A regular old run-of-the mill abortion thread! Woohoo!!!!! (OP edited title)

[Teller]

"And so for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where we can find some common ground, and by the way I have now inserted into the Democratic* Party platform -- is how do we reduce the number of abortions, because the fact is that abortions over the last eight years have not gone down." -- Barack Obama, at Saddleback Church debate



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302814.html?hpid=topnews

Great first step, Mr. President. :rolleyes:

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

Best quote in the article:

"Yesterday, President Obama issued executive orders banning the torture of terrorists but today signed an order that exports the torture of unborn children around the world," said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council.

:(

[twa]

So much for it being above his pay grade.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Epic fail of a first week :(

[Hunny]

:doh: So far, not so good..

[Heisenberg]

"We know from available evidence that voluntary access to contraception is the best way to reduce the number of abortions in the developing world," said Dana Hovig of Marie Stopes International, a London-based group that provides reproductive health care in 43 countries and was denied U.S. funding under the policy. "We now have an opportunity to demonstrate this fact once and for all."



I'm not seeing the outrage here but that's not really surprising. I also don't see how he's going against that quote H_H but I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Providing money to these places for other forms of education/prevention has the chance to decrease abortions.

[GibbsFactor]

"We know from available evidence that voluntary access to contraception is the best way to reduce the number of abortions in the developing world," said Dana Hovig of Marie Stopes International, a London-based group that provides reproductive health care in 43 countries and was denied U.S. funding under the policy. "We now have an opportunity to demonstrate this fact once and for all."



I'm not seeing the outrage here but that's not really surprising. I also don't see how he's going against that quote H_H but I guess it's just a matter of opinion. Providing money to these places for other forms of education/prevention has the chance to decrease abortions.

And I would think the spread of disease.

What's the problem?

[Heisenberg]

Typical ridiculous and overdramatic statement by the FRC, but what's new?


EDIT: . . . and let's be serious SKINSFAN89, Obama could have a 99% approval rating 3 years from now and you'd be part of the 1% that was unhappy. He could have cured all disease and solved world hunger in his first week and you would have said it was an epic fail of a first week. At least the other posters in the thread can be counted on to be fair.

[Teller]

And I would think the spread of disease.

What's the problem?

Your tax dollars to foreign entities for killing babies. If you're cool with that, then OK.

(And spare me the contraception bit. Planned Parenthood claims to talk about contraception too, but we ALL know what they do.)

[Teller]

Typical ridiculous and overdramatic statement by the FRC, but what's new?

Is it?

Can you show me a link that says partial birth abortion is banned in each of the countries we're sending money too?

And sorry, but if pouring water on someone's face is torture, then so is jamming scissor's into one's skull and sucking their brains out. :2cents:

[Cooked Crack]

Um.. you guys didn't see this coming? I think it's very obvious that Obama is pro choice.

[Heisenberg]

Is it?

Can you show me a link that says partial birth abortion is banned in each of the countries we're sending money too?

And sorry, but if pouring water on someone's face is torture, then so is jamming scissor's into one's skull and sucking their brains out. :2cents:


Fair enough, but that's going to occur regardless of whether Obama lifts this gag order or not.

At least by sending money to these places for alternatives he is helping to *hopefully* provide education and contraception to decrease abortions and disease.


EDIT: You can ignore the contraception "bit" all you want but many of these places are areas where people can't afford contraception and education is extremely low. Believe it or not even some people in the US go to Planned Parenthood for contraception - I know of several who have used it for that purpose.

It's not as if him doing this is causing the abortions.


Completely different from the issue of torture - which he can help to control.

[Johnny Punani]

Your Abortion...

A Gift from the People of the United States.
(because your offspring are not as good as ours)

[Special K]

Heard this today and I totally think it's idiotic because:
1. Why are we using our federal dollars to support abortion OUTSIDE our borders?

2. And why the hell are we allowing federal funds to support overseas abortion in light of the current economic crisis we are in?

[Teller]

Um.. you guys didn't see this coming? I think it's very obvious that Obama is pro choice.

Pro choice is one thing. We all knew that going in. But this signing is in direct contradiction to his statement at saddleback.

Unless, of course, by providing my tax dollars to foreign entities that perform abortions he expects the number of abortions to decrease.

[Special K]

Um.. you guys didn't see this coming?
Ummmm, you didn't get the point?

This is not a question of pro-life or pro-choice. What is upsetting is that federal dollars are going to support abortion outside of our country.

[twa]

Just for clarity

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/International/story?id=6716958&page=1

If organizations received government funding, they would "agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

There is no reason O could not have simply increased funding for birth control only IF that was his desire....Which we already fund

Sending money overseas to end innocent life...Change :puke:

JMU Alum 07...O had the option...he chose funding death(in my eyes) NOT prevention.

[ACW]

2. And why the hell are we allowing federal funds to support...in light of the current economic crisis we are in?Insert any dumb program there (Drug War, most of the Ag Department, much of the FCC, etc).

[Heisenberg]

Pro choice is one thing. We all knew that going in. But this signing is in direct contradiction to his statement at saddleback.

Unless, of course, by providing my tax dollars to foreign entities that perform abortions he expects the number of abortions to decrease.


I'm not reading it that way so maybe I'm slow.


Pretty sure these places are performing abortion regardless of whether they receive money from the US or not.

I'm guessing the hope is that the money used to fund contraception and education will result in there being a need for less abortion at these clinics.

Unless I'm completely missing something.

[Teller]

I'm not reading it that way so maybe I'm slow.


Pretty sure these places are performing abortion regardless of whether they receive money from the US or not.

I'm guessing the hope is that the money used to fund contraception and education will result in there being a need for less abortion at these clinics.

Unless I'm completely missing something.

With all respect, I think you are. See twa's post above.

BTW, just for the record, I'm not crucifying Obama for this. I disagree with this decision strongly, but I'm not trying to throw the guy under the bus already.

As I've said before, where I agree I'll say so. Where I disagree, I'll say so.

[MonkFan8]

The lifting of the Mexico City Policy does not permit U.S. funding to be used to provide abortions but allows funding to resume to groups that provide other services, including counseling and referrals for abortions. Critics argued the policy resulted in more abortions by denying women access to contraceptives.How exactly does that go against what he said? Sounds pretty much in line with it to me.

[techboy]

Unless I'm completely missing something.


You are. These organizations may provide contraception, but they also provide abortions. Give them more money, and they can perform more abortions.

For the person that sees abortion as murder, that's unacceptable, even if the money is also used for something more positive.

[Larry]

(And spare me the contraception bit. Planned Parenthood claims to talk about contraception too, but we ALL know what they do.)

Nope. I'd bet not all of us.

[techboy]

How exactly does that go against what he said? Sounds pretty much in line with it to me.

Realistically, I don't think asking thse groups to segregate funds really helps. Increase funding for their contraception arm, and it just allows them to shift some of that to the abortion arm.

I guess it'd work if auditors tracked their budgets to ensure that abortion funding does not increase, but will that happen? Is it even workable?

[Heisenberg]

With all respect, I think you are. See twa's post above.

BTW, just for the record, I'm not crucifying Obama for this. I disagree with this decision strongly, but I'm not trying to throw the guy under the bus already.

As I've said before, where I agree I'll say so. Where I disagree, I'll say so.



MonkFan's post is what I was referring to.

It's not exactly like we're paying for abortions - just not completely ignoring clinics where abortions occur.

I can see keaastman's poin about the economy though - so I'll have to see how it all pans out.

I didn't think you were being unfair - just debating the implications of the article. As I said before I respect the opinions of posters like yourself, rdskn4lyf21, keast, etc.

[GibbsFactor]

Your tax dollars to foreign entities for killing babies. If you're cool with that, then OK.

(And spare me the contraception bit. Planned Parenthood claims to talk about contraception too, but we ALL know what they do.)

Okay, I get it. Apparently this happens when donkeys and elephants play musical chairs with the oval.

[Special K]

Insert any dumb program there (Drug War). I'm impressed ACW, you've managed to uphold your reputation of ardent Drug War protester by fitting it into one of your posts in a thread revolving around a COMPLETELY different topic. We get it ACW, you want everyone to be able to have drugs whenever they want.

Furthermore, in your haste to formulate a post expressing your hatred for the Drug War, you missed the entire point of the argument in this thread: we are talking about federal funding going to programs OUTSIDE of the U.S., not WITHIN the U.S.

[twa]

How exactly does that go against what he said? Sounds pretty much in line with it to me.

Look at what abortion in"family Planning" is.

This is not terminating pregnancy for real health reasons or to save a life.

Nor does it do anything to "reduce" abortions.

[GibbsFactor]

Realistically, I don't think asking thse groups to segregate funds really helps. Increase funding for their contraception arm, and it just allows them to shift some of that to the abortion arm.

I guess it'd work if auditors tracked their budgets to ensure that abortion funding does not increase, but will that happen? Is it even workable?

There's no such thing as good government to government aid. This all needs to be done on the public level via charities and non-profits.

[Heisenberg]

You are. These organizations may provide contraception, but they also provide abortions. Give them more money, and they can perform more abortions.

For the person that sees abortion as murder, that's unacceptable, even if the money is also used for something more positive.


Even if that's the case - which you may have a point I have to judge this by the intent.

Completely ignoring these areas isn't the best option either IMHO.

The FRC guy made it sound like Obama's intent was to support "torture" of unborn children.

The intent seems to be to decrease abortions through other means - rightly or wrongly the FRC's statement was a gross exaggeration.

[Cooked Crack]

Ummmm, you didn't get the point?

This is not a question of pro-life or pro-choice. What is upsetting is that federal dollars are going to support abortion outside of our country.
This is a pro-life or pro-choice question. You're only upset that these dollars are going to support abortion. If you were only upset that we were spending dollars for international groups then I'd understand. Either way I'm sure these groups we're funding aren't only in the job of abortion. Also you notice the little part about abortion rising in the last 8 years even though we weren't funding these groups. If we're going to fund these groups then it shouldn't matter if they do abortions or not.

[Larry]

You are. These organizations may provide contraception, but they also provide abortions. Give them more money, and they can perform more abortions.

For the person that sees abortion as murder, that's unacceptable, even if the money is also used for something more positive.

Would you, using the same reasoning, support a complete ban on all federal funds going to any organization that also, say, promotes a religion? :halo:

[MonkFan8]

Look at what abortion in"family Planning" is.

This is not terminating pregnancy for real health reasons or to save a life.

Nor does it do anything to "reduce" abortions.I meant specifically with regards to the portion I quoted. Seems to me that he's simply reversing the abstinence only focus, and the money will go to providing birth control, which with any luck should result in fewer pregnancies and fewer abortions.

[Teller]

I didn't think you were being unfair - just debating the implications of the article. As I said before I respect the opinions of posters like yourself, rdskn4lyf21, keast, etc.

I know, and I appreciate that. I guess I was more checking myself. I didn't expect my first Obama thread to be negative. I truly think the guy's had a good week. It's just that when I was able to praise him, it fit into other threads that had already been started.

Just didn't want to give the impression I was off the bandwagon already. Far from it, actually.

[techboy]

Would you, using the same reasoning, support a complete ban on all federal funds going to any organization that also, say, promotes a religion? :halo:

Of course. I don't really think Federal funds should go to much except interstate highways and the military (slight exaggeration, but you get the point).

You tried to trap the wrong Christian, pal. I'm a libertarian. :D

P.S. I'd also support a complete ban on all federal funds going to any organization that also, say, promotes a religion and kills people, political views on the role of government aside.

[Teller]

Would you, using the same reasoning, support a complete ban on all federal funds going to any organization that also, say, promotes a religion? :halo:

Let's use Islam. Since the goals are the same. :paranoid:




100% kidding. Sorry. :)

[IbleedBnG83]

Good. Keep the money in the U.S.

[Special K]

I can see keaastman's poin about the economy though - so I'll have to see how it all pans out. You know, I'm not against helping alleviate issues in developing countries such has high birthrates b/c that IS a major, major issue.

I think the money should go toward contraceptives like condoms or birth control medication or tubal ligation, just not for abortion as a method of the birth control. I'd much rather see efforts made to educate people about condoms because they prevent BOTH pregnancy AND STD's in developing countries where the prevalence of HIV and other major STD's is extremely high.

All that being said, I do not think this is the time for our country to increase federal funding being sent overseas in light of the current economic crisis we are in.

[Heisenberg]

You know, I'm not against helping alleviate issues in developing countries such has high birthrates b/c that IS a major, major issue.

I think the money should go toward contraceptives like condoms or birth control medication or tubal ligation, just not for abortion as a method of the birth control. I'd much rather see efforts made to educate people about condoms because they prevent BOTH pregnancy AND STD's in developing countries where the prevalence of HIV and other major STD's is extremely high.


