginnings of human life - thus it is a human life.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:45 PM
A zygote is the beginnings of human life - thus it is a human life.

You didn't answer all my questions, which I pretty much knew was going to happen anyways.

JB
09-14-2008, 07:46 PM
My personal definition is irrelevantOy.

You made it relevant the moment you said this:
It's not a baby, it is a fetus. The difference is monumental.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:46 PM
My personal definition is irrelevant, only you're evaluation of the morality of terminating a fetus. Unless you dont believe in such thing as a fetus.

As far as the American legal system or science goes, yes, your personal definition is irrelevant. Insofar as you attempt to posture a position based on those definitions, they are quite relevant. Since you have apparently come to a personal moral conclusion based on those definitions, it is necessary to examine those definitions in order to test your logical and moral conclusions.

Come on Blinky...you should be up to that task. I'm just one of those old cranky stupid conservatives that thumps the bible when coming to my viewpoints. That...and it's been a long long time since I've been in the intellectual gymnasium known as college. Surely you can dispense of my queries rather handily.

Again, let's start with my moving of goal posts. Once we get over that hurdle we can talk about the definitional framework you provide.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:50 PM
As far as the American legal system or science goes, yes, your personal definition is irrelevant. Insofar as you attempt to posture a position based on those definitions, they are quite relevant. Since you have apparently come to a personal moral conclusion based on those definitions, it is necessary to examine those definitions in order to test your logical and moral conclusions.

Come on Blinky...you should be up to that task. I'm just one of those old cranky stupid conservatives that thumps the bible when coming to my viewpoints. That...and it's been a long long time since I've been in the intellectual gymnasium known as college. Surely you can dispense of my queries rather handily.

Again, let's start with my moving of goal posts. Once we get over that hurdle we can talk about the definitional framework you provide.
And thats what this discussion pretty much boils down to, thank you very much Philly.

You're framing the argument up around me, which is a very easy thing to do when I serve as a terrific rallying cry for the idiot masses here. Already Shannon, PoliCon and JB have come around. This discussion started off about abortion in general, and now you've lowered it to my personal evaluation which no matter what it is will inevitably be met with "EYEPUSS GRRRR" before I refresh the page.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:51 PM
And thats what this discussion pretty much boils down to, thank you very much Philly.

You're framing the argument up around me, which is a very easy thing to do when I serve as a terrific rallying cry for the idiot masses here. Already Shannon, PoliCon and JB have come around. This discussion started off about abortion in general, and now you've lowered it to my personal evaluation which no matter what it is will inevitably be met with "EYEPUSS GRRRR" before I refresh the page.

You're weaving again. I haven't responded or brought in any of the other posters. Now focus.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:53 PM
You're weaving again. I haven't responded or brought in any of the other posters. Now focus.

Directly you've avoided getting them involved, but you know full well that if you even try to make any discussion center around me on this forum they'll come from far and wide. I give you credit, because it's a sly tactic, but in the end it's pretty bush league.

This starts and ends with the legality of abortion, thats what this argument centers around. You admitted my definition of fetal/baby classification is irrelevant in the case.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 07:55 PM
Directly you've avoided getting them involved, but you know full well that if you even try to make any discussion center around me on this forum they'll come from far and wide. I give you credit, because it's a sly tactic, but in the end it's pretty bush league.

This starts and ends with the legality of abortion, thats what this argument centers around. You admitted my definition of fetal/baby classification is irrelevant in the case.

Nope. Try again.

The easy question first. How have I moved the goalposts?

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:55 PM
Nope. Try again.

The easy question first. How have I moved the goalposts?

I'm not going to answer the same question 3 times consecutively.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:57 PM
You didn't answer all my questions, which I pretty much knew was going to happen anyways.what didn't I answer?

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:58 PM
A zygote is the beginnings of human life - thus it is a human life.


What about a poorly strewn together mass of cells? Is that human life?

Where does human life actually start, and is terminating any of those building blocks akin to murder like you've been saying over and over again for the past few hours?

