[Dalton Wayne]

Originally Posted by aplcr0331

I think it's funny that liberals call cons anti science when talking about global climate change. Then when you point out that biologists and other scientist believe life begins at conception (and then say it's a social issue so they dont have to be stuck in the debate) all the sudden "that science is fuzzy" and such. I'm pro-choice, keep aborting all you want. The right kinds of people are getting abortions. Don't tell me its a bundle of tissues. Again, I'm pro-choice.

flame suit on

[c6601a]

It is amazing that the same people that are screaming the loudest about the government intruding into their lives and interfering with their freedom to not buy insurance be stick their medical bills on others are the very same people that have no problem imposing their sharia law on others.

The whole issue of abortion comes down to a single question: When does life begin? No matter how many make belief "scientists" (or even real ones for that matter) one quotes to bolster their position, the reality is that for almost everyone the answer to that question comes from their religious beliefs. The so called scientific quotes are just meant to shore up a decision one has already made due to reasons other than logic or science.

When you decide to tell someone that their belief about when life begins is wrong and they must live by your beliefs, you are the Christian taliban who is imposing your sharia law on them.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by c6601a

The whole issue of abortion comes down to a single question: When does life begin? No matter how many make belief "scientists" (or even real ones for that matter) one quotes to bolster their position, the reality is that for almost everyone the answer to that question comes from their religious beliefs. The so called scientific quotes are just meant to shore up a decision one has already made due to reasons other than logic or science.

That's nothing more than your private opinion masquerading as fact.

Most geneticists believe human life starts at conception not because of their religious beliefs, but because a distinct, quantifiable scientific event that is a keystone in that field occurs at conception - the creation of a unique, distinctly human genome.

Many biologists believe that human life starts at gastrulation, (about 14-17 days after conception) because during this time period another distinct and quantifiable scientific process takes place - the beginning of the process of complex cellular differentiation. Again, this is not a religious conviction, but hard science.

Ironically, of all the different means of defining when life begins, it is the pro-abortionists who use the LEAST scientific standard - that of "viability outside of the womb". Why is that the least scientific of all the standards? Because there is no real way of scientifically measuring "viability". A late-second trimester fetus can often live for several hours outside of the womb before succumbing, so does that mean that abortions should be outlawed after week 18 of a pregnancy? On the other hand, even a three year-old child will succumb within days (possibly even hours) if not constantly cared for by an adult as they lack the means or ability to feed, protect and shelter themselves absent direct and ongoing adult intervention. Does this mean that "aborting" three year old children should be acceptable since they are not truly "viable" outside of the womb?

Before making accusations about one side or the other being "Taliban", perhaps you would do well to look at the actual science underlying each position.

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

That's nothing more than your private opinion masquerading as fact.

So is the, "abortion is murder" statement. HH

[CarryTexas]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

That's nothing more than your private opinion masquerading as fact.

Most geneticists believe human life starts at conception not because of their religious beliefs, but because a distinct, quantifiable scientific event that is a keystone in that field occurs at conception - the creation of a unique, distinctly human genome.

Many biologists believe that human life starts at gastrulation, (about 14-17 days after conception) because during this time period another distinct and quantifiable scientific process takes place - the beginning of the process of complex cellular differentiation. Again, this is not a religious conviction, but hard science.

Ironically, of all the different means of defining when life begins, it is the pro-abortionists who use the LEAST scientific standard - that of "viability outside of the womb". Why is that the least scientific of all the standards? Because there is no real way of scientifically measuring "viability". A late-second trimester fetus can often live for several hours outside of the womb before succumbing, so does that mean that abortions should be outlawed after week 18 of a pregnancy? On the other hand, even a three year-old child will succumb within days (possibly even hours) if not constantly cared for by an adult as they lack the means or ability to feed, protect and shelter themselves absent direct and ongoing adult intervention. Does this mean that "aborting" three year old children should be acceptable since they are not truly "viable" outside of the womb?

Before making accusations about one side or the other being "Taliban", perhaps you would do well to look at the actual science underlying each position.

That's going to leave a mark!

[CarryTexas]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

So is the, "abortion is murder" statement. HH

Murder implies a crime has been committed and since abortion is legal that is not the case. However, abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

I was more or less pro-choice prior to my kids being born... After that experience I can't understand how a doctor could perform an abortion.

BTW: most women wouldn't know they were pregnant until after the baby's heart started beating at about 6 weeks..

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by HollowHead

So is the, "abortion is murder" statement. HH

Or the belief that destroying a human fetus is no different than destroying a tapeworm.



In any event, I don't recall arguing that abortion is murder. In fact, I support abortion rights in general, although I think they go way too far in legalizing partial birth abortions or allowing minor children to get abortions absent parental knowledge or consent.

[c6601a]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Before making accusations about one side or the other being "Taliban", perhaps you would do well to look at the actual science underlying each position.