I guess I'm just reading the article differently.


Isn't that the goal of what they're doing?

I understand that unless we send them boxes of rubbers instead of $$ they can use the money for abortion but it seems the intent of the lift of the ban is for exactly that.

[Larry]

I think the money should go toward contraceptives like condoms or birth control medication or tubal ligation, just not for abortion as a method of the birth control. I'd much rather see efforts made to educate people about condoms because they prevent BOTH pregnancy AND STD's in developing countries where the prevalence of HIV and other major STD's is extremely high.

Good. Then you support Obama's policies.

[twa]

I meant specifically with regards to the portion I quoted. Seems to me that he's simply reversing the abstinence only focus, and the money will go to providing birth control, which with any luck should result in fewer pregnancies and fewer abortions.

There was NO abstinence only overseas

We have been funding contraceptives overseas for ages.

Fewer abortions?...Ha...not when you fund them with money that could go to prevention.:rolleyes:

[techboy]

I understand that unless we send them boxes of rubbers instead of $$ they can use the money for abortion but it seems the intent of the lift of the ban is for exactly that.

That's not a bad idea, actually. Kind of like buying the homeless guy a sandwich so he can't spend it on booze.

It'd probably tick off some of the protesters anyway, but who cares?

[DjTj]

You know, I'm not against helping alleviate issues in developing countries such has high birthrates b/c that IS a major, major issue.

I think the money should go toward contraceptives like condoms or birth control medication or tubal ligation, just not for abortion as a method of the birth control. I'd much rather see efforts made to educate people about condoms because they prevent BOTH pregnancy AND STD's in developing countries where the prevalence of HIV and other major STD's is extremely high.Of course money will continue to go to all of those things too. Nobody is proposing that we take money AWAY from funding condoms or birth control to pay for abortions.


All that being said, I do not think this is the time for our country to increase federal funding being sent overseas in light of the current economic crisis we are in.The order also does NOT increase funding for anything. All it does is reverse a Republican policy that banned all funding to any group that performs abortions.

Did anyone expect something different to happen when we elected a Pro-Choice President? :whoknows:

[twa]

Good. Then you support Obama's policies.

Larry, Why could he not direct the same funding solely for preventative measures?

The role of government at it's basic level is protection of innocent live.

Shouldn't we at least err on the side of caution here?

Well,not here obviously:rolleyes:

[Heisenberg]

That's not a bad idea, actually. Kind of like buying the homeless guy a sandwich so he can't spend it on booze.

It'd probably tick off some of the protesters anyway, but who cares?



I agree. Perhaps I could provide some good ideas to the Obama administration.


Where do I sign up? :D

[Sebowski]

Your tax dollars to foreign entities for killing babies. If you're cool with that, then OK.

(And spare me the contraception bit. Planned Parenthood claims to talk about contraception too, but we ALL know what they do.)

Yeah. They provide contraception for millions who can not afford it. I have known plenty of people who have gone to PP for contraception. In general I have known many people who use PP for a lot of things; none of them abortions.

[DjTj]

Larry, Why could he not direct the same funding solely for preventative measures?

The role of government at it's basic level is protection of innocent live.Some might argue that the role of government at its basic level is protection of individual liberty.


Shouldn't we at least err on the side of caution here?While protecting liberty, they would err on the side of caution in the other direction here.

[Teller]

Yeah. They provide contraception for millions who can not afford it. I have known plenty of people who have gone to PP for contraception. In general I have known many people who use PP for a lot of things; none of them abortions.

Right.

And that's the full and complete summation of their activities. :rolleyes:

[techboy]

Some might argue that the role of government at its basic level is protection of individual liberty.

It's pretty hard to exercise liberty when you're dead.

[twa]

Of course money will continue to go to all of those things too. Nobody is proposing that we take money AWAY from funding condoms or birth control to pay for abortions.

The order also does NOT increase funding for anything. All it does is reverse a Republican policy that banned all funding to any group that performs abortions.

Did anyone expect something different to happen when we elected a Pro-Choice President? :whoknows:


Unless that is some new math ;)there will be less for prevention.

And no I expected no less from him, but I did HOPE for better.:(

[Hubbs]

Yeah. They provide contraception for millions who can not afford it. I have known plenty of people who have gone to PP for contraception. In general I have known many people who use PP for a lot of things; none of them abortions.

One of my exes did while I was dating her.

[Teller]

Teej, you know what happens when we discuss "individual liberty" as it pertains to abortion right? Do we need to go that way again?

[Hubbs]

Right.

And that's the full and complete summation of their activities. :rolleyes:

Who said that? You pretty heavily implied that PP only paid lip service to contraceptives in order to have an excuse for existence while they giddily high-five each other as they perform abortions.

[TMK9973]

1st of all - How do you not know this was happening. Obama never denied he would lift this ban. Ban was put into place under Bush 1, Clinton lifted it, Bush 2 put it back, Obama will lift it.

Personally -I would have been mad if he didn't do it.

Contrary to H_H's own view, Planned parenthood does much more contractives then it does abortions. Not only that, but in 3rd world countries, the might be the only safe place to have a abortion. Planned parenthood is not going to stop doing abortions, so when they no longer get federal funds, then have less offices and give less contraceptives.
Now - If you want to say that US money should not go to any other country, fine... but as long as we are giving money to other countries, I'm fine with this. In fact, not only am I fine... I Support it.

[Teller]

Unless that is some new math ;)there will be less for prevention.

And no I expected no less from him, but I did HOPE for better.:(

Not only that, but the immediacy of this action screams pretty loudly that this was a priority for him. I don't like that at all.

[Larry]

Larry, Why could he not direct the same funding solely for preventative measures?

He did.

He doesn't have the authority to redirect the funding to any other activity. (See, Congress decides what federal dollars get spent on.)

What he did do was repeal a Bush Presidential Order stating that any organization which performs abortions (or which even mentions that abortions exist) is morally unfit to be paid to hand out condoms.

[DjTj]

It's pretty hard to exercise liberty when you're dead.Even harder when you're not alive yet ...
Teej, you know what happens when we discuss "individual liberty" as it pertains to abortion right? Do we need to go that way again?Isn't that what this thread is about?

[techboy]

Not only that, but the immediacy of this action screams pretty loudly that this was a priority for him. I don't like that at all.


He's very pro-choice. Very. It's why I couldn't vote for him.

[twa]

It's pretty hard to exercise liberty when you're dead.

Indeed, Life,Liberty and pursuit of happiness are yours here IF someone allows you to live to claim it.

We stop life in it's tracks

[Burgold]

I'm really tired so forgive me if I fail to make sense or am not processing this issue.

but--

There are probably a number of very good clinics that are the only resources for many people in certain geographically remote areas. If these clinics included abortions amongst the roster of services provided, they were banned from receiving monies. This change allows these people who are geographically limited more health care and more options. That doesn't seem so bad to me.

Should we be providing foreign support for their health care? If we decide yes should we stipulate what type of services they provide? Isn't it better to let the people who know the lay of the land and the specific needs choose how to use it? Is it really beneficial to tie their hands? Or punish people who live in a remote area who have only one health care option?

[twa]

Even harder when you're not alive yet ... Isn't that what this thread is about?

Not alive?...Or simply denied personhood?

Funny they consider microbes from space live.

[techboy]

Even harder when you're not alive yet ...

I have never seen a non-arbitrary definition of life that would exclude fetuses but not, say, the aged or mentally handicapped.

[Duckus]

I don't think our tax money should go to fund abortions abroad - but I am glad he lifted this ban. The ban was entirely too broad IMO.

I don't mind us funding HIV/STD work at a clinic that also provides abortions. I don't mind us funding contraception awareness campaigns at clinics that also provide abortions.

From my interpretation the previous ban did not allow any federal funds to clinics that had any abortions.

I don't know what the solution is really, but I thought the ban was too broad.

It is clearly a difficult political issue though.

[Special K]

This is a pro-life or pro-choice question. You're only upset that these dollars are going to support abortion. If you were only upset that we were spending dollars for international groups then I'd understand. Either way I'm sure these groups we're funding aren't only in the job of abortion. Also you notice the little part about abortion rising in the last 8 years even though we weren't funding these groups. If we're going to fund these groups then it shouldn't matter if they do abortions or not.
No, this is not a sole pro-life/pro-choice question. At least not in my case. Of course I am pro-life and don't want money going toward overseas abortion clinics, but I am also upset that more federal money will be going to any major program outside the U.S. right now. I think we need to cut back our international funding on EVERYTHING at this point in time.


Would you, using the same reasoning, support a complete ban on all federal funds going to any organization that also, say, promotes a religion? :halo:
What major international organizations is our federal government sending money to that promotes a religion?



I understand that unless we send them boxes of rubbers instead of $$ they can use the money for abortion but it seems the intent of the lift of the ban is for exactly that. You are correct in that the goal is to give money to go toward women's health. Normally I am for that, I would be for granting money to clinics that agree not to perform abortions as birth control and instead educate people about condoms, tubal ligation, etc.

But, I am just not for abortion and I don't think we should fund programs that promote abortion.



Good. Then you support Obama's policies.
Clearly you haven't read anything I have posted or you just feel like misconstruing what I'm saying as per your usual and extremely predictable routine.

[Heisenberg]

Not only that, but the immediacy of this action screams pretty loudly that this was a priority for him. I don't like that at all.


Again, unless you can somehow prove that this will help to increase abortions I'm not sure where you are getting the basis of your argument from.


Also, I'm not sure why you seem to believe that PP's sole existence is to make sure they can perform as many abortions as possible. Yes, they perform abortion and you may not agree with the practice but they do provide contraception and education. I know several people who have used it for this purpose because they couldn't afford other means of contraception.

I'm not sure why you think PP is some celebration of the act of abortion.

[Teller]

Who said that? You pretty heavily implied that PP only paid lip service to contraceptives in order to have an excuse for existence while they giddily high-five each other as they perform abortions.

Is there a bigger abortion advocate/referal agency in the country? The world?

[Duckus]

Again, unless you can somehow prove that this will help to increase abortions I'm not sure where you are getting the basis of your argument from.


Also, I'm not sure why you seem to believe that PP's sole existence is to make sure they can perform as many abortions as possible. Yes, they perform abortion and you may not agree with the practice but they do provide contraception and education. I know several people who have used it for this purpose because they couldn't afford other means of contraception.

I'm not sure why you think PP is some celebration of the act of abortion.

This is true. I know two people who have gotten birth control from planned parenthood because they did not have health insurance. One of their doctors has to check you out, but they will provide you with the pill. The people I knew were between jobs and without health insurance the cost was too high.

[Hubbs]

Not alive?...Or simply denied personhood?

Funny they consider microbes from space live.

Because the microbes don't need to grow into a being 34989302 times their current size?

[Teller]

Even harder when you're not alive yet ... Isn't that what this thread is about?

*sigh*

I figure it will be.

Liberty of the mother vs. lack of it for the child.

These threads usually go that way.

[Hubbs]

I have never seen a non-arbitrary definition of life that would exclude fetuses but not, say, the aged or mentally handicapped.

You haven't? How 'bout the same one we use to declare death? Heartbeat and/or brain function?

[TMK9973]

Is there a bigger abortion advocate/referal agency in the country? The world?


Is there a bigger contraceptives, family planning place in the world?

it's like saying we should stop building hospitals because they kill people. Is there any other place where more people die in the world then a hospital?

[techboy]

Because the microbes don't need to grow into a being 34989302 times their current size?

Size determines humanity? Am i allowed to kill the cast of "Little People, Big World" then? They really annoy me with all those promos on the channels I watch at dinner...

[Teller]

I'm not sure why you think PP is some celebration of the act of abortion.

And so it begins again.

We can't argue with what the man said, so we'll create a quote and attribute it to him.

Maybe a three-week break wasn't enough. :doh:

[Hubbs]

Is there a bigger abortion advocate/referal agency in the country? The world?

So, because Microsoft is the biggest software company in the world, they don't make XBoxes?

[Heisenberg]

*sigh*

I figure it will be.

Liberty of the mother vs. lack of it for the child.

These threads usually go that way.



I am willing to accept that others have differing opinions on this.

I think abortion is a very unfortunate act and I am not happy that some people choose to have them.

However, do we really want to revert to backyard abortions with coat hangers?


I'm just saying . . . abortions will still occur regardless of whether there are clinics or not.

[Teller]

Is there a bigger contraceptives, family planning place in the world?

it's like saying we should stop building hospitals because they kill people. Is there any other place where more people die in the world then a hospital?