I asked 3 questions, you gave 1 answer.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:58 PM
for the idiot masses here. talk about moving the goal posts. It's okay when you do it - but not okay when someone else does it rotfl.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 07:59 PM
talk about moving the goal posts. It's okay when you do it - but not okay when someone else does it rotfl.

That just me insulting you, not moving the goalposts.

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 07:59 PM
I asked 3 questions, you gave 1 answer.The one answer suffices for all three questions.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 08:00 PM
The one answer suffices for all three questions.

Not the third...

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 08:01 PM
for the idiot masses here. talk about moving the goal posts. It's okay when you do it - but not okay when someone else does it rotfl.


That just me insulting you, not moving the goalposts.

No -


And here comes the name-calling, you can't have a decent political discussion when you play by the rules of a 5th grade playground.


How the hell am I lying right now? WHAT ARE YOU EVEN TALKING ABOUT?!

It's you moving the goal posts.

Eyelids
09-14-2008, 08:04 PM
Did anybody else just catch what he did?

He brought in posts from 2 different threads about completely different things to say I was moving the goalposts somehow. PoliCon: Two threads about seperate issues are bound to have different paths and discussions.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 08:05 PM
It's not a baby, it is a fetus. The difference is monumental.


Explain the difference to me please.


A fetus cant survive outside the womb, a baby can. One is pretty much a parasite.


Lots of preemies end up surviving outside of the womb with the assistance of things like respirators, etc. Are they still a fetus?


You're pushing it and you know it. No fetus in the 1st trimester has a chance in hell at survival.


So then you are revising your statement that prior to the end of the 1st trimester, it's a fetus, after that, it's a baby?


No I'm saying after that the lines might become a little blurred. But let's get serious, once you carry for that long the chances of getting an abortion (minus medical emergencies) go down drastically.


Blurred? I thought it was clear....fetus versus baby? How can it suddenly be grey? What has changed in two answers for you?


Well when you keep the goalposts in one place for 5 minutes I can try and be more definitive. But I'll play along for arguments sake:

Sure, after the first trimester a fetus becomes a baby. Now -- what's the problem with 1st trimester abortions?


I will answer your question, but first please explain where I've moved the goalposts. I have had the same consistent question...you have changed your answers. How is that my doing?


Well you're moving them now again... stay on topic.

You're going after my rather irrelevant definition of when a fetus become a baby. That isn't the argument, the argument is over the morality of terminating a fetus.


I am not off topic. You are making accusations. Back them up. How have I changed the goal posts? You stated that an aborted being is a fetus, a non-aborted, delivered to term being is a fetus. Then you stated that a non-viable being is a fetus. Then you revised and indicated that a 1st trimester being is a fetus.

Again, what goal posts have I moved?




Now you have changed the goal posts. Since you are arguing that a fetus is morally acceptable to abort, it is relevant that we define a fetus and why you reach that conclusion.


Come on Blinky. Your professors must require some logical analysis in your papers. Practice. Show me that pursuit of a college degree has some meaning today.


I'm not going to answer the same question 3 times consecutively.

Okay...I tried to streamline the discussion since you seem a bit unfocused with the other posters.

So...in reviewing the above, where and how did I move the goalposts?

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 08:06 PM
Did anybody else just catch what he did?

He brought in posts from 2 different threads about completely different things to say I was moving the goalposts somehow. PoliCon: Two threads about seperate issues are bound to have different paths and discussions.but the same standards apply always. Either name calling is being 5th grade or it's not. You can't have it both ways.

JB
09-14-2008, 08:14 PM
Directly you've avoided getting them involved, but you know full well that if you even try to make any discussion center around me on this forum they'll come from far and wide. I give you credit, because it's a sly tactic, but in the end it's pretty bush league.My god you're a bitch. Are your big girl panties in the wash? When you make a post you make it about you. Is this the first messageboard you've ever posted on?

In the interest of watching phillygirl slice you up I won't post in this thread.

As far as the others you mentioned:
Shannon made ONE post.
You and policon have had your own thing going since page 2.

Grow a pair or take a hike.

Phillygirl
09-14-2008, 08:17 PM
My god you're a bitch. Are your big girl panties in the wash? When you make a post you make it about you. Is this the first messageboard you've ever posted on?

