when does human life begin? that is your opinion. Again, you can not demonstrate that a one celled zygote is any more a human life than a skin cell or any other cell. Abortion date back to ancient times. Your fact is simply wrong here. He also murdered his wife who was 8 months pregnant. What if she was one day pregnant? would that could as a double murder as well? innocent yes. But not a child. Nor does a fetus "want" anything. Let's go back to a single cell zygote. You call that a child? You call that one cell having wants and desires, hopes and dreams? How do you know? Brainwaves and heartbeats don't equal sentient life. What defines life for you? Based on what? Here we agree. I think someone has a right to decide if they want to support a life considering how much it takes to do it. It's not just an inconvenience. A fetus is a potential life. Potential. If you believe potential life is just as valuable as a real living human, than you would believe that every sperm and every egg should be brought to fruition. That is not the case. I respect that. But if it were for me, I'd have chosen the other route. That's the point - you had a CHOICE. A choice to apply what you wanted to. And shouldn't others have a choice too? Because no one really knows for sure the answers to this - so how can you make the choice for others? When you apply your beliefs to others, it's pretty clear that it's based on religion. . We are animals. That doesn't take away anything from human life. I find it sad that people have to claim we are greater than animals. That's a disservice to animals. And it's perfectly fine to believe anyone who commits this act will have their day with "the Lord". You have every right to that belief - and every right to persuade others. But if you think voting in a way that will ban abortions is anything but forcing your belief upon others who don't want it, I encourage you to think deeply about that. If you believe that human life begins as a fertilized egg, I ask you to figure out where that belief comes from. It's certainly not science. That's why I say you are bringing religion into this. And while we are a country of morals and ethics - our laws shouldn't be based on religious beliefs because what you are creating is making America more like Iran. Now, I'll say that abortion doesn't sit well with me. I don't like it. Especially those in the 3rd trimester. I'd say 6 months is long enough to make a decision. And that's why it's a gray area - because know one really knows when a life begins. Heck, does anyone even remember anything from before the age of 1?
If you want me to be honest a fetus can be looked at as a parasite. I know that may sound bad but in its simplest terms a parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host and that may actually cause its host harm. I'm not saying I look at it this way but it can be looked at as such.
Yes, that's better. Because that's what it actually is. It doesn't make a devil out of someone who disagrees with you on an incredibly and univerally sensitive issue.
Well, we are testing the limits of your commitment to reducing abortions then. If you really cared about that (and about reducing STD's) you'd be 100% in favor of condoms too. There is math about this. And anyone who is serious about reducing abortions knows it. Unfortunately the Bush administration shares your preference for abstinence and so (according to MATH) abortions are up under his admin vs. Clinton's when they were reduced significantly. You can encourage abstinence but you cannot count on it. And when you teach that condoms do not work, those same kids just have sex without them. And then they get STD's and they get pregnant. And they have abortions. If you are serious about this then GET SERIOUS. If you care enough about abortion to put women and doctors in jail, then care enough to pass out condoms.
Well said. My sister has entrusted my nephew with a freaking pinky promise. A FREAKING PINKY PROMISE!!! He tells me things that he doesn't share with his mother. Luckily, I have given him condoms and told him where he can get some for free or buy some.
Efficacy of abstinence education has been studied a zillion times, no dice. http://www.sexedlibrary.org/programefficacy.html if you really care about the rates of abortions, you gotta get with real sex ed. Cant have it both ways. If I thought all those abortions were infanticide, I would be doing everything i possibly could every day to look at the numbers and prevent them. The ethos of the culture warriors is not internally consistent.