By dodging the question, you've answered it. Thanks. :)

[TMK9973]

And lets be clear here. This isn't about now giving US money FOR abortions. The law was that agencies that performed abortion, or DISCUSSED abortions, were not eligible for federal funds.

No money for ANYTHING is they even discussed abortions (Hence why it was called the "Gag" rule).

[Heisenberg]

And so it begins again.

We can't argue with what the man said, so we'll create a quote and attribute it to him.

Maybe a three-week break wasn't enough. :doh:



Huh? Not what I was trying to do at all.

I'm getting that impression based on your posts - if it's a false assumption than I apologize. No disrespect was intended.

[DjTj]

I don't even really feel strongly on this issue, but I'm happy to argue a bit about it.


Not alive?...Or simply denied personhood?Alive is the right test here. Abortion isn't okay because embryos are akin to dogs and cats; it is because they haven't reached a certain stage of "alive" yet.


Funny they consider microbes from space live.I am not aware that any "microbes from space" exist ... and if there are any microbes in the vacuum of space, they would be dead.

If you want to talk about microbes on earth, then I would say that an adult bacterium is certainly more "alive" than a human embryo. The embryo is more of a person. Neither currently has liberty rights under the Constitution of the United States.

[techboy]

You haven't? How 'bout the same one we use to declare death? Heartbeat and/or brain function?

When heartbeat or brain function can be recovered (say through surgery or those nifty paddles), doctors are duty-bound to try. They should be so bound when simple time has the same effect.

Sorry, that standard doesn't work.

Besides, heartbeat as a standard would end abortion at five weeks gestation. I doubt the pro-choice movement would be pleased.

[Special K]

You haven't? How 'bout the same one we use to declare death? Heartbeat and/or brain function? I sure hope you have never taken Anatomy & Physiology because then I can understand your ignorance regarding fetal development. Good Lord.

[Teller]

It was fun while it lasted.

Enjoy the "when life begins" debate again. :cheers:

[Hubbs]

Size determines humanity? Am i allowed to kill the cast of "Little People, Big World" then? They really annoy me with all those promos on the channels I watch at dinner...

We don't consider "midget" microbes to be microbes? I had no idea.

[techboy]

We don't consider "midget" microbes to be microbes? I had no idea.

I think a lot of "little people" find the term "midget" offensive.

And, sure we do. We don't generally allow size or stage of development to preclude an organism from being categorized as such. Makes sense to me. :)

[Hubbs]

I sure hope you have never taken Anatomy & Physiology because then I can understand your ignorance regarding fetal development. Good Lord.

*blink*

I have a very, very generalized understanding of the two stages, but always enjoy learning more. If you can do it without the venom, feel free to explain what I'm missing.

[Hubbs]

When heartbeat or brain function can be recovered (say through surgery or those nifty paddles), doctors are duty-bound to try. They should be so bound when simple time has the same effect.

Sorry, that standard doesn't work.

Besides, heartbeat as a standard would end abortion at five weeks gestation. I doubt the pro-choice movement would be pleased.

Who said I wanted to please the pro-choice movement?

And that's a decent argument, I was just saying that there are a couple ideas out there that differentiate between a fetus and an elderly/mentally handicapped person.

[twa]

I don't even really feel strongly on this issue, but I'm happy to argue a bit about it.

Alive is the right test here. Abortion isn't okay because embryos are akin to dogs and cats; it is because they haven't reached a certain stage of "alive" yet.


No they are below dogs and cats in society's eyes obviously.

Though I guess I CAN go have mine killed(though they use more humane methods for animals at least) so maybe your close.

But will a dog or cat indisputably (you could even say mystically:rolleyes:) become a "real"person in a relatively short time?

Provided it is not killed or dies,of course.

[techboy]

Enjoy the "when life begins" debate again.

Really, it's the only thing that matters.

If the fetus is not a human life, then there's no reason to prohibit abortion at all. It'd be like banning liposuction.

If the fetus is alive, then abortion is murder. I don't know very many people that would support murder.

It's why I think "safe, legal, and rare" is abhorrent. Why should it be "rare"? I can only think of one reason, and if that holds, "rare" won't cut it.

[DjTj]

I have never seen a non-arbitrary definition of life that would exclude fetuses but not, say, the aged or mentally handicapped.The definition is arbitrary, and I think it is impossible to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive." I do think there is an clear scale that runs from "not alive" to "alive" however, and that both embryos and the bedridden are less "alive" than healthy adults. Now we should err on the side of protecting life, but there is a sliding scale when that intersects with protecting liberty.

An embryo inside a pregnant woman has a very limited ability to exercise any individual rights, and to grant rights upon that embryo would interfere with the rights of the woman. An aged or mentally handicapped person does not create the same conflict of liberties. Those who care for the elderly are paid professionals, bound only by a freely negotiated contract. The aged or mentally handicapped are therefore not necessarily more "alive" than a fetus, but they do not create a conflict of liberties, so life may be protected unfettered by other concerns.

[Hubbs]

And, sure we do. We don't generally allow size or stage of development to preclude an organism from being categorized as such. Makes sense to me. :)

Enjoy the strange looks when you go around calling caterpillars "butterflies," then.

[Larry]

And so it begins again.

We can't argue with what the man said, so we'll create a quote and attribute it to him.

Said the guy who's spent the entire thread claiming that Obama is funding abortions.

[Teller]

Said the guy who's spent the entire thread claiming that Obama is funding abortions.

And there's no difference between discussing Obama's policy and when life begins. None at all. :rolleyes:

[Larry]

I sure hope you have never taken Anatomy & Physiology because then I can understand your ignorance regarding fetal development. Good Lord.

So, at what point does the fetus lose it's gills and tail?

[twa]

And that's a decent argument, I was just saying that there are a couple ideas out there that differentiate between a fetus and an elderly/mentally handicapped person.


There is one big difference;)

One has a whole life ahead,full of possibilities

Unless it is killed first.

[DjTj]

And there's no difference between discussing Obama's policy and when life begins. None at all. :rolleyes:There isn't much difference when discussing Obama's abortion policy. :silly:

[Larry]

Really, it's the only thing that matters.

If the fetus is not a human life, then there's no reason to prohibit abortion at all. It'd be like banning liposuction.

If the fetus is alive, then abortion is murder. I don't know very many people that would support murder.

It's why I think "safe, legal, and rare" is abhorrent. Why should it be "rare"? I can only think of one reason, and if that holds, "rare" won't cut it.

Really? You're opposed, for example, to killing in self defense? :halo:

[Hubbs]

There is one big difference;)

One has a whole life ahead,full of possibilities

Unless it is killed first.

Like I said, not arguing the merits. Techboy said he wasn't aware of any distinctions that wouldn't also include the elderly and mentally handicapped. I was providing one.

[Hubbs]

I sure hope you have never taken Anatomy & Physiology because then I can understand your ignorance regarding fetal development. Good Lord.

Still waiting to hear exactly what I said that was so idiotic.

[twa]

Said the guy who's spent the entire thread claiming that Obama is funding abortions.

Are funds from the US going to fund abortions as a result of his choice?

Ya'll can equivocate all you wish...the answer is yes.

[Larry]

And there's no difference between discussing Obama's policy and when life begins. None at all. :rolleyes:

And the difference between making false claims about somebody else's position so you can argue against it, and making false claims about somebody else's position so you can argue against it, is?

[Teller]

There isn't much difference when discussing Obama's abortion policy. :silly:

OK.

Discuss for the 10-millionth time (and I'm sure we'll all agree THIS time) when life begins.

As opposed to whether this policy furthers or hinders Obama's promise to try to reduce the number of abortions that are occurring.

[techboy]

The definition is arbitrary, and I think it is impossible to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive."


The only non-arbitrary standard is the scientific one, and that is whether or not the life form is a member of homo sapiens sapiens. There is no difference, except in stage of development, between the one week old fetus, the 6 month fetus, the two year old child, the fifty year old man, or the 85 year old woman.



I do think there is an clear scale that runs from "not alive" to "alive" however, and that both embryos and the bedridden are less "alive" than healthy adults.


That standard is dangerous. As you say, the bedridden or paraplegic are less "alive" under that standard.

It's best, I think, to stick with the purely scientific definition of "alive".



An embryo inside a pregnant woman has a very limited ability to exercise any individual rights,


Neither does a two month old infant or a severely mentally handicapped adult.



and to grant rights upon that embryo would interfere with the rights of the woman. An aged or mentally handicapped person does not create the same conflict of liberties.


Perhaps not, but a two month old infant does.

[techboy]

Really? You're opposed, for example, to killing in self defense? :halo:


Killing in self-defense isn't murder.

You need to try harder, Larry. You're now 0 for 2. :)

[Teller]

And the difference between making false claims about somebody else's position so you can argue against it, and making false claims about somebody else's position so you can argue against it, is?

I've obviously given you far more credit over the years than you deserved.

But again, feel free to discuss gills and tails and how they relate to Obama's newly-signed order.

:cheers:

[Larry]

Are funds from the US going to fund abortions as a result of his choice?

Ya'll can equivocate all you wish...the answer is yes.

Gee, how's he doing that?

Did Congress appropriate money for performing abortions? I was under the impression that that was kind of necessary before the government could spend money on something.

Could you point me at something that says that Obama has ordered the government to spend money funding abortions? Cause I must have missed it.

[techboy]

Enjoy the strange looks when you go around calling caterpillars "butterflies," then.

I'll just call them lepidopterans. I'll still get strange looks, but I'll be right. :)

[GibbsFactor]

Really, it's the only thing that matters.

If the fetus is not a human life, then there's no reason to prohibit abortion at all. It'd be like banning liposuction.

If the fetus is alive, then abortion is murder. I don't know very many people that would support murder.

It's why I think "safe, legal, and rare" is abhorrent. Why should it be "rare"? I can only think of one reason, and if that holds, "rare" won't cut it.

I've never sat down and really thought out how I feel about abortion.

I'm a 31 year old that has a boy turning 11 this year. I wasn't exactly ready to be a daddy at the age of 20. Luckily for me, I knocked up a Catholic. ;) No way she was having an abortion and the fact that the thought entered my mind kills me now every time I look at my perfect child.

But I'm not totally against abortion for those reasons. I hate seeing it act as contraceptive, it's keeping our population from growing more rapidly in the lesser fortunate regions. So I can see it's merit concerning population control.

I'm not a big supporter of the woman's liberty train of thought. The child's life is more important then the woman's liberty because she doesn't want the bother but did want the sex.

I support abortion in cases of rape and illness/harm. Because with all things being relevant, the mother outweighs the unborn by a factor of her memories.

Disease is being spread more rapidly, arguably because one of he risks of sex is diminished due to the existence of pregnancy. Since these diseases, which are much worse then a pregnancy, are still being spread, it leads me to believe that ****ing is a natural thing and we're going to do it no matter what. It's why we are here.

I doubt we will ever be able to control the feelings sex gives us and I don't think sex will ever be for reproduction only until some sort of virtual environment is created to replicate being sexually active.

I'm not in favor of this due to my belief that government to government aid is a complete waste.

[twa]

Really? You're opposed, for example, to killing in self defense? :halo:

What does that have to do with "family planning" abortions?

There is a difference between real medical issues and convenience you know

[techboy]

This piece (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6351) by Dr. William Lane Craig sums up my position beautifully. In this one, he's got his philosopher hat fully on, and does not reference religion at all (except to deny that the issue is a religious one, as I do).


In order to answer your question, Garry, we first need to determine our view of the ethics of abortion on demand. It seems to me that amidst all the arguments pro and con about the abortion issue, there are two central questions which are determinative:

(1) Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value?

(2) Is the developing fetus a human being?

Think about that first question: Do human beings have intrinsic moral value? Something has intrinsic value if it is an end in itself, rather than a means to some end. Things which are valuable merely as means to some end have only extrinsic value. For example, money has no intrinsic value, in and of itself. Rather it has extrinsic value insofar as it's a useful means of commerce for human beings and so is valuable to us for the ends it helps us achieve. But in and of itself it's intrinsically worthless. It's just paper.

Now the question is, are human beings like that? Or are they intrinsically valuable? I'm certain that most people, once they think about it, recognize that human beings are intrinsically valuable. People aren't just valuable as means to some end; rather people are ends in themselves. That's why, as Augustine said, we should love people and use things, not vice versa. Those who use people and love things are doing something profoundly immoral because they are not recognizing the inherent worth and dignity of other persons, who are not mere things to be used.

The international community recognizes the intrinsic moral value of human beings in its declaration on human rights. The notion that people have inherent rights just in virtue of the fact that they are human beings, regardless of their race, class, religion, caste, or station in life, is based in the inherent moral value of human beings. This truth is recognized as well in our Declaration of Independence, where it affirms that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Most of us, when we reflect upon it, would come to a similar conclusion: Yes, human beings do possess intrinsic moral value.