In the interest of watching phillygirl slice you up I won't post in this thread.

As far as the others you mentioned:
Shannon made ONE post.
You and policon have had your own thing going since page 2.

Grow a pair or take a hike.

On behalf of bitches everywhere I'd like to object.

megimoo
09-14-2008, 08:23 PM
Okay...I tried to streamline the discussion since you seem a bit unfocused with the other posters.

So...in reviewing the above, where and how did I move the goalposts?

For C-SPAN viewers [Mona Charen]

"Read The Whole Thing If You Have the Heart For Love Of A Child ?"

I appeared on Washington Journal this morning with blogger Jane Hamsher. When the subject of abortion arose I suggested that Barack Obama and not Sarah Palin was the extremist due to his opposition to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (or its equivalent in Illinois). Hamsher denied that babies are ever born alive as a consequence of botched abortions. I invited viewers to write to me for evidence that it has happened. Below is a section of the Judiciary committee report on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001. It details what happened to Baby Hope and others.


107THCONGRESS REPORT
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107–186

BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT OF 2001

AUGUST 2, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
Submitted the following REPORT together with ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2175] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]


A. ‘‘Live-Birth’’ Abortions

The legal and moral confusion that flows from these pernicious ideas is well illustrated by disturbing events that are alleged to have occurred at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois.

Two nurses

from the hospital’s delivery ward, Jill Stanek and Allison Baker (who is no longer employed by the hospital), testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution that physicians at Christ Hos- pital have performed numerous ‘‘induced labor’’ or ‘‘live-birth’’ abor- tions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce pre- mature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are some- times still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die.

According to medical experts, this procedure is appropriately used only in situations in which an unborn child has a fatal de- formity, such as anencephaly or lack of a brain, and infants with such conditions who are born alive are given comfort care (includ- ing warmth and nutrition) until they die, which, because of the fatal deformity, is typically within a day or two of birth.

According to the testimony of Mrs. Stanek and Mrs. Baker, however, physicians at Christ Hospital have used the procedure to abort healthy infants and infants with non-fatal deformities such as spina bifida and Down Syndrome.

Many of these babies have lived for hours after birth, with no efforts made to determine if any of them could have survived with appropriate medical assistance.

The nurses have also witnessed hospital staff taking many of these live-born babies into a ‘‘soiled utility closet’’ where the babies would remain until death.Comfort care, the nurses say, was only provided spo-
radically.

Mrs. Stanek, who testified in front of the Subcommittee on the Constitution during its hearing on H.R. 4292 and H.R. 2175, testi- fied regarding numerous live-birth abortions that she alleges have occurred at Christ Hospital. The first she described as follows:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him.

I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about 1 to 2pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe.

Toward the end he was so quiet that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTRiYWQ5MzFjZmI2ZDk2ZWNjZDkyYzJiZDU4MTU1NzE=

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 10:00 PM
My god you're a bitch. Are your big girl panties in the wash? When you make a post you make it about you. Is this the first messageboard you've ever posted on?

In the interest of watching phillygirl slice you up I won't post in this thread.

As far as the others you mentioned:
Shannon made ONE post.
You and policon have had your own thing going since page 2.

Grow a pair or take a hike.But don't you understand - when a leftie loses it's because of underhanded tactics.

wilbur
09-14-2008, 11:22 PM
A baby (do not kill):

http://ecostreet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/baby-gown.jpg


Not a baby (may return for a full refund):

http://www.equine-reproduction.com/articles/images/embryos/morula.jpg

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 11:32 PM
A baby (do not kill):

http://ecostreet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/baby-gown.jpg


Not a baby (may return for a full refund):

http://www.equine-reproduction.com/articles/images/embryos/morula.jpgSo your definition of life is based on development?

megimoo
09-14-2008, 11:37 PM
A baby (do not kill):

http://ecostreet.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/baby-gown.jpg


Not a baby (may return for a full refund):

http://www.equine-reproduction.com/articles/images/embryos/morula.jpg
HorseShit Wilbur, even you were a mass of cells at one time. Maybe they should have reconsidered your birth,perhaps an undetected mental birth defect ?

