The problem with this statement is that everyone can agree that an Iraqi walking around Fallujah is alive while there is no consensus on whether an embryo/fetus is alive. Giddyup I don't know you well enough to know where you stand on all the issues but your statement shows why many on the pro-life side show more concern about unborn lives, particularly American unborn, than they do about born lives.
I believe if the Democrats wants to win more elections, they should just stand aside and let Bush appoint pro-life Judges to Supreme court so that Roe vs Wade will be overturned. Just watch the few elections after that and see how Republicans like it.
As an aside, which I've undoubtedly mentioned before. There's nothing Mongolian about Mongolian Beef - it's actually the same thing as Bulgogi - which is Korean. For whatever reason, Chinese resto's in the US call it Mongolian beef, which amuses Mongolians that i know (and pisses off Koreans, lol).
that's not even the state of the law as it exists today. Roe doesn't even go that far. the argument from pro-choice that it can't be protected or a life until it can live on its own takes us further than the Court even in Roe was willing to go. with that logic, you could abort minutes before the baby is born...OH, WAIT!! YOU CAN ANYWAY BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE IN ROE HAS BEEN SOOOO SOFTENED!! got it.
i follow you, i was just trying to establish an actual dividing line b/t "fetus" and "baby" and this is the most logical TO ME. when you leave the mothers womb you cease to be a fetus and you become a human. im not trying to make a case for abortion minutes before birth or even late term abortions. just for when a baby is a baby. i would support a measure to ban late-term abortions. i think most reasonable people would.
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones That is exactly why I posted in this thread. You have no idea what's gone through the women's minds who have chosen to have abortions, yet you have no problem accusing them of being frivolous where it comes to the sanctity of life. Meanwhile, you eat "Mongolian Beef!" which is to say dead cows dressed up in sauce for hypocritical moralists to feast on.</b> It was andymoon who introduced the notion of abortion on a whim to this discussion. Have you seen the numbers on the studies posted here before? That these were such monumental decisions is directly correlated to how large the mistake was to try and justify the abortion. <b>If you hadn't pretended you'd known what was in the minds of the women who'd made that difficult choice you never would have heard from me (after all giddyup, I'm on your side here). But you did and you still do and so I call you a hypocrite.</b> Again, have you read the studies which indicate why most women choose abortions? It's not a noble thing. They have dressed up their guilt and try to mascarade it as nobility in the face of a tough choice. The baby is still dead. <b> You don't value "life." Not in any real way. You only value it where it meets your political agenda. I value it broadly. I value life for real. In other words, unnecessary death bothers me. It does not bother you. That's clear.</b> Can you prove these reckless assertions? Is it because I eat Mongolian Beef? I haven't killed anybody. <b>You preach, I act. In the face of that, I'm not listening to your lectures. Keep talking about the motives of women you've never met if you like. And keep eating death. You're a fake pro-lifer if you refuse to even acknowledge there's another level. Max at least understands it even if he's not willing to go there yet. You see it too but willfully refuse to consider it. You're a fake.</b> You're a farce. You say you're on my side, but the only aborted baby you show any concern for is your own. You're pro-Choice but anti-abortion. Really? That's just bull. I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat but you're not because you won't draw the line because you won't tell other people that they shouldn't kill their babies. I have acknowledged those areas. I said that I respected your Choice while you didn't respect mine. I'll eat meat and you won't save human babies. We're both killers; you're just worse.
You are the one relying upon science. I was against abortions 20 years ago before science was really in play. My primary position is that that mass of cells is probably now BUT certainly will become a human being if we just don't intervene except to nurture. If you want to call that science too, go ahead.
Are you then against condoms, male masturbation, or couples who can't have children using IVF to get pregnant? All of those things interrupt the development of potential human beings.
Really? I thought my statements about abortion would indicate how I felt about abortion. Why would I care about American unborns more than Guatemalan, French, or Canadian unborns. Most of them I will never know. This is just conjecture on your part. I am an American citizen so I care about American laws and American problems. That's what I know and talk about. I guarantee that I wouldn't care as much about the killing of unborn children if there was a law that allowed the killing of 4 YOs. It's easier to care about the presently living. These unborns are out of sight out of mind but no less human. It is irresponsible to ignore them.
I'm not against science except science which is designed to kill unborn babies. I'm not against condoms. I'm bitterly divided about masturbation and what in the hell is wrong with IVF? It strives to bring a loved life into the world not to dispatch one carelessly.
so does your wife's headache. you have to draw a line somewhere. jeff was asked in a thread about being a vegetarian if he acknowledged killing life when he ate a vegetable, because it's living. he said something like, "of course, but you have to draw a reasonable line somewhere." fertilized egg is as reasonable as any other arbitrary distinction, whether you agree with it or not.
Are you saying that you can not be anti-abortion while be pro legal abortion? You can only be "pro-life" if you want to try and enforce it through government power?
Government power? How about "law." It works most of the time. I'm just calling out the shallowness of Batman describing himself as not being in favor of abortion when he won't stand up to defend the defenseless. He throws in with the woman who has other options that are better than terminating the life of her child-- they're not as convenient but the are better... especially for the child.
I believe Jeff draws the line there because plants are not considered sentient beings. They have no consciousness. That's what many people believe about fertilized eggs etc. If you draw the line at a fertilized egg, would you also want the government to outlaw the pill?
Because people have to understand the significance of law and what it entails. Law is not magic. A law like this would currently take a lot of resources and power to try and enforce, especially with the drug options available etc. The problem is that a lot of these women are in a state of mind where they can not see that. A law will not change that, but would put their life at risk as well.
Meowgi -- i'm not arguing the issue. i'm saying no matter where you draw the line, it will appear arbitrary. 3 months?? what about 2 months and 20 days? conception??? what about before sperm meets egg? (Catholic arguments go this way with condoms) at some point you make your best guess. and decide on which side you want to err.
.... but you are willing to give them 100% say in a Life or Death decision of another human being? What is this with people wanting to portray pregnancy as a life threatening problem? That is extremely rare.
No man can tell a woman what to do with her body. It's her decision and she deals with the consequences of whatever decision she makes.