Now what that implies is that if the developing fetus is a human being, then he or she is endowed with intrinsic moral worth and therefore possesses inherent human rights, including the right to life. Abortion would be a form of homicide, and against such attacks the innocent and defenseless fetus would have every right to the protection of the law.

So we come to the second question we must address: Is the developing fetus a human being? Here it seems to me that it is virtually undeniable scientifically and medically that the fetus is at every stage of its development a human being. After all, the fetus is not canine, or feline, or bovine; it is a human fetus. From the moment of conception on, there exists a living organism which is a genetically complete human being and which, if left to develop naturally, will grow into an adult member of its species.

Contrast the complete human embryo with a sperm or an unfertilized egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg alone constitutes a human being: each is genetically incomplete, having only 1/2 the chromosomes necessary to make a complete human being. If left alone, they don't develop into anything: the sperm dies in a couple of days, and the unfertilized egg is expelled in a woman's monthly cycle. But if they unite, they combine into a single living cell to form a unique individual which has never before existed.

Already in that moment of conception, that individual is either male or female, depending on whether he or she received an X or a Y chromosome from the sperm. The later development of sexual organs and other secondary sexual characteristics is only evidence of a difference in sexuality which has been there from the very beginning. Moreover, all of the individual's traits like body type, eye and hair color, facial characteristics, and so forth are all determined at the moment of conception and are just waiting to unfold. From the moment of conception we have a genetically complete and unique human being; in effect, you began at the moment of your conception.

Moreover, the development of this individual is a smooth and unbroken continuum throughout. There is no non-arbitrary breaking point before which you can say the fetus is not human, but after which he or she is. The traditional division of pregnancy into three trimesters has no scientific or medical basis: it is a purely arbitrary reckoning device for the sake of convenience. It's probably due to the fact that pregnancy lasts nine months. If human beings had a gestation time of 8 months, nobody would talk about trimesters. We'd probably divide it into quarters. The fact is that any attempt to draw a line and say "not human before this point, but human afterwards" is wholly arbitrary and without biological foundation.

Thus, as I say, it seems to me virtually undeniable that the fetus — which is just Latin for "little one" —is a human being in the early stages of his development. Whether one is a "little one," a newborn, an adolescent, or an adult, he is at every point a human being at a different stage of his development. Those who deny the little one in the womb is a human being typically confuse being human with being at some later stage of development. For example, some abortion rights advocates say that because an embryo is not a baby, it's not a human being, and therefore abortion is morally acceptable.

This argument seems to me completely fallacious. On this reasoning, we could with equal justice say that because a child is not an adult, he is not a human being; or because a baby is not a child, he is not a human being. Of course, an embryo is not a baby, but that doesn't mean that an embryo is not a human being. All of these are the various stages in a human being's development, and it is arbitrary to cut off one stage and say that because it is not a later stage, it is not a human being.

Moreover, it is simply false that most abortions are performed on embryos. By the time most women realize that they are pregnant (about two months after conceiving), the embryo has already become a fetus, a "little one". We're not dealing at this point with a cluster of cells, but with—the word is unavoidable—a baby, a very tiny baby with a face and features, with little arms and legs, with tiny feet and hands. All the organs of the body are already present, and the muscle and circulatory systems are complete. Even brain wave activity is present. By the twelfth week, his fingers and toes are fully developed, complete with delicate fingerprints and with little fingernails and toenails forming. The baby is already quite mobile, kicking and moving about, clenching and opening his little fists and curling his toes. Behind his closed eyelids his eyes are almost fully developed. Incredibly, already at this point, the baby's facial features begin to resemble those of his parents!

In utero photographs of these little ones have disclosed to us what exquisitely beautiful and delicate marvels of creation they are. One physician describes his experience of seeing first hand one of these eight-week-old little ones:

"Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured tubal pregnancy (at two months), I was handed what I believed to be the smallest human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the end of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of 'embryos' which I have seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage, blunt extremities, etc."

No one who has seen photographs of infants in the womb between 8-12 weeks old can honestly deny that here we have a human baby.

The vast majority of abortions occur at this time, between the tenth and twelfth weeks of pregnancy and are thus clearly destroying a human baby. I won't even speak of the horror of second and third trimester abortions, 150,000 of which occur annually in the U.S. alone, or of partial birth abortions in which a baby is actually partially delivered before it is brutally killed. Make no mistake about it: abortion is killing babies. The only way this can go on is because these unlucky little ones are normally hidden from view. As my former pastor once said, "If wombs had windows, there would be no abortions."

The fact is that from conception to old age we have the various stages of development in the life of a human being. It seems to me therefore that the medical and scientific facts make it virtually undeniable that the developing fetus is a human being.

If we thus answer "Yes" to both of the questions we've set ourselves, it follows that abortion on demand is a moral outrage, the destruction of an innocent and defenseless human life. Now you'll notice that I've not appealed at any point to the Bible in all this. That's because, contrary to popular impression, abortion is not, as such, a religious question. The first question we asked is philosophical: do human beings posses intrinsic moral value? The second question is scientific and medical: is the developing fetus a human being? Neither of these is a religious question.

Given our answers to the two questions above, it follows that abortion on demand is the transcendent moral issue of our time. Since the legalization of abortion on demand in 1973, we have witnessed an American Holocaust which has claimed the lives of tens of millions of innocent human beings. Other issues pale in comparison to this one. While we should care about a candidate's stand on other important domestic and foreign policies, still, where there are pro-life candidates in the field, the sine qua non for our voting for any candidate must be his championing the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand.

[twa]

Gee, how's he doing that?

Did Congress appropriate money for performing abortions? I was under the impression that that was kind of necessary before the government could spend money on something.

Could you point me at something that says that Obama has ordered the government to spend money funding abortions? Cause I must have missed it.

You are either obtuse or simply being ornery

Afraid to answer the question?:)

[Hubbs]

I'll just call them lepidopterans. I'll still get strange looks, but I'll be right. :)

And what species would you classify a human body that's been dead for 12 hours?

[Heisenberg]

OK.

Discuss for the 10-millionth time (and I'm sure we'll all agree THIS time) when life begins.

As opposed to whether this policy furthers or hinders Obama's promise to try to reduce the number of abortions that are occurring.



To be fair, I did say that I could see how this would be supporting the Obama quote you posted in the OP as opposed to contradicting the statement as you seem to think.

It remains to be seen but the funding would be used for contraception and education, among other things - I still think this could help to decrease abortions.

[techboy]

And what species would you classify a human body that's been dead for 12 hours?


That would be a dead member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. It is no longer alive, as it is no longer capable of (or developing towards the ability to be capable of) the following seven traits scientists typically associate with being alive:

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to Stimuli
7. Reproduction

[Hubbs]

That would be a dead member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. It is no longer alive, as it is no longer capable of (or developing towards the ability to be capable of) the following seven traits scientists typically associate with being alive:

1. Homeostasis
2. Organization
3. Metabolism
4. Growth
5. Adaptation
6. Response to Stimuli
7. Reproduction

Wait, you mean that simple species classification isn't enough to determine whether something is alive or dead?

Funny how that works.

[skinsfan_1215]

But hey killing unborn democrats of the pro abortion crowd shouldn't be met with outrage but my tax dollars footing the bill and making planned parenthood richer is irritating.

I miss Truman...

[Heisenberg]

Well its not going to be 99% approval ratings and socialism won't cure world hunger or disease especially the Behaviour driven ones.

Liberalism and socialism to work needs victims once people/ groups are shown they have no need for government to achieve in life dependence on government weakens.

But hey killing unborn democrats of the pro abortion crowd shouldn't be met with outrage but my tax dollars footing the bill and making planned parenthood richer is irritating.


:rolleyes:


Your arguments are weak (as usual).


Show me one poster who is "pro abortion". Or am I giving you too much credit thinking you're intelligent enough to know the difference between pro-choice and "pro abortion"?

EDIT: I'm also sure no Republican has ever gotten an abortion. :rolleyes:

[techboy]

Wait, you mean that simple species classification isn't enough to determine whether something is alive or dead?

Funny how that works.

I'm more than happy to agree that a dead, non-revivable member of homo sapiens sapiens has lost his or her rights.

If you want to play word games and force me to make explicit what was clearly implied, fine.

In order to be human life and worthy of protection, an organism must be classified as homo sapiens sapiens and meet the standard of actually living (metabolism, organization, etc.) or be in a state where that standard can be restored (say, through defribrillation).

Happy now? :)

P.S. It doesn't really change my argument, you know. ;)

[Larry]

There is no difference, except in stage of development, between the one week old fetus, the 6 month fetus, the two year old child, the fifty year old man, or the 85 year old woman.

Well, there is the minor distinction for a lot of history, the ones that had been born were considered persons.

[techboy]

Well, there is the minor distinction of a lot of precedent of a person's life beginning at birth.

There was also a lot of precedent saying that slaves weren't people either.

Said precedent is totally arbitrary, and in my view, morally wrong.

[Hubbs]

I'm more than happy to agree that a dead, non-revivable member of homo sapiens sapiens has lost his or her rights.

If you want to play word games and force me to make explicit what was clearly implied, fine.

In order to be human life and worthy of protection, an organism must be classified as homo sapiens sapiens and meet the standard of actually living (metabolism, organization, etc.) or be in a state where that standard can be restored (say, through defribrillation).

Happy now? :)

P.S. It doesn't really change my argument, you know. ;)

Oh, it doesn't change your argument about how you define alive. But it does make obsolete your own word games in which you claimed that if classification worked for microbes, it should work for humans, too.

[DjTj]

The only non-arbitrary standard is the scientific one, and that is whether or not the life form is a member of homo sapiens sapiens. There is no difference, except in stage of development, between the one week old fetus, the 6 month fetus, the two year old child, the fifty year old man, or the 85 year old woman.A member of homo sapiens sapiens is considered human. I do not dispute that an embryo is human.


That standard is dangerous. As you say, the bedridden or paraplegic are less "alive" under that standard.

It's best, I think, to stick with the purely scientific definition of "alive".I don't think that "member of homo sapiens sapiens" is the scientific definition for "alive." I believe that science also considers members of ateles geoffroyi "alive" whenever they are "alive."


Neither does a two month old infant or a severely mentally handicapped adult.But neither does a two-month old infant or a severely mentally handicapped adult's existence depend solely upon another individual.


Perhaps not, but a two month old infant does.Should the mother of a two-month old infant feel that her baby is interfering with her liberty, she can give it up for adoption (or the state can take it away). That is not possible during pregnancy. The interference with liberty is fundamentally greater in that case.

[techboy]

Oh, it doesn't change your argument about how you define alive. But it does make obsolete your own word games in which you claimed that if classification worked for microbes, it should work for humans, too.

No it doesn't. You'd have to apply the additional language to dead microbes, too. Actually living is implied, unless forced by pedantry. :)

[Larry]

There was also a lot of precedent saying that slaves weren't people either.

Said precedent is totally arbitrary, and in my view, morally wrong.

Society is full of arbitrary distinctions. (In fact, I think as a practical matter, that society is incapable of making any other kind of distinctions.)

There's nothing magical that distinguishes a person who's 18 years old from one that's 17 and 12 months. But only one of them can vote.

There's no major change of biology or physiology that happens at age 21 that grants the power to consume alcohol.

[techboy]

A member of homo sapiens sapiens is considered human. I do not dispute that an embryo is human.


Agreed.



I don't think that "member of homo sapiens sapiens" is the scientific definition for "alive." I believe that science also considers members of ateles geoffroyi "alive" whenever they are "alive."


Well, you'd have to add an additional standard for whether or not the organism is actually metabolising, etc. Technically, I was being sloppy, and using "life" and "human" interchangably. It doesn't really have much impact on the overall discussion, though.



The interference with liberty is fundamentally greater in that case.

For nine months, this is so. I don't think it's reasonable to permanently deny another human being the fundamental right to life, to avoid a temporary impediment of a less funamental right, especially since 99% of the time, the person having her rights infringed was at least partially responsible for the infringement.

At this point, I suppose, we're off science and on to morals, but once we establish that the fetus is human life, and is innocent, terminating a pregnancy becomes murder. I think most people would agree that trumps most other concerns.

I also think that there are very few people that would support abortion if they actually agreed that a fetus was a human being.

[Hubbs]

No it doesn't. You'd have to apply the additional language to dead microbes, too. Actually living is implied, unless forced by pedantry. :)

http://www.russiablog.org/lenin1.jpg

This is a homo sapiens sapiens.

Where's the implied life?

[techboy]

Society is full of arbitrary distinctions. (In fact, I think as a practical matter, that society is incapable of making any other kind of distinctions.)