PoliCon
09-14-2008, 11:52 PM
HorseShit Wilbur, even you were a mass of cells at one time. Maybe they should have reconsidered your birth,perhaps an undetected mental birth defect ?he still is a mass of cells. It's just that most of the cells are now very highly organized and less general than they were back in his zygote days.

wilbur
09-15-2008, 12:10 AM
So your definition of life is based on development?

Yes. A sperm cell is not human, just like an egg is not human, just like a zygote is not human. It's a potential human. Spare any and all compassion only for the real, living, feeling mother at that point.

Certainly at some point in a pregnancy it becomes immoral to destroy, but I don't think we can say exactly when. I'm willing to err on the side of caution and would not be opposed to regulations that would prohibit them beyond the first trimester except in extreme cases.

Here is some more food for thought: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060203.html



Laws and Reality

Prior to the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, illegal abortion in the United States was common; some 700,000 to 800,000 abortions were estimated to have taken place annually in the 1950s and 1960s.

This number is very close to the amount of abortions for the last 10 or so years, in the united states (hovered around 800,000 annually)... this is very telling about the legal status of abortion and its effect on actual abortion rates. I hope this will convince most of you that Washington, presidential candidates, and RVW are the wrong targets if you actually want to reduce abortions.

<snip>...

Of the 46 million abortions occurring worldwide each year, 20 million are illegal. As was the case with affluent U.S. women in the years before Roe, a small proportion of women living in urban areas in some developing countries may be able to afford the services of a private physician who can perform a safe, if still illegal, abortion

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 12:18 AM
For the record, I am opposed to abortions when the fetus looks like a baby.

PoliCon
09-15-2008, 12:29 AM
Yes. A sperm cell is not human, just like an egg is not human,
Of course neither an egg nor a sperm is a human life - both contain a mere half of the genetic material required for life.

just like a zygote is not human. It's a potential human. Genetically - it's human.


Spare any and all compassion only for the real, living, feeling mother at that point. If she is a viticm of rape or incest - if her life is in jeperdy - then she has my compassion. If she is nothing more than a selfish bitch who is killing her child because it's not "convenient" for her - she gets no compassion.


Certainly at some point in a pregnancy it becomes immoral to destroy, but I don't think we can say exactly when. sure we can. conception.
I'm willing to err on the side of caution and would not be opposed to regulations that would prohibit them beyond the first trimester except in extreme cases.I'll agree to that in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.


Here is some more food for thought: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060203.htmlI'll take 3/4 a million illegal abortions over the 1.5 million abortions we have today with it legal.

wilbur
09-15-2008, 07:54 AM
Of course neither an egg nor a sperm is a human life - both contain a mere half of the genetic material required for life.
Genetically - it's human.


I disagree... the blueprints are not the building... the map is not the territory.



If she is a viticm of rape or incest - if her life is in jeperdy - then she has my compassion. If she is nothing more than a selfish bitch who is killing her child because it's not "convenient" for her -


The vast majority of abortions are received by women who are already single mother's, and living in poverty. It's not really simply a matter of convenience here.

wilbur
09-15-2008, 07:58 AM
I'll take 3/4 a million illegal abortions over the 1.5 million abortions we have today with it legal.

It hasnt been that high since the mid 90's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Number_of_Abortions_in_US.jpg

As I said, it's about the same as it was pre-RVW, in the 50's and 60's. And this is all with a much larger population and I would guess much more promiscuity. Per capita we have less abortion today than we did when it was illegal. Whats behind this? I would guess, birth control.

patsfan
09-15-2008, 08:27 AM
It's not a baby, it is a fetus. The difference is monumental.

The question is not whether it's a baby. The question is whether it is alive.

That's why we call our movement "Pro-Life".

megimoo
09-15-2008, 08:41 AM
Yes. A sperm cell is not human, just like an egg is not human, just like a zygote is not human. It's a potential human. Spare any and all compassion only for the real, living, feeling mother at that point.