For argument's sake, I will accept the science you laid out. Which of those scientists is correct about when life actually begins? The answer is obvious: The one who agrees with whatever it is you want to believe! And what you want to believe is based on your religious, moral or spiritual beliefs. That was my point that you made for me in your response. Thank you.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by c6601a

For argument's sake, I will accept the science you laid out. Which of those scientists is correct about when life actually begins? The answer is obvious: The one who agrees with whatever it is you want to believe! And what you want to believe is based on your religious, moral or spiritual beliefs. That was my point that you made for me in your response. Thank you.

I think that's actually true for many people. Most scientists, however, (at least in my experience) put science above religious bias. Sometimes the science dovetails with religious beliefs, as it does with the "Genetic" standard coinciding with the Catholic Church's position that life begins at conception, and sometimes it doesn't.

It's no surprise that many people follow their moral, religious and personal convictions and tend to 'cherry pick' the facts that bolster their beliefs.

One must ask, however, what the "moral" motivations are of those who would ignore science in order to support abortion, as is done in the case of those who adhere to the wholly non-scientific "viability outside the womb" school of thought. What moral standard, spiritual or otherwise, would motivate someone to support the legalized killing of what is, by any quantifiable scientific criteria, a living human being?

What brand of "Taliban" is that indicative of?

One thing I have learned on the abortion issue is that there is no clear-cut moral high ground at either extreme end of the debate.

[c6601a]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

One must ask, however, what the "moral" motivations are of those who would ignore science in order to support abortion, as is done in the case of those who adhere to the wholly non-scientific "viability outside the womb" school of thought.

Exactly the same rule applies. What you consider "non-scientific" is as much governed by your beliefs as which "scientific" approach you consider valid. To you "viability outside the womb" standard is "non scientific" only because it conflicts with your belief system. To others, the opinions of theoretical biologists and geneticists are purely academic and totally irrelevant because something that can not exist on its own is not a lifeform.

When any of these groups declares a monopoly on valid answers and demands that everyone else live their lives according to this one group's beliefs, they start acting like the Taliban and that is what I call them.

[canis latrans]

Originally Posted by Foxtrotx1

Well it's true sadly. The republican party and it's religious army insist that they know whats best for women.

perhaps...

but the Dimocrats will force EVERYONE to live THEIR way on EVERY other issue, right down to how many gallons of water your toilet is allowed to use.

[RenoF250]

Originally Posted by c6601a

For argument's sake, I will accept the science you laid out. Which of those scientists is correct about when life actually begins? The answer is obvious: The one who agrees with whatever it is you want to believe! And what you want to believe is based on your religious, moral or spiritual beliefs. That was my point that you made for me in your response. Thank you.

How about the fact that babies survive after 6 months. My cousin has a son that was born that early. I have a friend that was born that early as well. That is not based or religion or anything else, it is based on FACT. Personally, I do not like abortions before 6 months either but the line is not as clear there.

[KalashniKEV]

Originally Posted by canis latrans

...the Dimocrats will force EVERYONE to live THEIR way on EVERY other issue...

Yeah, but they won't force you to have an abortion if you don't want one.

Under the doctrine of the Bible Thumping American Taliban/ Kookistani Patriots, a woman doesn't own and control her lady parts, Rush Limbaugh does.

That's why he demanded Sandra Fluke make him a sex tape. That drug-addled, obese, old hippo really believes that he should own and control all the lady parts.

That's why these animals need to be purged...

Their influence over the GOP platform amounts to real and literal sabotage.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by RenoF250

How about the fact that babies survive after 6 months. My cousin has a son that was born that early. I have a friend that was born that early as well. That is not based or religion or anything else, it is based on FACT. Personally, I do not like abortions before 6 months either but the line is not as clear there.

Oh, I think abortionists are well aware they are killing babies. Partial birth abortion pretty much proves that.

Think about it. If a doctor were about to perform a partial birth abortion, and stab a baby in the brain to kill it, as long as a small part of the baby was in the ******, you could do nothing but stand and watch. But, if he were to slip, and let the baby all the way out, and try and do the same thing, you would be justified in 50 states to shoot him dead to stop him.

It doesn't make sense, and there is no way to make it make sense. It is just a political decision, made for political reasons.

[CarryTexas]

Originally Posted by KalashniKEV

Under the doctrine of the Bible Thumping American Taliban/ Kookistani Patriots, a woman doesn't own and control her lady parts.

A woman does own her "lady parts". However, she doesn't "own" the product that they produce. If she doesn't want to have a child then she should take steps to prevent pregnancy.

Once the baby has been created, then that baby has rights of their own that should be protected.

This is not a woman's rights issue it's a right to life issue...

This is not a tumor we're talking about, it's a human being!

[RenoF250]

Originally Posted by KalashniKEV

Yeah, but they won't force you to have an abortion if you don't want one.

Under the doctrine of the Bible Thumping American Taliban/ Kookistani Patriots, a woman doesn't own and control her lady parts, Rush Limbaugh does.

That's why he demanded Sandra Fluke make him a sex tape. That drug-addled, obese, old hippo really believes that he should own and control all the lady parts.

That's why these animals need to be purged...