I don't see how one can see it without a grey area. When is a human life human. Is it the instant a sperm penetrates an egg inside a body? Or outside body too?. How about semen on the floor? "Every sperm is sacred" How about a group of cells we when have the tech to make them into a human life under the proper care? Does the development of a nervous system and organs make a difference? What if there is no heartbeat yet? Further, like what I brought up before, even if human rights are established somewhere in the womb (for me it is somewhere in the 1st tri, with maximum rights when the unborn is viable)--you have the human rights of a mother too. Birth brings life threatening risks no matter how good the medicine. How do the risks of mother get weighed. If you have to give up a kidney to save another should the government make you do so--you save a life yes, but also assume some risks and inconviences (to put carry to term mildly, practically insulting actually)? If you take the position culpability doesn't matter (doesn't matter whether the women was raped or had adult facilities)--I think the analogy makes a lot of sense. So from a medical ethics standpoint, at the point an unborn baby/fetus is a human life with full rights, you still have the rights of another person in the balance. OK I'll get less theoretical here. For instance as the father of two young children, if my wife got pregnant, and their was a complication, and doctor said she had a 10% chance of not making it without an abortion, you bet I would say abort so that our young sentient kids don't have that kind of chance to lose their mother. It would get further complicated if the unborn baby had a terrible prognosis for a healthy life. I'd fight someone tooth and nail trying to say the government should have absolute right to dictate what we do in such circumstances (no abortions, period). So no "grey" areas on this? I can't comprehend that position if you dive into different personal scenarios let alone science, medicine, ethics or biology. My own position is that risks to the mother, viability (potential to live outside the womb), organ/nervous system development, and culpability all have a place in informed policy. Personally I think major restrictions on abortion after 6-8 weeks (less than a full 1st trimester) are quite reasonable. Once you get beyind that things are a lot murkier, you are balancing rights of a person and not merely a group of cells that is a potential person but another person (or close enough to it for some protections). Overall a candidate who doesn't see some grey areas in this--whether someone is anti-abortion (in all cases period) or say truly pro-abortion (there have been some who ascribe to the belief the poor or genetically inferior should abort) is not likely the kind of person to give the kind of thoughtfulness I would want to all sorts of other issues as well.
okay, I had some fairly solid rebuttals worked up untill I got to this section, then it all turned into contrite mush. we are not animals dude, I have never had the desire to bend over and lick my own balls in front of my own siblings. I don't mate with my mother just to relieve stress much like a monkey does. Humans don't eat their own children after they have been killed by a rival pack. I also do not just spread my legs a lil and take a crap whenever and where ever the urge comes along. sorry to burst your bubble, but I am far more intelligent than any other species on the face of the planet. I don't see any BBS forums for donkeys or mule discussing the pros and cons of their grazing habits. a cow will never convince me to walk into a barn and watch all of my friends be slaughtered, butchered and sandwiched between a bun and cheese, and then fool me into thinking the same thing isn't going to happen to me. my species, homosapien, is far greater than any other animal in the history of the world. whether you believe it is a God given right, evolution, selective breeding, it's a fact that humans have reign over animals. the rest of your argument is now null and void.
using condoms is def. much better than not using condoms. but teaching teens to use condoms, is kinda like teaching them how to cheat on their taxes. condoms are a great prevenitive measure, but it's really just educating teens about a loophole. why not just teach them no sex at all is the best measure? bush has failed at many things, wouldn't suprise me at all if he failed on this topic also.
beating off and leaving sperm on the floor is not murder. I'm not sure where your 'every sperm is sacred' theroy came from, but I def. do not preach it. sperm is no more a human life than a folical of hair is. sperm doesn't have a beating heart, brain activity, developing organs. all that happens when a child is concieved, the moment it is concieved. Scientist will have you believe otherwise, although it has been proven an actual, and detectable heartbeat begins in less than 6 weeks. but hey, scientist also want you to believe you were once a monkey. seriously, if you have to ask yourself these questions, then I, nor anyone here will give you the answer you are looking for. the destruction of life should never predicate the creation of life. whether a choice can be made or not.
Landlord: Kids are going to have sex no matter what you teach them. Some of them anyway. If you are serious about reducing abortions you have to get serious about reducing unwanted pregnancies. Condoms are a huge part of that. But mainly, I would love it if the anti-abortion crowd would just get with the idea of reducing unwanted pregnancies by whatever means. It seems like such a no-brainer from people who preach abstinence. Isn't the idea of abstinence that you'll have no trouble if you just don't have sex? Same principle applies to unwanted pregnancies. If there are no unwanted pregnancies we could reduce abortions by 99%. Can you get on board with doing everything we can do to accomplish that? We've been at a loggerheads on abortion for more than 50 years with pretty much no progress in finding common cause, but I think we could find common cause here. Let's team up to do everything we can to reduce abortions by more than 90%. Are you game?
well, there are also records of santa claus 200 years ago. if men had babies.......lol. great argument. if I had t*** I'd never leave the house. russians raping presidents? wtf? are we even on the same debate?
we should talk soon. I still see some fallacy in your beliefs, but nothing the both of us couldn't overcome in trying to reach the same goal.