Certainly at some point in a pregnancy it becomes immoral to destroy, but I don't think we can say exactly when. I'm willing to err on the side of caution and would not be opposed to regulations that would prohibit them beyond the first trimester except in extreme cases.

Here is some more food for thought: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/2/gr060203.html
Wilbur,wilbur .Who said anything about a sperm cell or an egg being human ?The fusion of the two is what it's all about !If you and the rest of the baby killers would leave it alone it will grow into a baby .A zygote has all of the DNA required to grow into a fetus for birth and if left un_aborted will grow into a human child !.

Phillygirl
09-15-2008, 10:36 AM
For the record, I am opposed to abortions when the fetus looks like a baby.

Why? .......

linda22003
09-15-2008, 11:49 AM
Stage of development, I assume. I'd be happy to limit them to first trimester unless there was some medical reason not to.

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 12:30 PM
Why? .......

Because it looks bad.

linda22003
09-15-2008, 12:30 PM
What was I thinking? I thought you had reasoned out a response. :rolleyes:

wilbur
09-15-2008, 01:41 PM
Wilbur,wilbur .Who said anything about a sperm cell or an egg being human ?

Nobody to my knowledge. Thats why I compared a zygote to sperm/egg. They all are non-human.



The fusion of the two is what it's all about !If you and the rest of the baby killers would leave it alone it will grow into a baby .


Only 60% of the time actually... if the mother maintains a healthy lifestyle. Doctors tell women to wait till the 2nd trimester to announce their pregnancy for a reason.


A zygote has all of the DNA required to grow into a fetus for birth and if left un_aborted will grow into a human child !.

Again, only 60% of the time. A potential human, just like sperm is a potential human, just like an egg is a potential human, but not an actual human. Blueprints are not the same thing as the building they portray.

Phillygirl
09-15-2008, 02:22 PM
Because it looks bad.

Excellent Blinky. You must be one of those honor roll students. :rolleyes:

megimoo
09-15-2008, 02:39 PM
Nobody to my knowledge. Thats why I compared a zygote to sperm/egg. They all are non-human.



Only 60% of the time actually... if the mother maintains a healthy lifestyle. Doctors tell women to wait till the 2nd trimester to announce their pregnancy for a reason.



Again, only 60% of the time. A potential human, just like sperm is a potential human, just like an egg is a potential human, but not an actual human. Blueprints are not the same thing as the building they portray.With most of us the birth of a child is a blessed event and most pregnant woman that I know strive to deliver a healthy child and take good care of their health while pregnant.You on the other hand seem bent on denying life and bending over backwards to declare the lack of life in a fertilized ovum !Are you married,do you have children of your own ?

wilbur
09-15-2008, 03:28 PM
With most of us the birth of a child is a blessed event and most pregnant woman that I know strive to deliver a healthy child and take good care of their health while pregnant.

But if you are a single mom in poverty already, a new child is not-so blessed. Even carrying the baby to term could be something that is impossible to manage. I know how many will respond to this point here... something along the lines of 'I'm pro-choice! You have a choice to have sex!' or something similar. But this whole line of reasoning fails the same way abstinence education fails...

One can harp on about personal responsibility and that there's a choice to 'have sex' to your hearts content, but it cannot change the reality that sexual impulses are one of the most powerful urges we as a species have to deal with. Even in the best of times in human history... times that we generally view as very moral etc (1950's perhaps?), we are a horny lecherous species who can't keep their pants on despite our best judgment. People risk death, estrangement, and trade all other kinds of unpleasantness all for a few moments of pleasure.... Heck, some even believe they risk an eternity of pain and suffering in the afterlife for sexual transgression... yet they still do it. We can probably credit the continued existence of our species to this fact. We cannot change this by spitting in the wind about personal responsibility. All that goes out the window the second we are under the spell of our hormones, in a weak moment.

Pretending that we are going to stop abortion, teen pregnancy and a whole host of other sexual social ills through a mantra of 'personal responsibility' is delusional. It ends up creating a climate where there is more disease, more unwanted pregnancy and more abortion when many of us inevitably fail to live up to the ideal.