Their influence over the GOP platform amounts to real and literal sabotage.

Go get some fresh air.

Why do you kooky liberals want to control my handy parts and stop me from shooting people? I am not making you shoot anyone.

It is the same logic. We, as a society, look out for the rights of others. As far as I am concerned you can do whatever you want to yourself but in regards to abortion there is another PERSON involved and that person's rights trump the mothers rights to skank around without repercussions.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[KalashniKEV]

Originally Posted by CarryTexas

A woman does own her "lady parts". However, she doesn't "own" the product that they produce.

No... she does.

Originally Posted by CarryTexas

If she doesn't want to have a child then she should take steps to prevent pregnancy.

SHE got pregnant!

Originally Posted by CarryTexas

Once the baby has been created, then that baby has rights of their own that should be protected.

Baby or clumpy?

I think you're assigning a public personality to a clump of cells. A clump of cells does not any rights. If it did I would feel terrible about cleaning my shower in the corners.

If a clump of cells is assigned full rights under the constitution, does a baby (a real child- BORN) have a right to US citizenship if the DNA was initially combined on US soil, but was born into this world (became a life) in a foreign land?

Originally Posted by RenoF250

Why do you kooky liberals want to control my handy parts and stop me from shooting people?

I don't get it...

Originally Posted by RenoF250

...and that person's rights trump the mothers rights to skank around without repercussions.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Thanks for finally getting down to the roots of your belief. Women who have unprotected sex out of wedlock are skanks and sluts. They deserve to be punished. They should carry the fetus and carry the Shame, so that every time they look at their child they know they are whores.

You'd probably throw rocks at them if you could get away with it.

[CarryTexas]

Originally Posted by KalashniKEV

SHE got pregnant!

Huh? What? The point was that the responsiblity was to not get pregnant in the first place.

Originally Posted by KalashniKEV

Baby or clumpy?

I think you're assigning a public personality to a clump of cells. A clump of cells does not any rights. If it did I would feel terrible about cleaning my shower in the corners.

If a clump of cells is assigned full rights under the constitution, does a baby (a real child- BORN) have a right to US citizenship if the DNA was initially combined on US soil

I guess you're okay with partial birth abortion? Heck if a baby doesn't deserve rights until they're born.... 39.5 weeks = "clumpy"

[SC Tiger]

Originally Posted by KalashniKEV

Thanks for finally getting down to the roots of your belief. Women who have unprotected sex out of wedlock are skanks and sluts. They deserve to be punished. They should carry the fetus and carry the Shame, so that every time they look at their child they know they are whores.

You'd probably throw rocks at them if you could get away with it.

I would not throw rocks, but if they want birth control I'd make them buy it with their own money.

[AK_Stick]

And this is why you're going to continually lose this argument.


If you don't want an abortion, don't get one......Its not that hard.


But stop trying to tell other people, they have to beleive what you do, and live like you do.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by SC Tiger

I would not throw rocks, but if they want birth control I'd make them buy it with their own money.

And perhaps if we hadn't drug the issue out so long and so far, trying to make it illegal, we wouldn't have saddled all the working class with having to provide it.



Well played 'Merica

[kensb2]

Originally Posted by KalashniKEV

Yeah, but they won't force you to have an abortion if you don't want one.

No, but they will make me pay to let someone else have an abortion. Want to call abortion a day? No partial-birth abortions, and I don't have to pay for them, you do (or your insurance), and you can abort as many babies as you see fit.
I don't think abortion is right personally, but that's the compromise I'd be willing to make so we can get the issue out of politics, and back to letting the so called 'bible-thumpers' preach about it.

[racerford]

Originally Posted by KalashniKEV

No... she does.

You don't own children, you are responsible for them.

..........
If a clump of cells is assigned full rights under the constitution, does a baby (a real child- BORN) have a right to US citizenship if the DNA was initially combined on US soil, but was born into this world (became a life) in a foreign land?

.......

This would make an interesting court case. So if a an illegal immigrant women was in the Arizona desert and giving birth to a baby right on the border (parallel and straddling it) what country would it have citizenship in, assuming the Father was not a US citizen? They was a case where a child was born to a US citizen in a foreign country but the child was not the biological child of the women that gave birth nor of American citizen father. The US government said the child was not a US citizen.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by racerford

This would make an interesting court case. So if a an illegal immigrant women was in the Arizona desert and giving birth to a baby right on the border (parallel and straddling it) what country would it have citizenship in, assuming the Father was not a US citizen? They was a case where a child was born to a US citizen in a foreign country but the child was not the biological child of the women that gave birth nor of American citizen father. The US government said the child was not a US citizen.

Even better since you can't deport a us child to a different country, if rights are given at conception, does that mean an illegal alien who was impregnated in USA cannot be deported.

I am sure people don't believe in deporting American citizens to other countries.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[frank4570]

How about this to settle the money issue?

Each person who is taxed can elect to pay either for birth control/abortions, OR you can chose to be taxed to support welfare and those programs. But you have to pick one or it will be picked for you.