That doesn't make them okay.



There's nothing magical that distinguishes a person who's 18 years old from one that's 17 and 12 months. But only one of them can vote.

There's no major change of biology or physiology that happens at age 21 that grants the power to consume alcohol.

I agree that this is silly, in many ways. Ideally, we'd have individualized testing, and each person could participate in each activity when he or she was actually ready, be it 15, 55, or never.

That's not feasible, though, so we assign an age.

Realisitically, though, the denial of the right of a 15 year old who is ready, to drive, is minor, and can be rectified with time.

Murder is permanent.

[techboy]

Where's the implied life?

Are you enjoying yourself? :D

Stop being so pedantic. You know perfectly well that I meant that actually being alive was implied in the discussion, not in the homo sapiens sapiens classification, and even if you didn't, that should have become clear when I acceded to your silliness and added the provision regarding metabolism, etc.

[Toe Jam]

Put me in the pro choice crowd.

[Vicious]

hey techboy whats up in this thread

[techboy]

hey techboy whats up in this thread

In general, "up" is the opposite vector to the net gravitational force at any particular point in space.

I guess that's still true, even in this thread. :D

[Vicious]

Am I going to hell for jerking off?

[Larry]

That doesn't make them okay.

Says the guy who's arguing for the abolition of an "arbitrary" distinction that's been around for all of human history, and replacing it with another distinction that's equally arbitrary.

Any definition of when to bestow personhood is going to be arbitrary.

What we're discussing is which arbitrary point is the best one for society.

[Larry]

Am I going to hell for jerking off?

If so, then so's everybody else in this thread. :)

[Vicious]

Hell's one big sausage fest.

[techboy]

Says the guy who's arguing for the abolition of an "arbitrary" distinction that's been around for all of human history, and replacing it with another distinction that's equally arbitrary.

No, it is not arbitrary. It's scientific and medical. Either you're a member of homo sapiens sapiens or you're not. No just randomly trying to pick a point which, as you show in your examples, can be fuzzy on either side, with no valid reasoning to support it.

[techboy]

Realistically, though, at this point I'm just repeating myself.

I have made my position fairly clear, I think, and I provided a link to and quoted a more specific argument that expands upon it.

Unless there's a specific (and new) criticism or question (and I don't see why my viewpoint would be so important to others that this would need to happen), I'm going to go find something else to do.

[Larry]

No, it is not arbitrary. It's scientific and medical. Either you're a member of homo sapiens sapiens or you're not. No just randomly trying to pick a point which, as you show in your examples, can be fuzzy on either side, with no valid reasoning to support it.

Got news for you. An unfertilized human egg is a member of the species, too.

[Destino]

I'm all for consitency..... when miscarriages are investigated by homicide detectives? When will mother that fail to consume a proper diet while pregnant is jailed for negligent homicide?

[Mooka]

Abortions should not be some sort of deal breaker to giving out foreign aid.

[techboy]

Got news for you. An unfertilized human egg is a member of the species, too.

No, it actually isn't.

[Destino]

No, it is not arbitrary. It's scientific and medical. Either you're a member of homo sapiens sapiens or you're not. No just randomly trying to pick a point which, as you show in your examples, can be fuzzy on either side, with no valid reasoning to support it.

Ever wonder how many people wouldn't starve, suffer, or go without medical care if people would worry about the living as much as we do the unborn? We freak out at the thought of an abortion clinic and don't even blink at the term "collateral damage". We get a yearly march on DC but merely a academic debate about african genocide. What about child soldiers? What about children in poverty or gangs? What about single mothers? What about foster children?

Just get them into the world and then they are not my problem... is that it?

The scientific argument is there (weak and inconsistent as it may be) but it's pretty clear this has become a religious debate. You can't be Christian and prochoice right?

...whatever.

[techboy]

I'm all for consitency..... when miscarriages are investigated by homicide detectives? When will mother that fail to consume a proper diet while pregnant is jailed for negligent homicide?

Red herring. Is every death by natural causes investigated by homicide detectives? Of course not.

Likewise, even if abortion were illegal (and the law went so far as to assign homicide detectives to cases like that, which is doubtful, since it wasn't that way before), homicide detectives would only get involved if there was some probable cause to be suspicious.

In other words, almost never.

[Larry]

No, it actually isn't.

Then which species is it?

[techboy]

Ever wonder how many people wouldn't starve, suffer, or go without medical care if people would worry about the living as much as we do the unborn? We freak out at the thought of an abortion clinic and don't even blink at the term "collateral damage". We get a yearly march on DC but merely a academic debate about african genocide.

Is there some reason we can't try to work on both?

[techboy]

Then which species is it?


Which species is a stem cell? It's not a species at all. It doesn't have everything it needs to meet the standard.

*EDIT* I'll be lazy and quote the Craig piece:


Contrast the complete human embryo with a sperm or an unfertilized egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg alone constitutes a human being: each is genetically incomplete, having only 1/2 the chromosomes necessary to make a complete human being. If left alone, they don't develop into anything: the sperm dies in a couple of days, and the unfertilized egg is expelled in a woman's monthly cycle. But if they unite, they combine into a single living cell to form a unique individual which has never before existed.

[Destino]

Is there some reason we can't try to work on both?Not at all, it's just that the same political group that depends on the abortion issues seems to suffer from a "not my problem" position on those that they have managed to protect long enough to be born.

[Destino]

Red herring. Is every death by natural causes investigated by homicide detectives? Of course not.

Likewise, even if abortion were illegal (and the law went so far as to assign homicide detectives to cases like that, which is doubtful, since it wasn't that way before), homicide detectives would only get involved if there was some probable cause to be suspicious.

In other words, almost never.

So you saying natural deaths aren't investigated? You're wrong. My family member recently died of a heart attack. Cops asked a lot of questions and looked at body to determine if that is what actually happened. Should women that have recently suffered a miscarriage be interviewed by police and asked to provide a doctor's note supporting their statement?

How else would you detect this murder taking place? I mean you aren't just going to take her word for it are you?!

[techboy]

The scientific argument is there (weak and inconsistent as it may be) but it's pretty clear this has become a religious debate.


No, it isn't. It's about definition of life, and ethics. Religion is irrelevant, except where it informs a person that murder is a bad thing that should be stopped.

You do still oppose murder, right?



You can't be Christian and prochoice right?

Has anyone made that claim?

[Larry]

Red herring. Is every death by natural causes investigated by homicide detectives? Of course not.

Likewise, even if abortion were illegal (and the law went so far as to assign homicide detectives to cases like that, which is doubtful, since it wasn't that way before), homicide detectives would only get involved if there was some probable cause to be suspicious.

In other words, almost never.

Then try these.

Try getting a Social Security Number for a fetus. Then, claim it as a deduction on your taxes.

Try demanding that ES add a field to their member database so that members can add their date of conception.

Try demanding that some illegal immigrant woman can't be deported, because she's carrying a fetus that was conceived in the US, and that therefore it's a citizen.

My previous post made reference to the voting and drinking ages. Those ages are measured from what event?

[techboy]

Not at all, it's just that the same political group that depends on the abortion issues seems to suffer from a "not my problem" position on those that they have managed to protect long enough to be born.

You seem to have the same problem, except in reverse.

[techboy]

Then try these.

Try getting a Social Security Number for a fetus. Then, claim it as a deduction on your taxes.

Try demanding that ES add a field to their member database so that members can add their date of conception.

Try demanding that some illegal immigrant woman can't be deported, because she's carrying a fetus that was conceived in the US, and that therefore it's a citizen.

My previous post made reference to the voting and drinking ages. Those ages are measured from what event?

Convenience of record keeping is not an excuse for murder, Larry. These peripheral complaints ignore the core issue.

[Destino]

No, it isn't. It's about definition of life, and ethics. Religion is irrelevant, except where it informs a person that murder is a bad thing that should be stopped.

You do still oppose murder, right?The problem is that we aren't talking about the definition of life. We are talking about your responsibility to sacrifice your own freedom in order to keep another life alive. Life is easily defined what people are forced to do to keep another alive isn't as simple.

Why can't I select you to donate a kidney when I need one? Is my life not worth saving? What about blood can I force you to donate blood? Marrow? Think of the lives being lost!




Has anyone made that claim?Yes. Constantly by the leaders of the prolife movement.

[Larry]

*EDIT* I'll be lazy and quote the Craig piece:


Contrast the complete human embryo with a sperm or an unfertilized egg. Neither the sperm nor the egg alone constitutes a human being: each is genetically incomplete, having only 1/2 the chromosomes necessary to make a complete human being. If left alone, they don't develop into anything: the sperm dies in a couple of days, and the unfertilized egg is expelled in a woman's monthly cycle. But if they unite, they combine into a single living cell to form a unique individual which has never before existed.

Just observing that your chosen source seems to define humanity by examining the object's potential to become a person.

[Destino]

You seem to have the same problem, except in reverse.
You'd be surprised. I think people have to be convinced to make the right choice - I don't think I have the right to tell them they have to surrender their bodies to keep another alive because I said so.

[Larry]

The scientific argument is there (weak and inconsistent as it may be) but it's pretty clear this has become a religious debate.

I'd make that assertion, but from a different direction.

By observing that nobody cared about the uniqueness of the fetal chromosomes until the Religious Right decided to regulate sex by banning abortion, and they needed to come up with a reason why abortion was any of their business.

[techboy]

Just observing that your chosen source seems to define humanity by examining the object's potential to become a person.

Just observing that you're wrong, and that you should read the whole article if you want to know that, since the tiny snippet I provided does not address that issue.

[Mooka]

Question for tech, hog, or others that don't like this move:


He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries. Agree or disagree?

[techboy]

You'd be surprised. I think people have to be convinced to make the right choice - I don't think I have the right to tell them they have to surrender their bodies to keep another alive because I said so.


It's not a matter of "keeping another alive" (which is why your other anaologies miss the point). It's a matter of specifically, actively, and directly causing the death of another (innocent) human being.

Murder.

I'm not surprised that you hold that position, because I have heard you express it before. I just find it to be morally untenable.

[Larry]

Convenience of record keeping is not an excuse for murder, Larry. These peripheral complaints ignore the core issue.

The core issue is that you want to change the definition of when personhood begins.

-----

And BTW, I somewhat support changing that definition, myself.


I like to point out that for a long time, a person was dead when he stopped breathing.

Then medicine improved. And a person was dead when his heart stopped.

Then medicine improved. And a person was dead when brainwaves stopped. (Unless a Political Activist wants to use the event for fundraising. :) )

So, there's precedent for changing technology justifying a society's moving of their "rites of passage".

I simply have a problem with moving that particular line in the sand all the way to conception. For lots of reasons, like the people who want to ban contraceptives because they sometimes prevent egg implantation.

And, unfortunately, it's really hard to come up with some other arbitrary line in the sand that's as clear and spectacular as birth. I'd have no problem, for example, prohibiting third trimester abortions. But how does a Doctor looking at an ultrasound conclusively determine whether the fetus he's looking at is one day "under age", or one day over? There's a potential murder charge if his opinion is disputed by somebody else.

[Vicious]

Do you think your moral position is 100% correct for the benefit of the human race?

[techboy]

By observing that nobody cared about the uniqueness of the fetal chromosomes until the Religious Right decided to regulate sex by banning abortion, and they needed to come up with a reason why abortion was any of their business.

Come on, Larry. Don't be so sly. Tell me directly that I don't actually care about innocent human life, and just want to keep people from having sex.

[techboy]

Do you think your moral position is 100% correct for the benefit of the human race?


Most people believe that murder should be illegal, so yes, I'm fairly comfortable suggesting that this be so.

[Vicious]

It's your moral position that it is murder. It is not the law and apparently most people believe that it is not murder.

[techboy]

It's your moral position that it is murder. It is not the law and apparently most people believe that it is not murder.

You are confused.

It is my scientific and medical position that a fetus is a human being.

It is my legal position that ending the life of an innocent person is murder.

It is only my moral position that murder is wrong. Do you disagree that murder is wrong?

[techboy]

Realistically, though, at this point I'm just repeating myself.

I have made my position fairly clear, I think, and I provided a link to and quoted a more specific argument that expands upon it.

Unless there's a specific (and new) criticism or question (and I don't see why my viewpoint would be so important to others that this would need to happen), I'm going to go find something else to do.


Well, this worked out well... :rolleyes:

I should have known better, I guess. :)

[Larry]

Come on, Larry. Don't be so sly. Tell me directly that I don't actually care about innocent human life, and just want to keep people from having sex.

Oh, I'm certain that there are a lot of people who have fallen for the rhetoric and honestly believe that they're crusading to save the children, now days.

Heck, look how many people believe other gigantic whoppers that various politicians have fed them.