On a side-note, this is what is so humorous (or tragic) about the traditional Christian sexual morality (and by extension, social conservative sexual morality)... that abstinence is the only way, birth control is evil, and absolutely no abortions. A perfect trifecta, guaranteeing that we will have a maximum amount of disease, abortions, and sexual dysfunction at all times because it rests upon a non-existent foundation... a sort sexual ideal that only exists as some sort of ethereal Platonic form, but has never existed in reality.



You on the other hand seem bent on denying life and bending over backwards to declare the lack of life in a fertilized ovum !Are you married,do you have children of your own ?

I would have to bend over backwards to accept the notion that a mindless unfeeling zygote or early term fetus is something worthy of my compassion and empathy.

Married: yes
Children: won't be having them, but if we change our minds, we will be adopting

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 03:31 PM
Excellent Blinky. You must be one of those honor roll students. :rolleyes:

Image is everything.

Lager
09-15-2008, 04:09 PM
One can harp on about personal responsibility and that there's a choice to 'have sex' to your hearts content, but it cannot change the reality that sexual impulses are one of the most powerful urges we as a species have to deal with. Even in the best of times in human history... times that we generally view as very moral etc (1950's perhaps?), we are a horny lecherous species who can't keep their pants on despite our best judgment. People risk death, estrangement, and trade all other kinds of unpleasantness all for a few moments of pleasure.... Heck, some even believe they risk an eternity of pain and suffering in the afterlife for sexual transgression... yet they still do it. We can probably credit the continued existence of our species to this fact. We cannot change this by spitting in the wind about personal responsibility. All that goes out the window the second we are under the spell of our hormones, in a weak moment.

Pretending that we are going to stop abortion, teen pregnancy and a whole host of other sexual social ills through a mantra of 'personal responsibility' is delusional. It ends up creating a climate where there is more disease, more unwanted pregnancy and more abortion when many of us inevitably fail to live up to the ideal.





I don't tend to get deeply involved in Abortion arguments, but that tired refrain that sex is such a strong urge that we can't help ourselves just gets so tiresome. Every progress in the climb to a civilized society came from some type of self control that delayed or subverted our personal desires for the good of the community. Taking what we want, even when it belongs to someone else was a natural urge at one time. If sex is such a powerful uncontrollable urge, why does a stronger man, not force himself on a woman, when she says no?



Pretending that we are going to stop abortion, teen pregnancy and a whole host of other sexual social ills through a mantra of 'personal responsibility' is delusional


No it is not. Every positive thing we want to teach our children in order for them to become decent people, boils down eventually to personal responsibility. I don't know what is in the background of the folks who have such a hostile attitude toward religion, maybe there was a particular mean and nasty nun in your past, or maybe bad experiences as a choir boy, but come on already, quit using it as your whipping boy for every issue.

Whatever one's feelings are on abortion, can we argue that for a society such as ours, with great and unfettered access to technology and a host of options, abortion is still such an uncivilized form of birth control? Powerful urge or not, we are not wild animals, how hard is it to take precautions?

Rebel Yell
09-15-2008, 04:12 PM
I'm too lazy to look it up and argue over it, but what have happened to the teen pregnancy numbers since Roe v. Wade? Has it increased or decreased?

linda22003
09-15-2008, 04:25 PM
Whatever one's feelings are on abortion, can we argue that for a society such as ours, with great and unfettered access to technology and a host of options, abortion is still such an uncivilized form of birth control? Powerful urge or not, we are not wild animals, how hard is it to take precautions?

I think we can definitely agree on that. If someone has tried hard to contracept and it has failed, though, there should be an insurance policy.

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 04:30 PM
Cant we all agree that abortion is a worthless issue compared with the energy crisis, two wars and economic hellscape?

Phillygirl
09-15-2008, 04:33 PM
Image is everything.

Spoken like a true fan of the White Men Can't Jump theory of life.

linda22003
09-15-2008, 04:33 PM
Cant we all agree that abortion is a worthless issue compared with the energy crisis, two wars and economic hellscape?