Just to give the entire article and try to get this thread back on topic. If someone hasn't created the abortion/life thread by the time I post this, I will start one so that they can move that discussion there. As on poster said, the only issue about abortion that should be discussed here is about the candidates position on it and how it will affect votes. The moral/religious/legal debate about it is not for this thread, imho. 2 Top Alaska Newspapers Question Palin's Fitness stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com Posted August 30, 2008 | 12:04 PM (EST) Since yesterday's shocking arrival of Gov. Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate there has been the usual cable news and print blathering about the pick from those who know little about her. But what about the journalists close to home -- in Alaska -- who know her best and have followed her career for years? For the past 24 hours, the pages and web sites of the two leading papers up there have raised all sorts of issues surrounding Palin, from her ethics problems to general lack of readiness for this big step up. Right now the top story on the Anchorage Daily News web site looks at new info in what it calls "troopergate" and opens: "Alaska's former commissioner of public safety says Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick to be vice president, personally talked him on two occasions about a state trooper who was locked in a bitter custody battle with the governor's sister. "In a phone conversation Friday night, Walt Monegan, who was Alaska's top cop until Palin fired him July 11, told the Daily News that the governor also had e-mailed him two or three times about her ex-brother-in-law, Trooper Mike Wooten, though the e-mails didn't mention Wooten by name. Monegan claims his refusal to fire Wooten was a major reason that Palin dismissed him. Wooten had been suspended for five days previously, based largely on complaints that Palin's family had initiated before Palin was governor." A reporter for the Anchorage daily, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post, in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80%, but 65% and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president.... I expect her to stick with simple truths. When asked about continued American troop presence in Iraq, she said she knows only one thing about that (I paraphrase): no one has attacked the American homeland since George Bush took the war to Iraq." His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the State Senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?" Another top Republican, John Harris, the speaker of the House, when asked about her qualifications for Veep, replied with this: "She's old enough. She's a U.S. citizen." Dermot Cole, a columnist for the Fairbanks paper, observed that he thinks highly of Palin as a person but "in no way does her year-and-a-half as governor of Alaska qualify her to be vice president or president of the United States. "One of the strange things Friday was that so many commentators and politicians did not know how to pronounce her name and had no clue about what she has actually done in Alaska....I may be proven wrong, but the decision announced by McCain strikes me as reckless. She is not prepared to be the next president should something happen to McCain." From the editorial in the Daily News-Miner in Fairbanks: Sen. John McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate was a stunning decision that should make Alaskans proud, even while we wonder about the actual merits of the choice.... Alaskans and Americans must ask, though, whether she should become vice president and, more importantly, be placed first in line to become president. In fact, as the governor herself acknowledged in her acceptance speech, she never set out to be involved in public affairs. She has never publicly demonstrated the kind of interest, much less expertise, in federal issues and foreign affairs that should mark a candidate for the second-highest office in the land. Republicans rightfully have criticized the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, for his lack of experience, but Palin is a neophyte in comparison; how will Republicans reconcile the criticism of Obama with the obligatory cheering for Palin? Most people would acknowledge that, regardless of her charm and good intentions, Palin is not ready for the top job. McCain seems to have put his political interests ahead of the nation's when he created the possibility that she might fill it. And from the editorial in the Anchorage Daily News: It's stunning that someone with so little national and international experience might be heartbeat away from the presidency. Gov. Palin is a classic Alaska story. She is an example of the opportunity our state offers to those with talent, initiative and determination... McCain picked Palin despite a recent blemish on her ethically pure resume. While she was governor, members of her family and staff tried to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the Alaska State Troopers. Her public safety commissioner would not do so; she forced him out, supposedly for other reasons. While she runs for vice-president, the Legislature has an investigator on the case. For all those advantages, Palin joins the ticket with one huge weakness: She's a total beginner on national and international issues. Gov. Palin will have to spend the next two months convincing Americans that she's ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency....
Palin is at best, an example of short term, politically expedient decision making based on inadequate information gathering and consideration. More of the 'gut feeling' crap we've had for 8 years. Maybe McCain look into her eyes and saw her soul.
I watched Palin speak for the second time yesterday on tv at a rally with John McCain, and I can honestly say that I can't see this woman leading our country! She really is a soccar mom that looks like she could crack under pressure and will not be able to handle the big stage of world politics and leading the world on many issues. Maybe she will come back and get better over time, or possibly do great in the debate against Joe Biden; but as of yesterday...Hell no, No way! Her and John McCain look more like a father and daughter team that is trying to sell the family tea bags than run the greatest country on earth! I could see McCain's face on the label!