:)

[Vicious]

The question was


Do you think your moral position is 100% correct for the benefit of the human race?

You answered


Most people believe that murder should be illegal, so yes, I'm fairly comfortable suggesting that this be so.

You answered that as a collective we feel murder is illegal, sure. Yet the collective feels that abortion is not murder, so it is not illegal.


You are confused.


I think you're confused if you want to use arguments involving the collective when the collective has decisions in place that are opposite of your intended answer.

[Larry]

Well, this worked out well... :rolleyes:

I should have known better, I guess. :)

Just when I thought I was out . . . .

They pulled me back in.

:)

[techboy]

Oh, I'm certain that there are a lot of people who have fallen for the rhetoric and honestly believe that they're crusading to save the children, now days.

Okay, I get it. I'm not sneaky and manipulative, I'm manipulated. Thanks for the clarification.


You answered that as a collective we feel murder is illegal, sure. Yet the collective feels that abortion is not murder, so it is not illegal.

You appear to be having a hard time understanding that there is a difference between the practice of defining what murder is (not a moral judgement), and saying that murder is immoral (a moral judgement).

[Vicious]

I think that society has placed abortion is murder in the moral judgment category when they collectivly decided it is not murder. It is defined as something else. I can understand if there is 100% certainty in your mind that it is murder but you veered off course when you involved 'most people.'

[techboy]

Vicious, as I wrote on the last page,

It is my scientific and medical position that a fetus is a human being.

It is my legal position that ending the life of an innocent person is murder.

It is my moral position that murder is wrong.

The first two are not moral positions. They are scientific, legal, and medical.

Society agrees with me on the legal and moral. Nobody, that I am aware of, approves of murder or wants it to be legal.

It would appear that at least a slim majority disagree with me on the scientific and medical. They don't see abortion as ending the innocent life of a human being. That's not a moral judgement. That's definitional.

[Vicious]

It would appear that at least a slim majority disagree with me on the scientific and medical.

Yes, a slim majority of people are what is keeping abortion legal.


edit: heh, you don't even know if that's true on the bench nevertheless in gen pop.. too bad Obama won.

[Jumbo]

Well, this worked out well... :rolleyes:

I should have known better, I guess. :)


I was a little surprised, but relapse is often a part of recovery. :)

[techboy]

Yes, a slim majority of people are what is keeping abortion legal.

The latest Harris poll showed that 56% of Americans support Roe v. Wade. That might be a landslide in Presidential elections, but I hardly consider it a vast divide.

[Vicious]

And 44% say it is murder?

[techboy]

edit: heh, you don't even know if that's true on the bench nevertheless in gen pop.. too bad Obama won.

My suspicion is that the current court will not overturn Roe V. Wade, even before Obama gets his shot at replacing some justices. If McCain had gotten in, he may have been able to tilt it enough, should he have been so inclined (pretty much why although I would have liked to, I couldn't vote for Obama).

I see it as unlikely that Kennedy will swing in that direction.

Even if he did, though, it still wouldn't make abortion illegal. That would take a shift in the general populace, which, as I noted, is slightly in favor of abortion, though certainly there would be states that would immediately ban it.

[Vicious]

And every year women get more and more power.

[techboy]

And 44% say it is murder?

Here, read for yourself (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=830). Those are the latest numbers I could find, there might be ones more recent, but they're in line with my general sense of where public opinion lies, currently.

I wouldn't read too much into Obama's election, though. There were a lot of other factors involved. Exit polling had abortion low on the list of voter concerns.

[Vicious]

Yeah, it's slipping. At least you'll have gay marriage to kick around for awhile, it was powerful enough to win the 2004 election. Brilliant strategy by the GOP, it will keep you occupied.

[zoony]

1- the timing of this is puzzling to me. Taking action on his 3rd day in office on this issue? REALLY? So it's been on your mind this entire time... lessee.... close gitmo (check), make clear policy on torture (check), lay down clear framework for ethics of WH staff (check), and.. hmm... something I'm forgetting... oh yah!... restore funding for groups that perform overseas abortions. WTF, seriously.

2- What an epic waste of taxpayer funds. Planned parenthood for foreign countries. :doh: All these issues in the world, everything that needs attention, and we actually have our President making the red light green for aid organizations to council foreigners on sexual matters and abortion. Holy **** what a steaming cup of fail.

3- The legal right to an abortion exists within the framework of the United States. Roe v Wade has absolutely no reach beyond our borders. We should be extremely careful not to practice activities as controversial as abortion across our borders. Pretty ****ing dumb as a matter of foreign relations... the kind of thing that can come back to bite us. Or haven't we seen enough moral ambiguity practiced on foreign soil with Federal backing over the past 8 years? Thirsty for more I guess?

[techboy]

Yeah, it's slipping. At least you'll have gay marriage to kick around for awhile, it was powerful enough to win the 2004 election. Brilliant strategy by the GOP, it will keep you occupied.


I'm not a Republican.

[Vicious]

It was a strategy the GOP used to sway people, I was not implying you were a Republican. Oh wait, are you saying you don't oppose gay marriage?

[zoony]

And on CNN this evening they made it a point to say that Obama and his aids went out of their way to sign this bill behind closed doors. They didn't want the cameras rolling.

Wonder why? I assume they have a clear conscience. So whats the problem?

.....

[techboy]

It was a strategy the GOP used to sway people, I was not implying you were a Republican. Oh wait, are you saying you don't oppose gay marriage?

I'm a liberterian. I don't think government should be involved in marriage in any way, at all, be it benefits or penalites.

But then, what the heck does my view on gay marriage have to do with anything?

[Vicious]

So you would abstain from voting on a ballot then?

[techboy]

Vicious, while I am flattered that you apparently care enough about my views to quiz me on unrelated issues, you're off topic and I'm not interested in laying out my personal politcal platform, plank by plank.

If you really want to know, do a search. I've commented in a few threads on gay marriage, though I generally avoid discussing politics.

[DjTj]

I went out for a bit, but since you seem to still be here...


Well, you'd have to add an additional standard for whether or not the organism is actually metabolising, etc. Technically, I was being sloppy, and using "life" and "human" interchangably. It doesn't really have much impact on the overall discussion, though.Well, I will agree that an embryo is human. I will not necessarily agree that it is "alive." Scientifically, I think the definition is fuzzy. Legally, an embryo is not alive.


For nine months, this is so.I would put it at about six months ... in the third trimester, the chances get pretty good that a fetus can survive without the mother, and the state could act at that point to take the fetus into custody.


I don't think it's reasonable to permanently deny another human being the fundamental right to life, to avoid a temporary impediment of a less funamental right, especially since 99% of the time, the person having her rights infringed was at least partially responsible for the infringement.I think that's a perfectly rational position, but I disagree. Part of it is pragmatic - even if we wanted to construct our moral laws to outlaw abortion, we would have no good way to enforce it, especially if we put the point at conception. Like it or not, a pregnant woman has complete domain over any embryo inside of her, and if she wants to smoke, drink, or have a back-alley abortion, there will be no practical way for the state to prevent it.

She has a degree of control over the fetus that cannot be reached by the state, and that very real boundary corresponds easily with the intersection of liberty interests.


At this point, I suppose, we're off science and on to morals, but once we establish that the fetus is human life, and is innocent, terminating a pregnancy becomes murder. I think most people would agree that trumps most other concerns.I do think it is a moral question, and attempts to argue that science is definitive one way or the other are flawed. The question of whether a fetus is "alive" is a moral one, because being "alive" is an inherently moral question. Science can tell us whether a fetus has a heartbeat, whether it has brain function, whether it is metabolizing ... but "alive" is question of semantics.


I also think that there are very few people that would support abortion if they actually agreed that a fetus was a human being.I would say that a fetus is a human ... not yet being.

[zoony]

techboy- what should happen to women who smoke during their pregnancy and have a miscarriage? Should it be a crime scene investigation and should the mother be charged with a homicide?

I think I asked you this before, can't remember how you answered.

[Vicious]

Yeah I think I can fill in the blanks on my own fairly easily.

[DjTj]

1- the timing of this is puzzling to me. Taking action on his 3rd day in office on this issue? REALLY? So it's been on your mind this entire time... lessee.... close gitmo (check), make clear policy on torture (check), lay down clear framework for ethics of WH staff (check), and.. hmm... something I'm forgetting... oh yah!... restore funding for groups that perform overseas abortions. WTF, seriously.

2- What an epic waste of taxpayer funds. Planned parenthood for foreign countries. :doh: All these issues in the world, everything that needs attention, and we actually have our President making the red light green for aid organizations to council foreigners on sexual matters and abortion. Holy **** what a steaming cup of fail.

3- The legal right to an abortion exists within the framework of the United States. Roe v Wade has absolutely no reach beyond our borders. We should be extremely careful not to practice activities as controversial as abortion across our borders. Pretty ****ing dumb as a matter of foreign relations... the kind of thing that can come back to bite us. Or haven't we seen enough moral ambiguity practiced on foreign soil with Federal backing over the past 8 years? Thirsty for more I guess?Except he hasn't restored any funds for any groups to perform abortions.

All he's done is reverse a policy implemented by Reagan (and re-implemented by Bush) that explicitly banned funds to particular groups.

Congress may or may not act on it ... and I think it's unlikely that we'll actually have a lot of extra money lying around.

[zoony]

Except he hasn't restored any funds for any groups to perform abortions.

All he's done is reverse a policy implemented by Reagan (and re-implemented by Bush) that explicitly banned funds to particular groups.



Oh save the legaleeze BS for someone who can't see through it. Seriously :)

What he's done on his 3rd day in office behind closed doors (his aids request) is abundantly clear. Restored funding to groups who practice planned parenthood overseas. What a steaming cup of fail.

Whats next, signing a bill recognizing gay marriage in zimbabwe? We gotta have priorities... the economic stimulus bill can wait unitl presidents day! :applause:

So yah, my post stands

[zoony]

What about stem cell research in the arctic circle? I hope to have a clear decision on that within the next 36 hours. Clock is ticking Mr. Obama, your populace awaits.

....

[Vicious]

I was watching Rachel Madows (we were high ok) and only 18% of the stimulus is infrastructure.

[zoony]

I was watching Rachel Madows (we were high ok) and only 18% of the stimulus is infrastructure.


economy shmeconomy. What we really need is a decision on prayer in public schools. In India.

....

[DjTj]

Oh save the legaleeze BS for someone who can't see through it. Seriously :)

What he's done on his 3rd day in office behind closed doors (his aids request) is abundantly clear. Restored funding to groups who practice planned parenthood overseas. What a steaming cup of fail.Except your post suggested that this is some kind of "epic waste of taxpayer funds." Can you point me to the dollar amount that our foreign aid increased today? All that will happen is that groups who were formerly getting money for abstinence-only missionary work will have their funding transferred to planned parenthood. Republican charities will lose money in favor of Democratic charities.


Whats next, signing a bill recognizing gay marriage in zimbabwe? We gotta have priorities... the economic stimulus bill can wait unitl presidents day! :applause:These things are not mutually exclusive. He has spent the majority of his time on economic stimulus, and the ball is largely in Congress's court right now.

Repealing the international abortion funding ban probably required a staffer ten minutes of cutting and pasting from the Clinton order back in 1993. I doubt Obama spent much more time than it took to glance it over and sign his name at the bottom.


So yah, my post stands Arguing that it wastes time or money is a total strawman.
economy shmeconomy. What we really need is a decision on prayer in public schools. In India.
What about stem cell research in the arctic circle? I hope to have a clear decision on that within the next 36 hours. Clock is ticking Mr. Obama, your populace awaits.And now you have a whole field of strawmen.

[chipwhich]

I would put it at about six months ...

Of course this all changes if someone were to kill your spouse who is say....three months pregnant. Then it's looked at differently.

That said, personally I am pro choice...but it does complicate the issue.

[zoony]

Except your post suggested that this is some kind of "epic waste of taxpayer funds." Can you point me to the dollar amount that our foreign aid increased today? All that will happen is that groups who were formerly getting money for abstinence-only missionary work will have their funding transferred to planned parenthood. Republican charities will lose money in favor of Democratic charities.


Arguing that one is just as bad as the other isn't an argument at all. i.e. hard drugs should be illegal because lots of people die from alcohol. No, what you're saying is alcohol should be illegal.




These things are not mutually exclusive. He has spent the majority of his time on economic stimulus, and the ball is largely in Congress's court right now.

You sound like the Auto Industry spin machine justifying the CEO trip in corporate jets. Apperance is everything.




Repealing the international abortion funding ban probably required a staffer ten minutes of cutting and pasting from the Clinton order back in 1993. I doubt Obama spent much more time than it took to glance it over and sign his name at the bottom.