We can't all agree on it, but most voters do. Except for people who are fanatics on either side, it's never more than about fifth in importance in voting issues, according to any polls or surveys I have seen over the years.

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 04:35 PM
Spoken like a true fan of the White Men Can't Jump theory of life.

I applaud you for going this long, but that has basically lit up Rebel Yell's bat signal.

megimoo
09-15-2008, 04:35 PM
I think we can definitely agree on that. If someone has tried hard to contracept and it has failed, though, there should be an insurance policy.At your age, Come on !

Rebel Yell
09-15-2008, 04:35 PM
We can't all agree on it, but most voters do. Except for people who are fanatics on either side, it's never more than about fifth in importance in voting issues, according to any polls or surveys I have seen over the years.

Even to the voters who think it should be made illegal, but are smart enough to realize the Republicans just use it as a soundbite and will never really do anything about it.

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 04:37 PM
Even to the voters who think it should be made illegal, but are smart enough to realize the Republicans just use it as a soundbite and will never really do anything about it.

Haha yeah thats the funny part. If McCain/Palin wins they'll just go on their merry-way occasionally paying lip service that "were fighting as hard as they can for family values, but those damn liberals are too immoral!" to religious fanatics.

linda22003
09-15-2008, 04:37 PM
At your age, Come on !

No, not at my age. It has not been a personal issue for me for about five years, but I understand there are still women out there who can conceive.

linda22003
09-15-2008, 04:37 PM
Even to the voters who think it should be made illegal, but are smart enough to realize the Republicans just use it as a soundbite and will never really do anything about it.

Some of us count on that. ;)

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 04:37 PM
At your age, Come on !

Even I think that's rude.

wilbur
09-15-2008, 04:38 PM
I don't tend to get deeply involved in Abortion arguments, but that tired refrain that sex is such a strong urge that we can't help ourselves just gets so tiresome. Every progress in the climb to a civilized society came from some type of self control that delayed or subverted our personal desires for the good of the community. Taking what we want, even when it belongs to someone else was a natural urge at one time. If sex is such a powerful uncontrollable urge, why does a stronger man, not force himself on a woman, when she says no?

No it is not. Every positive thing we want to teach our children in order for them to become decent people, boils down eventually to personal responsibility. I don't know what is in the background of the folks who have such a hostile attitude toward religion, maybe there was a particular mean and nasty nun in your past, or maybe bad experiences as a choir boy, but come on already, quit using it as your whipping boy for every issue.


Personally, I harp on it because religion is the foundation underneath social conservatism, and many of the issues talked about here (such as this one) are social conservative issues.



Whatever one's feelings are on abortion, can we argue that for a society such as ours, with great and unfettered access to technology and a host of options, abortion is still such an uncivilized form of birth control? Powerful urge or not, we are not wild animals, how hard is it to take precautions?

It's not... we have those precautions to thank for decreasing the amount of abortions that are necessary.

Phillygirl
09-15-2008, 04:47 PM
I applaud you for going this long, but that has basically lit up Rebel Yell's bat signal.

For going this long with what?

Eyelids
09-15-2008, 04:49 PM
For going this long with what?

You aren't stupid.

Phillygirl
09-15-2008, 04:51 PM
You aren't stupid.

Well, I have lost IQ points actually trying to get you to answer a simple question on this thread.

megimoo
09-15-2008, 04:54 PM
Even I think that's rude.Only to another liberal and as I recall you have much more to answer for with some of your posts !

Lager
09-15-2008, 07:33 PM
Personally, I harp on it because religion is the foundation underneath social conservatism, and many of the issues talked about here (such as this one) are social conservative issues.


But religion is only one component of social conservatism. There are secular arguments for the philosophy as well. And you don't understand religion, so how can you accurately discuss it?



It's not... we have those precautions to thank for decreasing the amount of abortions that are necessary.


Birth contol has been around for awhile, and while it's a good thing that the number of abortions has decreased, they are still higher than they need to be in an advanced and civilized society. I think it's a lack of personal responsibility that have them as high as they are. And I'm not a religious person.

wilbur
09-15-2008, 08:05 PM
But religion is only one component of social conservatism. There are secular arguments for the philosophy as well. And you don't understand religion, so how can you accurately discuss it?


I agree philosophically with portions of those arguments and their values... that human life is 'sacred' for lack of a better word, and should be protected.

Where the arguments fail is their applicability to a zygote/fetus in or around the 1st trimester of pregnancy.

C'mon though.. the old 'You don't understand religion' canard is a little tiring. Most religious people don't seem to understand their own religion, and I can say I at least understand it better than they do.



Birth contol has been around for awhile, and while it's a good thing that the number of abortions has decreased, they are still higher than they need to be in an advanced and civilized society. I think it's a lack of personal responsibility that have them as high as they are. And I'm not a religious person.

Certainly plays a part, and its never bad to encourage personal responsibility. However, to use a tired analogy, it would never be a good idea to remove seat belts from cars to encourage people to drive safely.

PoliCon
09-15-2008, 08:15 PM
It hasnt been that high since the mid 90's.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Number_of_Abortions_in_US.jpg

As I said, it's about the same as it was pre-RVW, in the 50's and 60's. And this is all with a much larger population and I would guess much more promiscuity. Per capita we have less abortion today than we did when it was illegal. Whats behind this? I would guess, birth control. your source sucks. The Guttmacher Institute sets the number of abortions in 2005 as 1.21 Million in the US.

PoliCon
09-15-2008, 08:18 PM
A potential human, just like sperm is a potential human, just like an egg is a potential human, but not an actual human. Blueprints are not the same thing as the building they portray. A sperm is not a potential human. It lacks a full set of DNA. It is not a human life. A zygote has a full set of DNA - so it IS a human life.

PoliCon
09-15-2008, 08:19 PM
I think it's a lack of personal responsibility that have them as high as they are. That's part of it - but the root of it is selfishness. It's because of selfishness that they refuse to take responsibility.

wilbur
09-15-2008, 08:26 PM
A sperm is not a potential human. It lacks a full set of DNA. It is not a human life. A zygote has a full set of DNA - so it IS a human life.

The millions of skin cells that slough off all of us everyday also have a full set of dna. In the case of a turners syndrome monosomy (missing a matching chromosome), the fetus/zygote does not really have a full set of DNA. So its OK to abort those?

PoliCon
09-15-2008, 08:36 PM
The millions of skin cells that slough off all of us everyday also have a full set of dna. In the case of a turners syndrome monosomy (missing a matching chromosome), the fetus/zygote does not really have a full set of DNA. So its OK to abort those?Skin cells are not Tcells. They are specialized cells - and when sloughed off - they are d.e.a.d. Would you like to try another tack?

as for turners syndrome - the non-viable fetus is invariable miscarried. But tell me - should a turners syndrome fetus carry to term and live past birth -are they Human?

wilbur
09-15-2008, 08:42 PM
Skin cells are not Tcells. They are specialized cells - and when sloughed off - they are d.e.a.d. Would you like to try another tack?

as for turners syndrome - the non-viable fetus is invariable miscarried. But tell me - should a turners syndrome fetus carry to term and live past birth -are they Human?

Yes... various bits of DNA, codons, and chromosomes, are not why we find human life to be 'sacred' and thats exactly what I was illustrating. Its disingenuous to say that because a zygote has a full set of DNA, it is something that automatically is conferred the same status as a fully grown human being.

The DNA argument goes to hell in the case of genetic defects like turners.. and here you just moved the goal post from a full set of DNA as the human defining characteristic to 'a viable fetus'.

PoliCon
09-15-2008, 08:54 PM
Yes... various bits of DNA, codons, and chromosomes, are not why we find human life to be 'sacred' and thats exactly what I was illustrating. Its disingenuous to say that because a zygote has a full set of DNA, it is something that automatically is conferred the same status as a fully grown human being.

The DNA argument goes to hell in the case of genetic defects like turners.. and here you just moved the goal post from a full set of DNA as the human defining characteristic to 'a viable fetus'. A zygote is just a less developed human being. Kinda like a child born prematurely is less developed - or how the mentally retarded are less developed. Are they any less human beings?