But yet it made its way to what, #4 on his list of priorities to get done in office? Hilarious.




Arguing that it wastes time or money is a complete red herring.

Yah, we don't want to focus on the actual issue. Gets in the way of the politics.

And way to avoid the part about moral ambiguity (regardless anyone's position on abortion, everyone can recognize its a hot button issue across the entire world) practiced with federal backing of foreign soil.

[Vicious]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eYyT_R5Br0


bbc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfaxCaNgfmU


informative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUcE1Y_bOQE

[zoony]

Hmmm, what other week 1 WH directives do we need that should only take a few minutes for a white house staffer to pull together. Let's make a list.

[techboy]

I think I asked you this before, can't remember how you answered.

I probably told you that this question is sensationalistic and secondary.

If abortion is murder, that trumps such minor concerns. They can be worked out after the bigger issue is resolved.

If it isn't, then there's no need to invoke them, because it shouldn't be illegal anyway.

It's just another way of shifting the topic.

The only pertinent issue is whether or not the fetus is a human being. If so, it deserves the protection of the law that every human being recieves. If not, then who cares?

[zoony]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eYyT_R5Br0

I hope and pray that someday we'll be able to use the technology on baby seals in the arctic circle.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I believe Clinton signed the order reversing the Reagan ban, minutes after taking the oath. So, Obama waiting until Friday is rather impressive.

The issue to me is not funding. The issue is the truth regarding options. We fund these operations in the name of women's health (which is a very serious issue worldwide), but we simply aren't truthful in the range of options that women face.

But, you know, whatever. This ain't one of those issue with much common ground, and it is probably always going to be this ping pong ball of policy.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

By the way, considering the battles that took place between the Hillary supporters and the Obama camp, I'm surprised he didn't sign this order during the boring poem on Tuesday.

[zoony]

I personally think we need to take a hard look at all of our funding for medical programs overseas. Especially when most Americans don't get the care they need right here at home. So the entire thing is maddening. The fact that Reagan needed to qualify it to begin with.

Shouldn't our funding just take place thru the UN WHO?

[Vicious]

Put a man on Mars.

[techboy]

I went out for a bit, but since you seem to still be here...


Sadly, yes. Now, unfortunately, my wife is asleep and I no longer actually have anything better to do. Of course, I'm pretty tired myself, so I'm likely soon to follow.



Well, I will agree that an embryo is human. I will not necessarily agree that it is "alive." Scientifically, I think the definition is fuzzy.


That's odd. Usually it's the "human" part people squirm on. The "life" part is pretty straightforward, since there's metabolism and so on.



I think that's a perfectly rational position, but I disagree. Part of it is pragmatic - even if we wanted to construct our moral laws to outlaw abortion, we would have no good way to enforce it, especially if we put the point at conception. Like it or not, a pregnant woman has complete domain over any embryo inside of her, and if she wants to smoke, drink, or have a back-alley abortion, there will be no practical way for the state to prevent it.


Pragmatism has no place in this discussion. If it's a human life, it's murder. If it's murder, it should be illegal.

I mean, we have a great deal of trouble enforcing our current murder laws, but that doesn't stop us from trying, nor should it. It's that important.

[techboy]

Put a man on Mars.

The Martians might not like that. You don't think that what happened to the last lander really was an accident do you? A bunch of PhDs mixing up feet and meters? Come on...

[Jumbo]

Except he hasn't restored any funds for any groups to perform abortions.

All he's done is reverse a policy implemented by Reagan (and re-implemented by Bush) that explicitly banned funds to particular groups.

Congress may or may not act on it ... and I think it's unlikely that we'll actually have a lot of extra money lying around. Did people even read the piece and do any back-checking? Just curious.

From the piece:

"Obama's decision was praised by family planning groups, women's health advocates and others for allowing the U.S. Agency for International Development to once again provide millions of dollars to programs offering medical services, birth control, HIV prevention and other care."


"The order Bush signed reviving the policy was the first of his administration and was signed on his first day in office, whereas Obama's first -- signed Thursday -- ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba"



Obviously the funds were cut from these agencies by one side because abortions were among the services available and then restored by the other, back n forth.

I don't post in these kind of threads much or think there's any real insight or new interesting views to be offered about the topic of abortion in here.

But per the "Oh noze Obama! Why??!!? U fail!" angle...what the hell, sure, why not. I don't get anything like this decision took up a whole bunch of valuable time or betrayed any previous postion. Crazy stuff. :cool:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I personally think we need to take a hard look at all of our funding for medical programs overseas. Especially when most Americans don't get the care they need right here at home. So the entire thing is maddening. The fact that Reagan needed to qualify it to begin with.

Shouldn't our funding just take place thru the UN WHO?

I honestly don't know that much about how all this money gets moved around, but that may actually be the case.

Is your major issue with this the timing? Because that seems like a minor quibble. Like others have said, it's simply reinstating a Clinton policy while making the one Democratic constituency he has had real issues with happy. This was always going to be something that was done immediately. The problem with it is that the March for Life always takes place in January, which makes the timing awkward.

The major victory for women this week, however, was the Fair Pay Act.

[Vicious]

The Martians might not like that. You don't think that what happened to the last lander really was an accident do you? A bunch of PhDs mixing up feet and meters? Come on...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717301.000-the-testing-error-that-led-to-hubble-mirror-fiasco-.html

never put it past them

[techboy]

Did people even read the piece and do any back-checking?

There was an article? :silly:

[DjTj]

Arguing that one is just as bad as the other isn't an argument at all. i.e. hard drugs should be illegal because lots of people die from alcohol. No, what you're saying is alcohol should be illegal.I am not saying that the policy is good or bad. I am saying that Obama's actions did not create an "epic waste of taxpayer funds." No more money is being spent because of this policy.


You sound like the Auto Industry spin machine justifying the CEO trip in corporate jets. Apperance is everything.There is very little appearance involved here. Nobody noticed that this happened except for Pro-Choice and Pro-Life activists. And honorary_hog. And now me and you. Anyone who was paying attention would have expected this.


But yet it made its way to what, #4 on his list of priorities to get done in office? Hilarious.It's not really hilarious. The Pro-Choice lobby is very powerful in the Democratic Party.

BTW, I think it was the fifth thing he did: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/executive_orders/

Ethics on Wednesday, Guantanamo and Torture on Thursday, maybe he just wanted an easy Friday. :whoknows:


Yah, we don't want to focus on the actual issue. Gets in the way of the politics.

And way to avoid the part about moral ambiguity (regardless anyone's position on abortion, everyone can recognize its a hot button issue across the entire world) practiced with federal backing of foreign soil.But if you want to run with that strawman, then maybe we shouldn't be providing any foreign aid at all? Contraception is a hotbutton issue in the same countries where abortion is a hotbutton issue. Equal rights for women is a hotbutton issue in many countries. Should we avoid supporting anything controversial?

[techboy]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12717301.000-the-testing-error-that-led-to-hubble-mirror-fiasco-.html

never put it past them

Another official story. Ask yourself this... What was Hubble pointing at before this "error"? :paranoid:

[techboy]

then maybe we shouldn't be providing any foreign aid at all?

You say the sweetest things... :)

[Jumbo]

There was an article? :silly: It was nestled amongst the conjunctions, nouns, verbs, and adjectives. :D

[techboy]

It was nestled amongst the conjunctions, nouns, verbs, and adjectives. :D

I never got past the propganda and rhetoric. ;)

[SpringfieldSkins]

I guess people didn't really want to read the article. That would explain why this turned into a bash Obama, I hate abortion thread. Thanks for changing the title H_H.



Lifting the Mexico City Policy would not permit U.S. tax dollars to be used for abortions, but it would allow funding to resume to groups that provide other services, including counseling about abortions.

[Jumbo]

I hope and pray that someday we'll be able to use the technology on baby seals in the arctic circle.


Some day after you've finally learned to love America, I'll take you to Pt. Barrow and show you how to avoid blowing a seal.

It's crucial to be able to depend on your transportation up there.

[Jumbo]

I never got past the propganda and rhetoric. ;)

Well it is the WaPO.

[DjTj]

That's odd. Usually it's the "human" part people squirm on. The "life" part is pretty straightforward, since there's metabolism and so on.Human sperm. Human egg. Human skin cell. All those things are human. Scientifically, I don't think it can be argued that a new "human" is created when an egg is fertilized and a unique DNA chain is formed. "Alive" is a legal and moral term. The question people ask is when "life" begins; not where "human" begins.


Pragmatism has no place in this discussion. If it's a human life, it's murder. If it's murder, it should be illegal.

I mean, we have a great deal of trouble enforcing our current murder laws, but that doesn't stop us from trying, nor should it. It's that important.The weight of pragmatism for murder laws weighs far in favor of making murder illegal, however. No pragmatic person would support legalizing murder, because it would be putting their own life at stake. It is no surprise then, that morality also weighs strongly in that direction.

On abortion, the balance of both pragmatism and morality is much more delicate.

[Larry]

Okay, I get it. I'm not sneaky and manipulative, I'm manipulated. Thanks for the clarification.

Been thinking about my response for a while. For now, can I simply say that yes, I certainly understand that my responce came across as being terribly insulting, but that no, it wasn't intended to be.

I'll try to figure out something better, but I felt I should apologize now, in the meantime.

[DjTj]

Did people even read the piece and do any back-checking? Just curious.

From the piece:

"Obama's decision was praised by family planning groups, women's health advocates and others for allowing the U.S. Agency for International Development to once again provide millions of dollars to programs offering medical services, birth control, HIV prevention and other care."Restoring funds to groups does not mean an increase in budget.

Here is what a Pro-Life advocate said:

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, called the order “the first in an anticipated series of attacks on longstanding pro-life policies as the new administration pushes Obama’s sweeping abortion agenda.”

The effect, Mr. Johnson said, would be to redirect federal money “away from groups that do not promote abortion, and into the hands of those organizations that are the most aggressive in promoting abortion in developing countries.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/us/politics/24obama.html?hp

The President does not have a large discretionary fund for providing foreign aid. Congress must authorize the funds, and the President can choose to spend it on one group or another.

The effect of Bush's order was to move the money to Pro-Life groups. Obama will move it to Pro-Choice groups, and largely to the UN Population Fund.

An Executive Memorandum like this pretty much has to be revenue neutral. Congress controls the purse strings.

[Vicious]

Another official story. Ask yourself this... What was Hubble pointing at before this "error"? :paranoid:

The heavens.. at least that's the official story.

edit: I never knew you to be the skeptical type, Techboy.

[Larry]

Did people even read the piece and do any back-checking? Just curious.

From the piece:

"Obama's decision was praised by family planning groups, women's health advocates and others for allowing the U.S. Agency for International Development to once again provide millions of dollars to programs offering medical services, birth control, HIV prevention and other care."


"The order Bush signed reviving the policy was the first of his administration and was signed on his first day in office, whereas Obama's first -- signed Thursday -- ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba"



Obviously the funds were cut from these agencies by one side because abortions were among the services available and then restored by the other, back n forth.

Funny, neither of your statements say that.

I've asked previously in this thread, if any of the people claiming that Obama is funding abortions to furnish any evidence whatsoever that he's doing so. So far, no one's even attempted. Care to try?

Among other things, I've pointed out that, in order for Obama to fund abortions, Congress has to appropriate money for funding abortions.

So far, all I've seen is that Obama rescinded a Bush executive order declaring that any entity that performs abortions in unfit to receive government money for handing out condoms.

[Jumbo]

Dj, since you quoted me then followed with a point, I'm just checking for clarity: you know I didn't say anything about "increasing budget", right?

Essentially, most of what you're posting reflects how I view the facts and all this hub-bub, Obama-wise. In other words, (Obama-wise) it's a non-event to me. I don't really get the "wtf" and "roll-eyes" reactions that was the premise of the OP and repeated in some of the posts that were outside the swing into the "abortion/beginning of life" dialogue. :)

OK, now I hated even writing that much serious stuff in this thread.

[techboy]

Human sperm. Human egg. Human skin cell. All those things are human. Scientifically, I don't think it can be argued that a new "human" is created when an egg is fertilized and a unique DNA chain is formed. "Alive" is a legal and moral term. The question people ask is when "life" begins; not where "human" begins.

I think we've been over this. I'm done. Please refocus your energies on proving Zoony wrong. Thanks. :)


Been thinking about my response for a while. For now, can I simply say that yes, I certainly understand that my responce came across as being terribly insulting, but that no, it wasn't intended to be.

I'll try to figure out something better, but I felt I should apologize now, in the meantime.

Larry, I appreciate (and accept) your apology, and I'll admit that your two statements flabbergasted me, but it was less the insulting angle (which honestly, didn't really bother me), and more just how ridiculous your assertion actually was.

Like you, I contemplated for a while several different replies to demonstrate this, but your comment was so out there, I gave up and decided to just let you see what you were saying to me personally, in the hopes that a more personal angle might expose the fallacy.

Your statements were the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh's claim that liberals don't really care about helping people or the environment, but are just using them to gain and keep political power.


The President does not have a large discretionary fund for providing foreign aid. Congress must authorize the funds, and the President can choose to spend it on one group or another.

The effect of Bush's order was to move the money to Pro-Life groups. Obama will move it to Pro-Choice groups, and largely to the UN Population Fund.

This is, as usual, dead on. The issue isn't whether to send money overseas. It's where.

[Jumbo]

Funny, neither of your statements say that.

I've asked previously in this thread, if any of the people claiming that Obama is funding abortions to furnish any evidence whatsoever that he's doing so. So far, no one's even attempted. Care to try?

Among other things, I've pointed out that, in order for Obama to fund abortions, Congress has to appropriate money for funding abortions.

So far, all I've seen is that Obama rescinded a Bush executive order declaring that any entity that performs abortions in unfit to receive government money for handing out condoms.


I can't figure out what you're reading from my post. Given what I just posted to Dj, maybe it's me. :)

I'm not saying anything about "Obama funding abortion." I have barely made any statements about it at all, other than to dismiss the "controversy" or "wtf?" spin--but I think this is my deserved payback :silly:

I am being drawn into the very thing I avoid by apparent mis-reading of what I did post. :)

[techboy]

I never knew you to be the skeptical type, Techboy.

Nobody ever believes me, but I am, in fact, extremely skeptical. Of everything.

Unlike conspiracy theorists, though, I turn my skepticism on everything, not just the official story. For example, it's fine to question the official story of 9/11, but the same scrutiny applied to the conspiracy theories surrounding that event blows them sky high.

Just so I'm sure I was clear, I was kidding about Hubble and Mars.

That may be the last coherent thought I can muster tonight, though. I've been up since 5:00 AM, having stayed up last night until 1:00 AM (as you are aware, since you were in the thread with me), and my spelling is starting to suffer, which is not a good sign. :)

[techboy]

I am being drawn into the very thing I avoid by apparent mis-reading of what I did post. :)

http://www.abload.de/img/simpsons_nelson_haha2uwr.jpg

[Vicious]

Sure you are.

[Jumbo]

HA HA !


I knew you'd love that---you have gone over to the dark side :silly:

[techboy]

Sure you are.

Thank you for confirming my claim. :)

[Vicious]

I'm glad I could do your confirmation.

[Special K]

*blink*

I have a very, very generalized understanding of the two stages, but always enjoy learning more. If you can do it without the venom, feel free to explain what I'm missing.

Still waiting to hear exactly what I said that was so idiotic. I didn't say it was idiotic. Said it was ignorant...there's a big difference. :)

Furthermore, I've often found doing one's own research regarding an issue someone wants to know more about is always more enlightening than being spoon fed the answer. I'll give you a hint, however: focus on the timing of fetal neural development and activity...see what you find out.




So, at what point does the fetus lose it's gills and tail? You're a hoot.





2- What an epic waste of taxpayer funds. Planned parenthood for foreign countries. :doh: All these issues in the world, everything that needs attention, and we actually have our President making the red light green for aid organizations to council foreigners on sexual matters and abortion.
While there is no doubt that reproductive health care and women's rights issues are major problems in the developing world, my big thing is that we shouldn't be granting more federal money to governments overseas for not only this, but many programs in the current economic situation we are in.




I personally think we need to take a hard look at all of our funding for medical programs overseas. Especially when most Americans don't get the care they need right here at home. So the entire thing is maddening. The fact that Reagan needed to qualify it to begin with.

Shouldn't our funding just take place thru the UN WHO?
I very much agree with this. I've had experience with governmental organizations as well as international NGO's. It has been my observation that privately funded organizations such as "Save the Children" or "Compassion International" have much more transparency (if they don't they won't get funding from private donors) and are much more in touch with health issues that specifically pertain to small, international communities...that's why I support private organizations running many of the health, community-related issues overseas instead of our government just funneling money to a plethora of random programs that may not be very efficient, because let's face it, almost everything the government does is a fricking "steaming cup of fail."

As far as the WHO, I've observed a couple of their overseas programs and they have their act together, I have no problem with federal monies being funneled into their programs, but that's about it.

And what I think a lot of people don't get in this entire debate is that increasing abortions is NOT a good solution for the problems faced by developing countries. It is not uncommon that girls and women get pregnant over and over and over and over where they have, like, 15 kids. Furthermore, HIV infection and other STD's are a MAJOR, MAJOR problem in these countries. Continually performing abortions on someone who gets pregnant a bazillion times and is not solving either problem, it's a big waste of money IMO.

[aREDSKIN]

Although I come late to this party, ya know what politicians espouse is not what they really mean, yea go figure. Here's a piece by the catholic news agency and as such is biased to some degree but thought it might provide some additional analysis as what actually happens when these policies are "changed". Full disclosure I'm not a religious person at all and am not or ever been catholic.



Washington DC, Jan 23, 2009 / 05:54 pm (CNA).- Pro-life leaders reacted critically to President Barack Obama’s Friday reversal of President George W. Bush’s ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions. One Latin American commentator charged that the policy weakens anti-poverty efforts and had enabled a coercive sterilization campaign in Peru under the Clinton administration.

The ban, known as the Mexico City Policy, earned its name from a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984, where it was introduced by President Ronald Reagan. It was reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and then reinstated by President Bush in 2001.

Controversy particularly focuses upon the mission of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where an estimated $461 million at stake.

Critics supportive of abortion have characterized the Mexico City Policy as a “gag rule.”

"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance,” argued Tod Preston, a spokesman for the advocacy group Population Action International, according to Fox News. “President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."

Pro-life advocates were critical of the policy reversal.

Carlos Polo, a Peruvian who is Director for Latin America of the Population Research Council, asked “Where is Obama’s promise to fight poverty in order to reduce the number of abortions?”

He predicted the consequences of the new policy, telling CNA:

“The money that USAID has been distributing to fight poverty, relief hunger and droughts, will end up in the pockets of feminist and pro-abortion organizations to push the legalization of abortion in our countries.”

“The hard-earned American tax payers’ money will be diverted from poor children and women to the fat salaries of feminist leaders.

“This is not a potential scenario; it is exactly what happened in South America during the Clinton administration, when he reversed the Mexico City policy.

“In Peru during those years, USAID financed the most brutal, compulsory campaign of sterilizations, with the open support of feminist, pro-abortion organizations, despite the fact that poor, peasant women were the victims of the campaign.”

Polo reported that international outcry forced USAID to end its funding of then-President Alberto Fujimori’s sterilization campaign.

“But by then, thousands of women, most of them in their late teens and early 20s had been sterilized, and several died as a consequence of the procedure.”

The reversal of the Mexico city policy, Polo said, “clearly demonstrates that President Obama is not interested in fighting poverty to reduce abortions, and that there is no possible common ground with those who want to fight for the right to life.

“President Obama has chosen to do exactly the opposite in the poorest countries: increase abortions and reduce help for the poorest.”

Fr. Thomas Euteneur of Human Life International told CNA the change of policy was “expected.”

“It is standard operating procedure for people who are adamant promoters of the culture of death and seek to impose the culture of death on the rest of the world through our tax dollars.

“It is both very harmful and dangerous,” he added.

According to Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president’s action signals the beginning of the “abortion bailout.”

“Abortions here in the U.S. are at their lowest number in years -- so it's unfortunate that President Obama is poised to make subsidizing abortion abroad one of his first priorities,” she remarked in a statement.

Austin Ruse, director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, also opposed the move, telling CNA:

“One of the abortion questions that is almost unanimous in America is that we do not want federal funds being spent on abortions. By striking down the Mexico City policy, President Obama gives lie to the claim that he wants fewer abortions. In fact, he is the most pro-abortion President in the history of the Republic. Those so-called pro-life Catholics who supported Obama have a lot to answer for.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), characterized the action as the first in an “anticipated series of attacks” on longstanding pro-life policies opposed by President Obama’s “sweeping abortion agenda.”

He suggested that the agenda includes the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion.

“President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," Johnson said.

“Obama's order will predictably result in a redirection of funds to groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which are ideologically committed to the doctrine that abortion on demand must be universally available as a birth control method,” Johnson further charged.

Stephen Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute, predicted possible political fallout for Obama:

“By signing a series of pro-abortion Executive Orders, President Obama will be perceived as governing from the Left. The die will be cast, and pro-lifers will rally against him from that moment. They will start looking towards 2010 to restore some checks and balances on this man they will rightly perceive as a pro-abortion zealot.

“Clinton's pollster argued strongly against acting on abortion policy as one of the new administration's first pieces of business, but he went ahead regardless. The debacle of the 1994 House elections for the Democrats began at that moment.”


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14870

[BigMike619]

Im late to this thread as well so let me just say this..

blahblahblahangerrageangerblahblahblah....

when I was 17 I went with my brother and his GF down in to DC to have an pro choice rally and I saw a sign that was so damn funny. it said "George stay out of my bush". Of course I had to take a picture with it in my hand.

[Larry]

You're a hoot.

Which, I observe, doesn't answer the question.

[Larry]

Im late to this thread as well so let me just say this..

blahblahblahangerrageangerblahblahblah....

when I was 17 I went with my brother and his GF down in to DC to have an pro choice rally and I saw a sign that was so damn funny. it said "George stay out of my bush". Of course I had to take a picture with it in my hand.

My bro went to DC for his honeymoon, and when he saw the sign on the GW Parkway for the "George Bush Center for Intelligence", he had to pull of the road and get his picture taken next to the sign.

[aREDSKIN]

My bro went to DC for his honeymoon, and when he saw the sign on the GW Parkway for the "George Bush Center for Intelligence", .


Is that the new REHAB center I keep reading about??

[Forehead]

I think my brain melted trying to read through all this. I would say the thread needs more pics, but given the subject matter being discussed, let's hold off on that.

[Smoot Point Really]

Typical ridiculous and overdramatic statement by the FRC, but what's new?

EDIT: . . . and let's be serious SKINSFAN89, Obama could have a 99% approval rating 3 years from now and you'd be part of the 1% that was unhappy. He could have cured all disease and solved world hunger in his first week and you would have said it was an epic fail of a first week. At least the other posters in the thread can be counted on to be fair.


It says a lot that you even think he is hypothetically capable of so much. :cool:

[Special K]

Which, I observe, doesn't answer the question. Very astute observation. I'm impressed.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

EDIT: . . . and let's be serious SKINSFAN89, Obama could have a 99% approval rating 3 years from now and you'd be part of the 1% that was unhappy. He could have cured all disease and solved world hunger in his first week and you would have said it was an epic fail of a first week. At least the other posters in the thread can be counted on to be fair.

No, I'll eat crow if he actually DOES something good, and I'll praise him for it...but until then - this is so much more fun being on the other side of things. :silly:

[Larry]

Very astute observation. I'm impressed.

Which, I observe, still doesn't answer the question.

Here, I'll refresh:


I sure hope you have never taken Anatomy & Physiology because then I can understand your ignorance regarding fetal development. Good Lord.


So, at what point does the fetus lose it's gills and tail?

[Vicious]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

[Larry]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

ChristianAnswers.net:


a mega-site providing biblical answers to contemporary questions for all ages and nationalities with over 45-thousand files

At least try to find a web site that tries to hide the fact that they're lying.

[Vicious]

hey guy christians never lie

[Larry]

Although, I do have to say, I suspect that you just ran the same google search that I did. (Because I wanted to know that the answer to my question was, and I figured that everybody I ask will try to dodge it rather than answer it.)

And gee, the only Google hit I got that isn't from a creationist advocacy site is a paper of some kind of paper (I'd assume from some college intro-level course, since I can read and understand it.) from UNC Charlotte.

(Although I also observe that more than one of the creationist advocacy sites are taking the "well, yeah, the fetus has gills, but they don't really count as gills because the fetus gets it's oxygen from the mother while it's in the womb, therefore it never uses the gills.")

So, I'd say that one "side" sure is really vocal about trying to deny something. :)

[81artmonk]

Hypocrit. How can you say that, than sign an order that basically funds more abortions in other countries??

[Jumbo]

:D :laugh:

Sometimes, having conversations like this in the tailgate is similar to holding them in what you might call "an academic forum", but where everyone in any school-related role from kindergarten kids to doctoral review panelists sit at the same table to discuss the topic. Now that’s inclusion and diversity, baby---that’s democracy! :silly: :cheers: