Is abortion still controversial ?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maybe we've all come to agree it's about the woman, and her desire to give birth, instead of a law that preceded the 70's court ruling?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc10839620130405092800.jpg

[cleller]

It is, but I wish it wasn't. Sick to death of hearing about it.

As a conservative, I say butt out.

[Blue]

Sick to death of people who think its ok to murder unborn beating hearts. Meh.

[Midtowner]

It's always been a slightly > 50% which support abortion under most circumstances.

So yeah, it's still controversial.

[Curly Bill]

It is, but I wish it wasn't. Sick to death of hearing about it.

As a conservative, I say butt out.

What this guy said! ^^^^^^

[olevetonahill]

What this guy said! ^^^^^^

Yup, I personally dont think its right. But I dont have a dog in that fight.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sick to death of people who think its ok to murder unborn beating hearts. Meh.You will apparently need further convincing that pre-delivery, there is no living human. Instead, focus your attention on the desire of the woman to be a mother.

[Soonerjeepman]

Sick to death of people who think its ok to murder unborn beating hearts. Meh.

what this guy said~ I'm a liberal ...lol not. Cellar, I guess sayin you are a conservative then adding the ok with abortion is suppose to put it in other conservative's faces...interesting, not sure why or what your intent was. Guess you can be fiscally conservative...social/morally liberal. My brother is sort of that way.

[Midtowner]

If conservatives believe in limited government intervention, how can they justify government intrusion into reproduction?

[Soonerjeepman]

You will apparently need further convincing that pre-delivery, there is no living human. Instead, focus your attention on the desire of the woman to be a mother.

wow...so you're cool with third term?

as far as desire to be a mother DON'T GET PREGNANT. Less than 2% of abortions are due to incest or rape...so most women are pregnant by CHOICE...so yes they (and the guy) had a CHOICE. Don't punish the baby...

[Soonerjeepman]

If conservatives believe in limited government intervention, how can they justify government intrusion into reproduction?

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...notice the first word...

[Midtowner]

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...notice the first word...

The Declaration of Independence was never meant to carry the force of law.

The Constitution, on the other hand, grants a right to privacy. Specifically, the right to get an abortion until the fetus is viable.

[FaninAma]

I'm right there with Margaret Sanger...... lets abort as many potential future liberal voters as possible.

[cleller]

what this guy said~ I'm a liberal ...lol not. Cellar, I guess sayin you are a conservative then adding the ok with abortion is suppose to put it in other conservative's faces...interesting, not sure why or what your intent was. Guess you can be fiscally conservative...social/morally liberal. My brother is sort of that way.

I feel that abortion should not be a political issue, and it should not be automatically assumed that you are a liberal if you feel the issue should be left alone. Opposition shouldn't be a prerequisite for Republicans. That's not saying I'm "OK" with it. I don't have any interest in legislating what a woman chooses to do. Its like asking if you are OK with atomic bombs, napalm, landmines, drone attacks.

In this instance, maybe I am morally liberal, probably so. As a practical matter, I don't believe forcing some women into motherhood is a viable option. With our handout programs, adoption seems to be rarely chosen.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

life liberty and the pursuit of happiness...notice the first word...D'Oh! That's the word that we've been ordered(SCOTUS)to ignore.

[Midtowner]

D'Oh! That's the word that we've been ordered(SCOTUS)to ignore.

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law. It's a statement of sentiment. The Constitution, on the other hand, is the law. It contains a right to privacy.

[Soonerfan88]

Abortion will always be controversial. And just as clellar doesn't think it should be a political issue, I'm tired of it being an assumption that I, as a woman, must automatically support it. My version of pro-choice - for the 98% you CHOSE to have sex and you CHOSE to either have unprotected sex and knowingly didn't follow directions on birth control or ignored the fact it's only 99% effective. Once you've made those choices, you should have to live with the consequences.

And it really pisses me off that the father has absolutely no rights. If you are going to force him to pay child support for a baby he wanted you to abort, he should also be able to force you to have the child and give him custody.

[olevetonahill]

Abortion will always be controversial. And just as clellar doesn't think it should be a political issue, I'm tired of it being an assumption that I, as a woman, must automatically support it. My version of pro-choice - for the 98% you CHOSE to have sex and you CHOSE to either have unprotected sex and knowingly didn't follow directions on birth control or ignored the fact it's only 99% effective. Once you've made those choices, you should have to live with the consequences.

And it really pisses me off that the father has absolutely no rights. If you are going to force him to pay child support for a baby he wanted you to abort, he should also be able to force you to have the child and give him custody.

Why thats just Crazy Talk woman. I agree with ya tho,

[okiewaker]

Abortion will always be controversial. And just as clellar doesn't think it should be a political issue, I'm tired of it being an assumption that I, as a woman, must automatically support it. My version of pro-choice - for the 98% you CHOSE to have sex and you CHOSE to either have unprotected sex and knowingly didn't follow directions on birth control or ignored the fact it's only 99% effective. Once you've made those choices, you should have to live with the consequences.

And it really pisses me off that the father has absolutely no rights. If you are going to force him to pay child support for a baby he wanted you to abort, he should also be able to force you to have the child and give him custody.

This makes too much sense, which means you'll confuse the hell out tha liprogdems.

[Blue]

You will apparently need further convincing that pre-delivery, there is no living human. Instead, focus your attention on the desire of the woman to be a mother.


My hope is that you are being sarcastic.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

My hope is that you are being sarcastic.D'Oh!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...tha liprogdems.splanation, purdy pls.

[Midtowner]

Abortion will always be controversial. And just as clellar doesn't think it should be a political issue, I'm tired of it being an assumption that I, as a woman, must automatically support it. My version of pro-choice - for the 98% you CHOSE to have sex and you CHOSE to either have unprotected sex and knowingly didn't follow directions on birth control or ignored the fact it's only 99% effective. Once you've made those choices, you should have to live with the consequences.

So basically, slut shaming?


And it really pisses me off that the father has absolutely no rights. If you are going to force him to pay child support for a baby he wanted you to abort, he should also be able to force you to have the child and give him custody.

To do so would be to allow a pretty scary amount of government intrusion. If the Supreme Court has ruled that a blood draw, just a little needle prick is enough to trigger 4th Amendment protection, how does it have any constitutional basis for regulating someone's uterus? Father's rights are triggered once the child is born once he asserts them (or automatically in the context of marriage).

[pphilfran]

This is one of only a few areas where Mid and I butt heads...we have been over it so many times there is no need to go over it again...

[MR2-Sooner86]

This is about as clearly as I can say it: Abortion is NEVER going to be illegal. Get over it. The sooner you come to terms with this, the sooner you will be able to regain credibility with the voters. Your boys Todd Aiken, Richard Mourdock and John Koster chased away millions of female voters with their idiotic remarks about abortion and very possibly helped hand the election over to Obama.

The same goes for gay marriage. If you can make the case that a married gay couple living down the street from you, or across town for that matter, is going to have any negative impact on your own life, then I would say that we need to have a debate on the subject. Nobody has shown me that yet, so how about getting your GOP noses out of other people’s bedrooms? Nobody, and I mean nobody, has been able to tell me how Joe and Steve living down the block in wedded bliss will have any impact on their life. Come into the 21st century with me on this one and just leave the issue the hell alone. If you’re so determined to defend the institution of marriage – the concept of committed couples living together in a dedicated relationship – then why don’t you turn your attention to Hollywood. Forget about demonizing a gay couple that is every bit as much in love and committed as you are to your spouse. Aim your derision on the Hollywood crowd that looks at marriage as not much more than a new car – something to be traded in on a new model in two years.

[pphilfran]

Abortions are illegal after a certain length of pregnancy...

[MR2-Sooner86]

Abortions are illegal after a certain length of pregnancy...

Yes but hearing this "well they should be illegal in cases of rape too because it's a gift from God so you should be happy" is what makes it go from a, somewhat, libertarian position to a religious authoritarian one.

[XingTheRubicon]

Gay couples should be allowed the same monetary benefits as straight couples. It's just not a marriage if it's 2 dudes or two Pats. 2 dudes should be called a fecal union...and two chicks should be called a donut-bumpers union. A donkey ****er and his donkey should be called a tail-lifter union and so on...


oh, and if we could call a bear ****er and his bear a super-trooper union, that would be great.

[Curly Bill]

If conservatives believe in limited government intervention, how can they justify government intrusion into reproduction?

The only thing in the whole world that you and I seem to agree on.

[Fraggle145]

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130407.gif

[soonerhubs]

This is brilliant!
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130407.gif

[XingTheRubicon]

So, are you saying geometric shapes should be allowed to marry...

[cleller]

All those little purple wedges are alike.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All those little purple wedges are alike.and, all that time I thought YOU were a Purple Wedgeite.

[sappstuf]

Abortions are illegal after a certain length of pregnancy...

If Planned Parenhood had their way, "post-birth" abortions would be legal....

qEv1afKaLhA

[KantoSooner]

I am firmly in favor of 'post natal abortion'. I have a list that I keep in my office safe with more than a few names on it. All of them are designated for abortion just as soon as the SCOTUS legalizes it to age 40 or so.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Abortion thread - Rinse, wring, reuse

[SoonerBBall]

It has always cracked me up that as soon as abortion is mentioned "conservatives" suddenly shift to a very liberal, anti-choice stance and "liberals" start invoking personal rights, privacy rights, etc.

[Curly Bill]

It has always cracked me up that as soon as abortion is mentioned "conservatives" suddenly shift to a very liberal, anti-choice stance and "liberals" start invoking personal rights, privacy rights, etc.

Yup

[C&CDean]

What always cracks me up about abortion threads is all the people who've never had one seem to be the ones who think they have all the answers. FWIW, it's a MUCH deeper issue than legal/illegal - unless you're completely immoral and/or brain dead.

Folks who use abortion as a means of birth control are nothing more than filthy animals who deserve to have their worthless wombs ripped out through their worthless snatches with visegrips and no anesthesia. I mean it's almost as horrible as what they do to their own children, no?

[KantoSooner]

I bow to the brilliant juxtaposition of those two paragraphs.

[C&CDean]

You're welcome.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It has always cracked me up that as soon as abortion is mentioned "conservatives" suddenly shift to a very liberal, anti-choice stance and "liberals" start invoking personal rights, privacy rights, etc.You got the last half of it correct. The first part should read that the conservatives bring up the inconvenient reality that the child in the womb ACTUALLY IS a living human, and point out that murder is still, and should be illegal.

[pphilfran]

What always cracks me up about abortion threads is all the people who've never had one seem to be the ones who think they have all the answers. FWIW, it's a MUCH deeper issue than legal/illegal - unless you're completely immoral and/or brain dead.

Folks who use abortion as a means of birth control are nothing more than filthy animals who deserve to have their worthless wombs ripped out through their worthless snatches with visegrips and no anesthesia. I mean it's almost as horrible as what they do to their own children, no?

I take it you are not pro choice...

[C&CDean]

I take it you are not pro choice...

Maybe rape/incest. Maybe. Still ain't the kid's fault though.

[Midtowner]

You got the last half of it correct. The first part should read that the conservatives bring up the inconvenient reality that the child in the womb ACTUALLY IS a living human, and point out that murder is still, and should be illegal.

Murder is always illegal.

Abortion isn't murder because if you're killing something, it's legal to do so, hence, no unlawful killing, hence, no murder.

Whether it's a living human being which should be vested with all of the rights and responsibilities of a United States Citizen is very much debatable either way and in the end, the issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court for this country.

[KantoSooner]

I've wondered if the 'anti's' would feel better if we all just said, 'Yes, abortion is a killing. But it's a kind of killing that is permitted to a special class of people under the law.' Just as we do with soldiers, self defense, some classes of reasonably foreseeable accidents, some surgical procedures and the like.

[SoonerBBall]

You got the last half of it correct. The first part should read that the conservatives bring up the inconvenient reality that the child in the womb ACTUALLY IS a living human, and point out that murder is still, and should be illegal.

No, I got the first part right too. The vast majority of vocal, religious conservatives want everyone to stay out of their business when it is convenient for them, but don't afford everyone else the same respect.

[pphilfran]

No, I got the first part right too. The vast majority of vocal, religious conservatives want everyone to stay out of their business when it is convenient for them, but don't afford everyone else the same respect.

That door swings both ways...the left wants to be left alone in the bedroom but wants to invade your kitchen pantry or what food you place in yourself...

[Midtowner]

That door swings both ways...the left wants to be left alone in the bedroom but wants to invade your kitchen pantry or what food you place in yourself...

I'd rather not dictate what food choices can be made, but certainly requiring proper and accurate labeling shouldn't offend anyone.

[KantoSooner]

That door swings both ways...the left wants to be left alone in the bedroom but wants to invade your kitchen pantry or what food you place in yourself...

By implication, then, the 'conservatives' want to not be left alone in the bedroom? In general, I think that's a fine notion. I'd far prefer my bedroom to include at least one comely, willing wench; but that's not what you meant. You WANT government to regulate what goes on between consenting adults in private?

and, as to what is placed within our bodies, I'm not a big fan of Bloomberg style food regulation. I do come down in favor of requiring innoculations if you want to put your kid in public school. But that's pure self interest: I don't want my kid getting whooping cough or some such. So innoculate your kid or keep your little disease vector at home, preferably indoors and away from the rest of society.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, I got the first part right too. The vast majority of vocal, religious conservatives want everyone to stay out of their business when it is convenient for them, but don't afford everyone else the same respect.No, the issue is abortion, and life or no life

[Midtowner]

No, the issue is abortion, and life or no life

Or a life the state has now power to protect without unconstitutionally infringing on the woman's right to privacy.

(and that's not really an "or", that's basically what Casey held).

[SoonerBBall]

No, the issue is abortion, and life or no life

No, that is just a creative framing of the issue to demonize one side or the other. I dislike liberal theology in most cases, but in this case they have it right. This is pro-choice vs anti-choice. Those who believe that an adult woman should have the right to decide what she does with her body (to the point dictated by law) and those who believe she shouldn't.

The argument you will bring up, of course, is that an unborn child should have the same rights as any other person, but it is ridiculous to think that an unborn child, one that could still not be viable on its own, should have rights that overrule those of the woman that is carrying it. It is a situation completely unique in the universe as far as we can tell and so it has to be treated as such.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, that is just a creative framing of the issue to demonize one side or the other. I dislike liberal theology in most cases, but in this case they have it right. This is pro-choice vs anti-choice. Those who believe that an adult woman should have the right to decide what she does with her body (to the point dictated by law) and those who believe she shouldn't.

The argument you will bring up, of course, is that an unborn child should have the same rights as any other person, but it is ridiculous to think that an unborn child, one that could still not be viable on its own, should have rights that overrule those of the woman that is carrying it. It is a situation completely unique in the universe as far as we can tell and so it has to be treated as such.Nobody is surprised you think the issue is choice rather than murder(life or death). The woman is deciding upon the life of another person.(and,the innocence of the person is unquestioned, for whatever that info is worth) Those on the left, refuse to address whether it is taking the life of another person, instead of eradicating an unviable tissue mass, or some such terminology) Laws against murder are still on the books, as far as I know. Such is the reality of the situation, like it or not.

[pphilfran]

By implication, then, the 'conservatives' want to not be left alone in the bedroom? In general, I think that's a fine notion. I'd far prefer my bedroom to include at least one comely, willing wench; but that's not what you meant. You WANT government to regulate what goes on between consenting adults in private?

and, as to what is placed within our bodies, I'm not a big fan of Bloomberg style food regulation. I do come down in favor of requiring innoculations if you want to put your kid in public school. But that's pure self interest: I don't want my kid getting whooping cough or some such. So innoculate your kid or keep your little disease vector at home, preferably indoors and away from the rest of society.
I will make this simple....

I don't want anyone telling me what to do in the bedroom or the kitchen....

[The Remnant]

I can't get worked up either way. I do find it amusing though when there are lectures about staying out of someone's bedroom, yet you have others whose entire identity is wrapped up in what they do there( gay people).

[diverdog]

I will make this simple....

I don't want anyone telling me what to do in the bedroom or the kitchen....

Unless she is wearing combat boots and has a whip.

[okie52]

Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder....why?

[pphilfran]

Scott Peterson was convicted of a double murder....why?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

[sappstuf]

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

I guess we are lucky that having your body ripped apart by a vacuum cleaner isn't considered violent...

[okie52]

I guess we are lucky that having your body ripped apart by a vacuum cleaner isn't considered violent...

As long as the mother says its okay.

[okie52]

Unborn Victims of Violence Act

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"

Glad to see those "members of the species homo sapiens" are protected.

[KantoSooner]

Try this potential distinction: The mother carrying the fetus has a different set of rights/responsibilities relative to that fetus than any other actor.
I'm not saying that was the thinking of those who drafted the act in question, but it's a possible rationale for treating them differently.

[okie52]

Try this potential distinction: The mother carrying the fetus has a different set of rights/responsibilities relative to that fetus than any other actor.
I'm not saying that was the thinking of those who drafted the act in question, but it's a possible rationale for treating them differently.


The mother most obviously does have a different set of rights regarding the fetus/unborn child. She could be on her way to an abortion clinic and lose the child in an auto accident and the other driver could be charged with manslaughter.

[KantoSooner]

yes, as logically inconsistent as that might be to some, it would 'work' legally.

[Midtowner]

It's relevant that those fetal murder bills were written by folks trying to set up an argument against abortion.

Laws aren't always created in a vacuum. Context matters.

[SoonerBBall]

Nobody is surprised you think the issue is choice rather than murder(life or death). The woman is deciding upon the life of another person.(and,the innocence of the person is unquestioned, for whatever that info is worth) Those on the left, refuse to address whether it is taking the life of another person, instead of eradicating an unviable tissue mass, or some such terminology) Laws against murder are still on the books, as far as I know. Such is the reality of the situation, like it or not.

I've never addressed that distinction directly, actually. I agree with Kanto on this one. I'm fine with calling it killing or whatever you want to call it, as long as you recognize that it is one that is considered non-criminal and allowed by law. As I stated before, this is a situation that is completely unique in the universe as far as we can tell, so there is no way to compare it to any other one, including murder.

Also, nobody here is surprised at all that you would frame this issue of personal choice in any other way possible so that you don't come off looking like a enormous hypocrite about every other issue where you espouse personal liberty over the government and other people deciding for you. Except for gay marriage, of course.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I've never addressed that distinction directly, actually. I agree with Kanto on this one. I'm fine with calling it killing or whatever you want to call it, as long as you recognize that it is one that is considered non-criminal and allowed by law.

Also, nobody here is surprised at all that you would frame this ISSUE OF PERSONAL CHOICE in any other way possible(me: the only possible question is whether a life is snuffed or not) so that you don't come off looking like a ENORMOUS HYPOCRITE about every other issue where you espouse personal liberty over the government and other people deciding for you. Except for gay marriage, of course.Well, marriage has a definition, and that's not really complicated for you, is it? It has had that definition in most, if not all cultures throughout the history of humanity. You can challenge that on another thread if you want.

Please elaborate and clarify on the hypocrite stuff.

[Midtowner]

Well, marriage has a definition, and that's not really complicated for you, is it? It has had that definition in most, if not all cultures throughout the history of humanity.

Historically, women were treated as property and plural marriage was fine if you could afford it. Some cultures allow marriages to children, assuming the groom can pay the right price.

[okie52]

yes, as logically inconsistent as that might be to some, it would 'work' legally.

I'd like to hear from those people that find it "logically consistent".

[okie52]

It's relevant that those fetal murder bills were written by folks trying to set up an argument against abortion.

Laws aren't always created in a vacuum. Context matters.

Laws should be consistent whether they were created in a vacuum or not.

[Midtowner]

Laws should be consistent whether they were created in a vacuum or not.

An aspirational goal.

Let's try applying that to say... the EPA, FCC, etc.

[okie52]

An aspirational goal.

Let's try applying that to say... the EPA, FCC, etc.

You are speaking of regulators...not laws. Although I would actually support the limits of regulators enforcement being identified. If people didn't like the consequences of severe enforcement then they can change the laws....kind of like what Edmonson did as governor when he dried out the state to get prohibition removed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Historically, women were treated as property and plural marriage was fine if you could afford it. Some cultures allow marriages to children, assuming the groom can pay the right price.Well let's just go that way, shall we? Does the groom have to be a human man, and how many children can there be?

[Midtowner]

Well let's just go that way, shall we? Does the groom have to be a human man, and how many children can there be?

Society has defined marriage according to its own cultural norms. In at least recent times, in our Western tradition, we've seen some value in marriage being between two parties who consent to the union. That rules out children and animals as they are unable to legally consent to anything. Fairly or unfairly, we have also identified some marriages, such as those involving incest within a certain degree of consanguinity, as being unsafe because of deleterious health consequences for the offspring (and also ick). We have also decided that there are some unwanted consequences involved with polygamous relationships.

As a society, we are not bound to the past simply because of the way it was. If that was the case, we might still have dowries. Marriage is an ever evolving concept and as homosexual relationships are now widely accepted as not harmful, we're seeing acceptance of this change to marriage increase.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I defer to Olevet, for the appropriate comments here, Matlock.

[C&CDean]

Society has defined marriage according to its own cultural norms. In at least recent times, in our Western tradition, we've seen some value in marriage being between two parties who consent to the union. That rules out children and animals as they are unable to legally consent to anything. Fairly or unfairly, we have also identified some marriages, such as those involving incest within a certain degree of consanguinity, as being unsafe because of deleterious health consequences for the offspring (and also ick). We have also decided that there are some unwanted consequences involved with polygamous relationships.

As a society, we are not bound to the past simply because of the way it was. If that was the case, we might still have dowries. Marriage is an ever evolving concept and as homosexual relationships are now widely accepted as not harmful, we're seeing acceptance of this change to marriage increase.

Time ****ing out. Do you really expect anyone to believe you came up with a sentence containing "consanguinity" and "deleterious" all by yourself? Riiiiiiight.

Cred. You ain't got it. Bull****. You got it aplenty.

It must be very odd living in a perpetually gray world. Whether you like it or not, there is still black and white in the world - no matter how hard nimrods like you try to preach there's not. It's very clear that it's WRONG to kill innocent humans. Black and white. Simple, no?

[olevetonahill]

Time ****ing out. Do you really expect anyone to believe you came up with a sentence containing "consanguinity" and "deleterious" all by yourself? Riiiiiiight.

Cred. You ain't got it. Bull****. You got it aplenty.

It must be very odd living in a perpetually gray world. Whether you like it or not, there is still black and white in the world - no matter how hard nimrods like you try to preach there's not. It's very clear that it's WRONG to kill innocent humans. Black and white. Simple, no?

He's either Full of **** or he's the Biggest ****in egg head this board has ever seen, ima put my money on Both options.

[sappstuf]

From the Gosnell trial..


There was this clear glass pan, and I saw it, and I thought, 'What do you expect me to do?' " West testified Monday at Gosnell's murder trial.

"It wasn't fully developed," West told the Common Pleas Court jury, referring to the 18- to 24-inch-long newborn in the pan. It didn't have eyes or a mouth but it was like screeching, making this noise. It was weird. It sounded like a little alien."

Questioned by Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore, West, 53, said she did not know what happened to the "specimen" - the term she said she used because "it was easier to deal with mentally."


He also claimed he saw about 100 babies born alive and then 'snipped' with surgical scissors in the back of the neck, to ensure their 'demise'

What kind of sick f^&*@ could see a baby born alive and then either straight out kill it or just ignore it until it stops crying?

Oh, Planned Parenthood would...

qEv1afKaLhA

[sappstuf]

Glad to see those "members of the species homo sapiens" are protected.

Sea turtle eggs are protected by federal and state laws...

Sea turtle eggs > Unborn human babies

[Curly Bill]

If we're gonna protect the unborn, then we have to protect the undead. Vampire protection in the name of fairness.

[KantoSooner]

I'd like to hear from those people that find it "logically consistent".

You have to rest your argument on a 'privileged class' of individuals; in this case, mothers relative to their own fetuses. If you buy that they are a defineable special class and if you wish for reasons of privacy/personal choice to grant them the right to choose to abort their fetuses under some defined circumstances, then it makes sense to allow the mother to do that at the same time you penalize a non-mother for manslaughter, murder or whatever. You need not accept the argument to recognize the logical consistency of the position. You could, for example, reject it on absolutist grounds, 'a murder is a murder'. Or you could take the more nuanced positions that either privacy/choice rights are non-existent or don't extend that far. I can turn the argument around and find all of those contra arguments logically consistent, even if I don't agree with them.

And that's what makes the whole thing complicated and a legitimate field for the supreme court to rule upon.

Oh, and as to gay marriage, didn't Hephaestus (sp?) inherit from Alexander as his spouse? Hephaestus, by the way, was a guy, as was Alexander. Actually they had a pretty cool 'marriage': cruise around the known world, conquer barbarians, throw parties in which you got so wasted that you burned down entire cities just to toast your steaks, drink wine out of bird bath sized chalices. Those boys knew how to have a big, big time.

[olevetonahill]

The thing I find ironic about all this/ The Majority of the folks defending the right to Kill unborn children are the same ones Crying for more gun control because a weapon was used to kill some Kids.

Tell yall what, I,ll stay out of yer bedrooms and wombs YOU STAY the **** away from my guns. Fair enough?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Tell yall what, I,ll stay out of yer bedrooms and wombs YOU STAY the **** away from my guns. Fair enough?

I'm will'n to bet that anybody that has met you would definitely not want you in their bed room...and my wife ain't got a whoom, so I ain't gotta worry about that.:biggrin:

[olevetonahill]

I'm will'n to bet that anybody that has met you would definitely not want you in their bed room...and my wife ain't got a whoom, so I ain't gotta worry about that.:biggrin:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llgc9lbA0l1qebsc0o1_500.jpg

[Curly Bill]

The thing I find ironic about all this/ The Majority of the folks defending the right to Kill unborn children are the same ones Crying for more gun control because a weapon was used to kill some Kids.

Tell yall what, I,ll stay out of yer bedrooms and wombs YOU STAY the **** away from my guns. Fair enough?


That's where I'm at! Lets everyone mind their own damn business!

[olevetonahill]

That's where I'm at! Lets everyone mind their own damn business!

Yup. Like Ive said many times . I personally dont think its right. But I dont have a dog in that fight.

[C&CDean]

That's where I'm at! Lets everyone mind their own damn business!

Easy way out. "Hell, my old lady ain't even got a womb so why should I GAF about thousands of murders a day? No skin off my sack..."

I can understand NGAF cause your dog ain't in the fight - per se, but are you saying you don't GAF about dead babies?

[Curly Bill]

Easy way out. "Hell, my old lady ain't even got a womb so why should I GAF about thousands of murders a day? No skin off my sack..."

I can understand NGAF cause your dog ain't in the fight - per se, but are you saying you don't GAF about dead babies?

Never said I didn't care, or that I think abortion is right. Neither do I think it's right for me to tell a woman what to do with her body, or a fetus inside it, unless I have a personal stake in the matter as in I'm the baby daddy.

[okie52]

You have to rest your argument on a 'privileged class' of individuals; in this case, mothers relative to their own fetuses. If you buy that they are a defineable special class and if you wish for reasons of privacy/personal choice to grant them the right to choose to abort their fetuses under some defined circumstances, then it makes sense to allow the mother to do that at the same time you penalize a non-mother for manslaughter, murder or whatever. You need not accept the argument to recognize the logical consistency of the position. You could, for example, reject it on absolutist grounds, 'a murder is a murder'. Or you could take the more nuanced positions that either privacy/choice rights are non-existent or don't extend that far. I can turn the argument around and find all of those contra arguments logically consistent, even if I don't agree with them.

And that's what makes the whole thing complicated and a legitimate field for the supreme court to rule upon.

Oh, and as to gay marriage, didn't Hephaestus (sp?) inherit from Alexander as his spouse? Hephaestus, by the way, was a guy, as was Alexander. Actually they had a pretty cool 'marriage': cruise around the known world, conquer barbarians, throw parties in which you got so wasted that you burned down entire cities just to toast your steaks, drink wine out of bird bath sized chalices. Those boys knew how to have a big, big time.

Sure, you could make about anything be "logically consistent" by adding a caveat of "privileged class exemption", or, in other words, putting that individual or action above the law that applies to the rest of the people.

I see your point and agree it is a complicated issue. If a fetus/unborn child was determined to have no legal standing whatsoever then a pregnant mother who wanted her child would have little recourse in an auto accident where a negligent driver caused the baby to die. As repugnant as that situation would be to me, it would seem more logical than the punishing someone for a death that may have occurred minutes later by the mother's choice.

I assume you are addressing someone else about gay marriage.

[okie52]

Sea turtle eggs are protected by federal and state laws...

Sea turtle eggs > Unborn human babies

Strange set of priorities, Sapp.

[C&CDean]

Never said I didn't care, or that I think abortion is right. Neither do I think it's right for me to tell a woman what to do with her body, or a fetus inside it, unless I have a personal stake in the matter as in I'm the baby daddy.

If your neighbor was murdering her kid in your front yard would you feel differently? I mean you ain't his baby daddy, and you really don't have a personl stake in the matter.

I think we're pretty much in the same place - except that I can't be as non-chalant about it as you are. May be due to me being involved in a couple of them? I KNOW how wrong it is, and it gets under my skin when females use it for birth control and everybody goes "meh, ain't no big thing. It's her body, meh."

[Curly Bill]

If your neighbor was murdering her kid in your front yard would you feel differently? I mean you ain't his baby daddy, and you really don't have a personl stake in the matter.

I think we're pretty much in the same place - except that I can't be as non-chalant about it as you are. May be due to me being involved in a couple of them? I KNOW how wrong it is, and it gets under my skin when females use it for birth control and everybody goes "meh, ain't no big thing. It's her body, meh."

No doubt if someone has gone through this then their outlook might be influenced by that. And I know that it is used in some instances as basically a form of birth control -and yeah that's wrong on so many levels. But so to do people use guns for reasons not intended, to do terrible things, but that shouldn't be used to deny me or you our right to use guns responsibly to protect our families and so on, and so I'd not deny a female her right to control her body because some use abortion improperly - as birth control as you said.

Ultimately it's a tough issue, and one in which there is no perfect answer. I'm actually amazed that people on either side of the issue can be sooooo convinced that their, and only their side is so totally on the proper side in the debate.

[SoonerBBall]

If your neighbor was murdering her kid in your front yard would you feel differently? I mean you ain't his baby daddy, and you really don't have a personl stake in the matter.

I think we're pretty much in the same place - except that I can't be as non-chalant about it as you are. May be due to me being involved in a couple of them? I KNOW how wrong it is, and it gets under my skin when females use it for birth control and everybody goes "meh, ain't no big thing. It's her body, meh."

I don't know about the other people arguing here, but I am fully with you that it is sad and repugnant that it happens. I definitely don't classify it as "no big deal". However, as I've pointed several times before, it is a situation unique in our world and I believe that the individual rights portion of it unfortunately outweighs the other arguments. As soon as we allow the government to decide for one person what they can or can't do with their body it opens up the door for control of other things we can do to our bodies. Where does it stop? I certainly don't trust the government or the religious right to stop at just one invasion of our right to do what we want to our bodies.

[olevetonahill]

Dean, Curly. I dont think its a Point of any of us sayin "meh" Its a Point of there really aint a dayum thing we can do about it.Like Ive said Im against and dont think its right, yet I aint gonna get all up in arms over it simply because theres Nothing You or I can do.

At my age and after havin a Vasectomy I aint gonna be a baby daddy, My sons have all bred all they going to.the only ones in my immediate family that would be even remotely likely to have one is My Grand daughters and thats years in the future .

So like ive said I aint got a dog in this fight, Nor am I likely to in the near future.

Another thing about this subject tho is Like Most Im against Dog fighting for sport. I dont see how any one who is against Dog or **** fighting on Humanitarian grounds can even think about supporting abortion.

[C&CDean]

Yeah, it's kinda funny Howie. Those folks who scream "leave my body be and let me burn/scrape/chop up/kill my unborn!!" are the ones who are all faux outraged over a dog or chicken fight. They also wanna coddle convicted murderers and baby rapers. WTF is wrong with them?

[Midtowner]

What on Earth do you mean? Who is coddling convicted murderers and baby rapists?

The issue isn't the fetus' rights, its' about the mom's rights.

[C&CDean]

Did somebody say something?


Didn't think so.

[olevetonahill]

What on Earth do you mean? Who is coddling convicted murderers and baby rapists?

The issue isn't the fetus' rights, its' about the mom's rights.

I agree matlock, the woman should abso****inglutley have the right to do what ever the **** she wants to do with HER, But that right stops when shes destroying another body, If the yainch didnt want another body inside of hers then she shoulda took precautions.

Now go save a dog er some****

[olevetonahill]

Did somebody say something?


Didn't think so.

dude puts his typin hands in gear way faster than he do his brain.

[OU68]

That's where I'm at! Lets everyone mind their own damn business!

So this is OK? Tulsa World today: Two Tulsa women were charged with child neglect in separate felony cases on Tuesday after both gave birth to babies with illegal drugs in their systems.

[FirstandGoal]

Yeah, it's kinda funny Howie. Those folks who scream "leave my body be and let me burn/scrape/chop up/kill my unborn!!" are the ones who are all faux outraged over a dog or chicken fight. They also wanna coddle convicted murderers and baby rapers. WTF is wrong with them?


Dean, I absolutely understand where you are coming from.
I have a slightly different POV and I'm not sure if it is because I am a woman or if it is something else, but as much as it disgusts me when women choose to end the life of an unborn child because it is the more convenient route, I also feel strongly that the choice is ultimately up to the woman.

The main reason I feel this way is because there is no way for it to be 100% possible for a woman to choose not to be raped and therefore it will never be 100% up to her if she ends up pregnant.
I cannot imagine having to endure the horror and fear of such a situation and then to not even have the power to control such a horrible consequence.

Yes, I realize that even in such a scenario the unborn child is still classified as an innocent, but then again it would not be the mother's fault either. She should have the option of deciding seeing as she didn't have any other choice in the matter.

I also feel like in situations where the mother's life is threatened, she should be able to make that choice. I went into my second pregnancy knowing fully that I was taking a risk and decided that no matter what I was having my baby girl. However, when my doc told me I would likely die if I tried for a third child, I took measures to make sure I would never be put in a tough situation. I hated having to do that because I had always wanted three children, but it was the responsible thing to do.

[C&CDean]

Dean, I absolutely understand where you are coming from.
I have a slightly different POV and I'm not sure if it is because I am a woman or if it is something else, but as much as it disgusts me when women choose to end the life of an unborn child because it is the more convenient route, I also feel strongly that the choice is ultimately up to the woman.

The main reason I feel this way is because there is no way for it to be 100% possible for a woman to choose not to be raped and therefore it will never be 100% up to her if she ends up pregnant.
I cannot imagine having to endure the horror and fear of such a situation and then to not even have the power to control such a horrible consequence.

Yes, I realize that even in such a scenario the unborn child is still classified as an innocent, but then again it would not be the mother's fault either. She should have the option of deciding seeing as she didn't have any other choice in the matter.

I also feel like in situations where the mother's life is threatened, she should be able to make that choice. I went into my second pregnancy knowing fully that I was taking a risk and decided that no matter what I was having my baby girl. However, when my doc told me I would likely die if I tried for a third child, I took measures to make sure I would never be put in a tough situation. I hated having to do that because I had always wanted three children, but it was the responsible thing to do.

10-points for Gryffindor!

[OU68]

I took measures to make sure I would never be put in a tough situation. I hated having to do that because I had always wanted three children, but it was the responsible thing to do.

F&G - Bravo. I'm against abortion as a form of birth control, but I understand your point of view. Just don't believe the majority of the 50M and counting are rape/incest cases. Wish there was a middle ground.

[KantoSooner]

Give **** Fighting a chance!

I just want to go on record as being perhaps the only person on this board whose name adorns an entire championship line of Philippino fighting cocks. ***I~***XXIII have all been magnificent birds of dour scowl and flashing spurs, so I am told. They are sought after breeding stock (associative implication fully intended) and have won many thousands of peso's for their owners, according to the sporting press.

My friend Adriano has a very weird sense of humor and expressed it when he got rid of his dad's birds in Mindinao, but insisted that they carry my name. He then had T-shirts made. Funny and not so all at once.

Don't be bedowngradin'

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If this thread gets to 8 pages then I'll agree that Abortion is still controversial. Until then, I'm not so sure.

[Fraggle145]

If this thread gets to 8 pages then I'll agree that Abortion is still controversial. Until then, I'm not so sure.

To be fair with how dead the board is lately 4 pages is pretty impressive. Are you looking at the long or short version that makes a diff too.

[Midtowner]

Dean, I absolutely understand where you are coming from.
I have a slightly different POV and I'm not sure if it is because I am a woman or if it is something else, but as much as it disgusts me when women choose to end the life of an unborn child because it is the more convenient route, I also feel strongly that the choice is ultimately up to the woman.

The main reason I feel this way is because there is no way for it to be 100% possible for a woman to choose not to be raped and therefore it will never be 100% up to her if she ends up pregnant.
I cannot imagine having to endure the horror and fear of such a situation and then to not even have the power to control such a horrible consequence.

Yes, I realize that even in such a scenario the unborn child is still classified as an innocent, but then again it would not be the mother's fault either. She should have the option of deciding seeing as she didn't have any other choice in the matter.

I also feel like in situations where the mother's life is threatened, she should be able to make that choice. I went into my second pregnancy knowing fully that I was taking a risk and decided that no matter what I was having my baby girl. However, when my doc told me I would likely die if I tried for a third child, I took measures to make sure I would never be put in a tough situation. I hated having to do that because I had always wanted three children, but it was the responsible thing to do.

So do you think it's possible that a woman might claim she was raped in order to be free to have an abortion? How many innocent men who had consensual sex with a woman who later lies and says she was raped would have to go to prison and be labeled sex offenders under this model?

[jkjsooner]

It has always cracked me up that as soon as abortion is mentioned "conservatives" suddenly shift to a very liberal, anti-choice stance and "liberals" start invoking personal rights, privacy rights, etc.

What I find ironic is that conservatives on the one hand don't think that healthcare (even for a child) is a right yet they want to force a mother who is carrying a genetically flawed fetus to labor (and in many cases in a situation that will result in a death within hours or days). Then of course once the child is delivered the family should be on their own to take care of the huge medical bills.

It's almost as if these conservatives care more for the unborn child than the born child...

[C&CDean]

What I find ironic is that conservatives on the one hand don't think that healthcare (even for a child) is a right yet they want to force a mother who is carrying a genetically flawed fetus to labor (and in many cases in a situation that will result in a death within hours or days). Then of course once the child is delivered the family should be on their own to take care of the huge medical bills.

It's almost as if these conservatives care more for the unborn child than the born child...

Full-blown retard much? Sheez. Yeah boy, that's what us bad conservatives do alright. Dunderhead.

[jkjsooner]

Full-blown retard much? Sheez. Yeah boy, that's what us bad conservatives do alright. Dunderhead.

Care to explain what you disagree with? When that's all you have to say it's pretty clear you don't have any meaningful comeback.

There is a hypocrisy there for some (not saying all) conservatives who want to force all fetuses to be brought to birth but want to wash their hands of responsibility for the resulting medical bills that that might cause.

Another example is the Terry Shiavo case. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent keeping Shiavo alive. Many conservatives don't want to pay for that but they're all too willing to force the husband to keep her alive. (And don't tell me about the parents as that just means that a life is only worth saving if there is an advocate fighting for it which is absurd.)

[Bourbon St Sooner]

To be fair with how dead the board is lately 4 pages is pretty impressive. Are you looking at the long or short version that makes a diff too.

My version is always the long version.

[Whet]

For you to ponder.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/09/gosnell-worker-baby-jumped-when-i-snipped-her-neck-in-abortion/


Gosnell Worker: Baby “Jumped” When I Snipped Her Neck in Abortion

by Steven Ertelt | Philadelphia, PA | LifeNews.com | 4/9/13 5:10 PM
National (http://www.lifenews.com/category/national/)
One day after a former employee described how she heard a baby scream during a live-birth abortion (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/08/gosnell-worker-baby-screamed-during-live-birth-abortion/), another worker at the Kermit Gosnell “House of Horrors’ abortion clinic testified today she saw a baby “jump” when she snipped her neck in an abortion.

Abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell faces 43 criminal counts, including eight counts of murder in the death of one patient, Karnamaya Monger, and seven newborn infants. Additional charges include conspiracy, drug delivery resulting in death, infanticide, corruption of minors, evidence tampering, theft by deception, abuse of corpse, and corruption.
http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gosnell3.jpg (http://lifenews.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gosnell3.jpg)
The trial of the abortion practitioner has been so gruesome and vivid in its accounts of the late-term and live-birth abortions that it has shocked the conscience of the nation, despite a relativelack of media coverage (http://www.lifenews.com/2013/04/04/conservative-leaders-demand-networks-stop-censoring-gosnell-trial/) outside of local media and conservative and pro-life news outlets.

Gosnell could face the death penalty if convicted and he faces a mandatory minimum 20 years. If the testimony heard today (http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130409/NEWS01/304090077/Del-witness-Gosnell-trial-We-snipped-their-necks) is any indication, jurors will be swayed by the devastating way in which Gosnell and his staff brutally jabbed medical scissors into the neck of unborn children after birthing them, in a so-called live-birth abortion process.
A second Delaware woman who worked at Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s abortion clinic testified today that it was “standard procedure” to snip the necks of any babies that were delivered by patients before the abortion procedure due to labor-inducing drugs.

And Lynda Williams, 44, of Wilmington, said Gosnell taught her how to flip the body of the baby over and snip its neck with a pair of scissors and recalled one time when she followed these orders and saw the child move.

“It jumped, the arm,” she said, showing the jury by raising her arm.

Earlier she testified, “I only do what I’m told to do … what I was told to do was snip their neck.”

Much like former employee Sherry West who testified Monday, Williams initially said she could not remember key details and had to be reminded by prosecutors showing her copies of her earlier statements to investigators. When Assistant District Attorney Joanne Pescatore initially pressed Williams to describe what she saw when she cut the neck of the child, Williams responded with a blank stare and silence.

Williams also responded the same way when asked about seeing Gosnell cut the necks of babies who were delivered before abortion procedures, admitting after reviewing earlier statements that she had seen Gosnell do this at least 30 times.

Williams testified earlier that she had only gotten as far as eighth grade in school and never graduated. Before working for Gosnell at his Women’s Medical Society Clinic in West Philadelphia, Williams had worked for 10 years at the now-closed Atlantic Women’s Medical Services abortion clinic in Wilmington, where Gosnell worked part-time.


Williams said she was diagnosed as bipolar in 2007 after her husband was killed and left her job at Atlantic, where she sterilized instruments, shortly thereafter and went to work for Gosnell in November 2008.

[Fraggle145]

My version is always the long version.

:hot:

[KantoSooner]

I'm confused: It's God's will that a woman gets pregnant from a rape, but it's the result of a woman's free will, and thus her responsibility, that she gets pregnant when she has unprotected, voluntary sex? It's God's will that little baby Doe dies of SIDS, but it's the fault of the parents when they don't seatbelt little baby Roe properly? It's God's will that a woman miscarries, but it's the woman's mortal sin when she aborts the pregnancy? It's on the mother who aborts, but somehow no one's fault that children starve everyday in the third world?

[Midtowner]

I'm confused: It's God's will that a woman gets pregnant from a rape, but it's the result of a woman's free will, and thus her responsibility, that she gets pregnant when she has unprotected, voluntary sex? It's God's will that little baby Doe dies of SIDS, but it's the fault of the parents when they don't seatbelt little baby Roe properly? It's God's will that a woman miscarries, but it's the woman's mortal sin when she aborts the pregnancy? It's on the mother who aborts, but somehow no one's fault that children starve everyday in the third world?

What's your stand on predestination/free will?

[KantoSooner]

Personally?
Well, since I find no compelling argument in favor of a supreme being, orchestrating this whole mess, and since the impositiion of such a being would require, by virtue of being such an extraordinary argument, an extraordinary proof, I don't believe there's anyone 'in charge' of the whole thing. You can call that what you will, but that's it in a nutshell.

If there's no one and nothing 'in charge', I am forced to favor the proposition that we are all more or less free actors and that the future is thus only dimly foreseeable.

There's a lot of we do, if Dawkins and Wilson are to be believed, that is kind of rote, biochemical call-and-response, if you will but that is not true predestination, nor does it eliminate a considerable ambit for free will.

My point above was that, any number of famous theologians notwithstanding, you can't really have a cosmology in which sometimes things are predestined and other times precisely the same things are ascribed to free will. To insist so is to bend the concept of either to the point of meaninglessness.

[Fraggle145]

Personally?
Well, since I find no compelling argument in favor of a supreme being, orchestrating this whole mess, and since the impositiion of such a being would require, by virtue of being such an extraordinary argument, an extraordinary proof, I don't believe there's anyone 'in charge' of the whole thing. You can call that what you will, but that's it in a nutshell.

If there's no one and nothing 'in charge', I am forced to favor the proposition that we are all more or less free actors and that the future is thus only dimly foreseeable.

There's a lot of we do, if Dawkins and Wilson are to be believed, that is kind of rote, biochemical call-and-response, if you will but that is not true predestination, nor does it eliminate a considerable ambit for free will.

My point above was that, any number of famous theologians notwithstanding, you can't really have a cosmology in which sometimes things are predestined and other times precisely the same things are ascribed to free will. To insist so is to bend the concept of either to the point of meaninglessness.

Something like this (probably without the condescending overtones)?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcO4TnrskE0

[C&CDean]

Care to explain what you disagree with? When that's all you have to say it's pretty clear you don't have any meaningful comeback.

There is a hypocrisy there for some (not saying all) conservatives who want to force all fetuses to be brought to birth but want to wash their hands of responsibility for the resulting medical bills that that might cause.

Another example is the Terry Shiavo case. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent keeping Shiavo alive. Many conservatives don't want to pay for that but they're all too willing to force the husband to keep her alive. (And don't tell me about the parents as that just means that a life is only worth saving if there is an advocate fighting for it which is absurd.)

What do I disagree with? You, and other idiots like you. I got your hypocrisy right here.

Check the stats. Less than 1% of abortions are performed for rape and incest. The other 99% are performed for convenience. Know what else? A fairly significant percentage of rape victims (75-85%) WANT to have their child and oftentimes are pressured into abortions by idiots like you and those you support.

I don't know what all the health care for an infant horse**** is about and don't care. You're just trying to muddy the water with some non-relevent bull****. It's how you freaks roll. Yeah, killing babies is legal. Good on you. Just bring something to the table other than some horse****.

[KantoSooner]

Fraggle,
I don't find Harris terribly condescending.
You want condescending, go pick up Dawkins.
Harris is merely being a philosophy professor. (As he is, at Stanford,, no less. And, I believe, he is also a psychiatrist.)
That excerpt was a pretty basic rolling out of 'The Problem of Evil' which was originated by the Greeks and has not really been refuted in the 2,000 years it's been out there. To wit: you posit a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent. There can not, therefore, be evil in the world. And yet there is evil in the world. You can dodge, perhaps, for adults, and claim that free will presents a test of sorts. But that argument fails when the test is of infants. About the only thing left then is a morally soiled excuse that they get to go to heaven anyway, once God has used them in His inexplicable purpose. Like they were never anything more than stage props, unlike those other children who will go on to have fully testable souls.
The weird thing would be if the professor/priest was not prepared to make some defense. But we didn't see him deliver his lines. And they'd have been good and well delivered. Nothing beats having this discussion over wine with Jesuits. It's like setting up a chess board to 'move 40' or so of a famous chess match and seeing if it turns out differently when you and a friend play it out.

Hitchins was probably the most erudite in stating his case. E.O. Wilson is probably there as well, but is so polite and soft spoken that its rare for him to draw anything beyond the most lab proveable conclusions.

But all of that, in a sense, buys into the argument too far. I think they'd be better served by sticking with Occam's Razor and asking why we need to resort to baroque constructs and miraculous happenings when we have at least the rough outlines of a sufficient explanation in fully documented form? And those evidentiary snippets are repeatable and reproducible and seem to operate according to fundamental principles that require no magic to make them levitate.

So, yeah, more with Harris than against him, but I won't issue a blanket endorsement of anything he says. I will retain my free will.

Segue to Invictus, fade to black.

[C&CDean]

Fraggle,
I don't find Harris terribly condescending.
You want condescending, go pick up Dawkins.
Harris is merely being a philosophy professor. (As he is, at Stanford,, no less. And, I believe, he is also a psychiatrist.)
That excerpt was a pretty basic rolling out of 'The Problem of Evil' which was originated by the Greeks and has not really been refuted in the 2,000 years it's been out there. To wit: you posit a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent. There can not, therefore, be evil in the world. And yet there is evil in the world. You can dodge, perhaps, for adults, and claim that free will presents a test of sorts. But that argument fails when the test is of infants. About the only thing left then is a morally soiled excuse that they get to go to heaven anyway, once God has used them in His inexplicable purpose. Like they were never anything more than stage props, unlike those other children who will go on to have fully testable souls.
The weird thing would be if the professor/priest was not prepared to make some defense. But we didn't see him deliver his lines. And they'd have been good and well delivered. Nothing beats having this discussion over wine with Jesuits. It's like setting up a chess board to 'move 40' or so of a famous chess match and seeing if it turns out differently when you and a friend play it out.

Hitchins was probably the most erudite in stating his case. E.O. Wilson is probably there as well, but is so polite and soft spoken that its rare for him to draw anything beyond the most lab proveable conclusions.

But all of that, in a sense, buys into the argument too far. I think they'd be better served by sticking with Occam's Razor and asking why we need to resort to baroque constructs and miraculous happenings when we have at least the rough outlines of a sufficient explanation in fully documented form? And those evidentiary snippets are repeatable and reproducible and seem to operate according to fundamental principles that require no magic to make them levitate.

So, yeah, more with Harris than against him, but I won't issue a blanket endorsement of anything he says. I will retain my free will.

Segue to Invictus, fade to black.

When you true geeky geeks converse I cop wood. Serious wood.

If it weren't for copious amounts of marijuana, lsd, mescalline, peyote, black beauties, reds, yellow jackets, beer, tequila, and some serious gospel upbringing in my formative years I'd be just like y'all. Thank God for dope.

[FirstandGoal]

Care to explain what you disagree with? When that's all you have to say it's pretty clear you don't have any meaningful comeback.

There is a hypocrisy there for some (not saying all) conservatives who want to force all fetuses to be brought to birth but want to wash their hands of responsibility for the resulting medical bills that that might cause.

Another example is the Terry Shiavo case. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent keeping Shiavo alive. Many conservatives don't want to pay for that but they're all too willing to force the husband to keep her alive. (And don't tell me about the parents as that just means that a life is only worth saving if there is an advocate fighting for it which is absurd.)

Okay so once again I have a slightly different POV from Dean (and I'm usually a whole lot nicer about it unless you really start pushing my buttons) so I'm coming at this from a female POV. Again.

First of all, this discussion really isn't focused on the "forcing" of a woman to have a baby at her own mortal peril so let's just stop pretending that is the case we are arguing.
Second, let's not muddy the waters (to steal Dean's phrase) with extraneous bull**** like religion, belief in God, or debilitating medical bills due to extreme cases that make up an infinitesimal percentage of abortions occurring on a daily basis.

Like I've said before, I can see a circumstance where a woman had zero percent choice in her pregnancy and should be given options if she so chooses. I can also see where a woman's on life is endangered and the choice to abort or not might be a valid concern--- especially if the woman in question already is a mother.

For me personally, these would be the only 2 extreme kind of circumstances under which I would consider--- consider, not 100% for sure decide-- abortion.

That being said, I have to respectfully tell all of you guys that at the end of the day the decision should still lie with the mother. In a way I really hate that because so many times the outcome is tragic and was completely preventable to start with, but a big majority of this planet is seriously ****ed up and this is the least of the issues at times so what do you do?

Abortion as a means of birth control sickens me. The thought of it seriously makes me nauseated. About 20 years ago I lost a friendship over this issue and even though I sometimes wonder if it were really my place to be so judgemental, it seriously affected how I perceived this girl. I lost all respect for her and that is what irrevocably damaged a great and beautiful friendship. I tried not to, but it still happened.

[Fraggle145]

When you true geeky geeks converse I cop wood. Serious wood.

If it weren't for copious amounts of marijuana, lsd, mescalline, peyote, black beauties, reds, yellow jackets, beer, tequila, and some serious gospel upbringing in my formative years I'd be just like y'all. Thank God for dope.

Heh. Its the same for me when you rednecks get to talking... ;)

http://25.media.tumblr.com/75999a46ea456730d14aec09ec734476/tumblr_mhnmajUZjW1rg61bmo1_500.gif

When I really get to talking you have to remember i've had quite a bit of booze and dope - probably not as much as you. I didnt go much beyond that. I knew I'd like it too much.

[Fraggle145]

Fraggle,
I don't find Harris terribly condescending.
You want condescending, go pick up Dawkins.
Harris is merely being a philosophy professor. (As he is, at Stanford,, no less. And, I believe, he is also a psychiatrist.)
That excerpt was a pretty basic rolling out of 'The Problem of Evil' which was originated by the Greeks and has not really been refuted in the 2,000 years it's been out there. To wit: you posit a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent. There can not, therefore, be evil in the world. And yet there is evil in the world. You can dodge, perhaps, for adults, and claim that free will presents a test of sorts. But that argument fails when the test is of infants. About the only thing left then is a morally soiled excuse that they get to go to heaven anyway, once God has used them in His inexplicable purpose. Like they were never anything more than stage props, unlike those other children who will go on to have fully testable souls.
The weird thing would be if the professor/priest was not prepared to make some defense. But we didn't see him deliver his lines. And they'd have been good and well delivered. Nothing beats having this discussion over wine with Jesuits. It's like setting up a chess board to 'move 40' or so of a famous chess match and seeing if it turns out differently when you and a friend play it out.

Hitchins was probably the most erudite in stating his case. E.O. Wilson is probably there as well, but is so polite and soft spoken that its rare for him to draw anything beyond the most lab proveable conclusions.

But all of that, in a sense, buys into the argument too far. I think they'd be better served by sticking with Occam's Razor and asking why we need to resort to baroque constructs and miraculous happenings when we have at least the rough outlines of a sufficient explanation in fully documented form? And those evidentiary snippets are repeatable and reproducible and seem to operate according to fundamental principles that require no magic to make them levitate.

So, yeah, more with Harris than against him, but I won't issue a blanket endorsement of anything he says. I will retain my free will.

Segue to Invictus, fade to black.

Yeah I like Dawkins okay... he gets repetitive and when he gets really condescending he gets annoying. I'm buying most of the rest of what you are saying. I agree I would have liked to have seen the other guy's response.

[jkjsooner]

What do I disagree with? You, and other idiots like you. I got your hypocrisy right here.

Check the stats. Less than 1% of abortions are performed for rape and incest. The other 99% are performed for convenience. Know what else? A fairly significant percentage of rape victims (75-85%) WANT to have their child and oftentimes are pressured into abortions by idiots like you and those you support.

I don't know what all the health care for an infant horse**** is about and don't care. You're just trying to muddy the water with some non-relevent bull****. It's how you freaks roll. Yeah, killing babies is legal. Good on you. Just bring something to the table other than some horse****.

I'm not in favor of abortion for convenience. I'm not trying to muddy the water here. I'm not trying to argue that abortions for convenience should be legal. But you can't discuss abortion without discussing these other issues. And there are politicians out there who are determined to force a mother into carrying a baby that has no brain to term.

I've known two people I'm very close to who had to end pregnancies because of very unusual and severe genetic problems. (We're not talking something like Down's Syndrome here.) In one, the replicated chromosome was one that governs brain function. The doctors were very sure that the baby did not have a functioning brain. In either case the life expectency was days if the baby made it to term.

If you think they should have been forced to take that baby to term then I'm talking to you. If you don't then I'm not.

[jkjsooner]

debilitating medical bills due to extreme cases that make up an infinitesimal percentage of abortions occurring on a daily basis.

I don't know about what the medical bills would amount to. In most cases when a severely genetically flawed baby is born they probably decide to not take extreme measures in a vain attempt to prolong life. But that just begs the question on why you took it to term to begin with? Is it ethical to let a one day old baby slowly die?

But your assertion that these are infinitesimal percentages is way off. There are many pregnancies ended for this very reason. Like I've said, I've known two very close friends who had it. They both felt they made their decisions with only the baby's interest in mind.

And that doesn't include tubal pregnancies. I had a SIL who had to have one removed. If we really think God should choose the time of the fetus's death then by all means let's let that thing grow until it kills the mother. Tubal pregnancies are pretty common...



Like I've said before, I can see a circumstance where a woman had zero percent choice in her pregnancy and should be given options if she so chooses. I can also see where a woman's on life is endangered and the choice to abort or not might be a valid concern--- especially if the woman in question already is a mother.

Then why are you arguing with me?

[C&CDean]

Okay so once again I have a slightly different POV from Dean (and I'm usually a whole lot nicer about it unless you really start pushing my buttons) so I'm coming at this from a female POV. Again.

First of all, this discussion really isn't focused on the "forcing" of a woman to have a baby at her own mortal peril so let's just stop pretending that is the case we are arguing.
Second, let's not muddy the waters (to steal Dean's phrase) with extraneous bull**** like religion, belief in God, or debilitating medical bills due to extreme cases that make up an infinitesimal percentage of abortions occurring on a daily basis.

Like I've said before, I can see a circumstance where a woman had zero percent choice in her pregnancy and should be given options if she so chooses. I can also see where a woman's on life is endangered and the choice to abort or not might be a valid concern--- especially if the woman in question already is a mother.

For me personally, these would be the only 2 extreme kind of circumstances under which I would consider--- consider, not 100% for sure decide-- abortion.

That being said, I have to respectfully tell all of you guys that at the end of the day the decision should still lie with the mother. In a way I really hate that because so many times the outcome is tragic and was completely preventable to start with, but a big majority of this planet is seriously ****ed up and this is the least of the issues at times so what do you do?

Abortion as a means of birth control sickens me. The thought of it seriously makes me nauseated. About 20 years ago I lost a friendship over this issue and even though I sometimes wonder if it were really my place to be so judgemental, it seriously affected how I perceived this girl. I lost all respect for her and that is what irrevocably damaged a great and beautiful friendship. I tried not to, but it still happened.

50 points to Gryffindor!!

[olevetonahill]

50 points to Gryffindor!!

I think you are Biased.

[C&CDean]

Nah, I'm a Slytherin.

[olevetonahill]

Nah, I'm a Slytherin.

How can ya tell one from the other?

[cleller]

With all due respect to Harris, Dawkins and their seques and invictuals, I believe the matter should be decided by Haney and Dawson.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/75346d25e50a6696103b39bef50c435d_zps0fdb43c5.jpg (http://s701.photobucket.com/user/cs6000/media/75346d25e50a6696103b39bef50c435d_zps0fdb43c5.jpg.h tml)

[C&CDean]

How can ya tell one from the other?

The sorting hat ya ****ing ninny.

[Midtowner]

Yeah I like Dawkins okay... he gets repetitive and when he gets really condescending he gets annoying. I'm buying most of the rest of what you are saying. I agree I would have liked to have seen the other guy's response.

Hitchens/Dawkins et al certainly do seem to get condescending, but can you blame them when they're constantly having to reexplain that the world is not in fact 6,000 years old, etc.?

[okie52]

With all due respect to Harris, Dawkins and their seques and invictuals, I believe the matter should be decided by Haney and Dawson.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/75346d25e50a6696103b39bef50c435d_zps0fdb43c5.jpg (http://s701.photobucket.com/user/cs6000/media/75346d25e50a6696103b39bef50c435d_zps0fdb43c5.jpg.h tml)

Heh...

[olevetonahill]

The sorting hat ya ****ing ninny.

Well silly me. Do i gots to go to Hogwarts fer that?

[KantoSooner]

When you true geeky geeks converse I cop wood. Serious wood.

If it weren't for copious amounts of marijuana, lsd, mescalline, peyote, black beauties, reds, yellow jackets, beer, tequila, and some serious gospel upbringing in my formative years I'd be just like y'all. Thank God for dope.

"I'd never recommend alcohol, drugs, insanity and violence to anyone. But they worked for me." - H.S.Thompson

If it weren't for all of the above during my formative years, I wouldn't be the man I am today. I must, however, encourage the more impressionable readers that indulgence should probably be limited to those things found in nature. They are more interesting due to natural variations in molecules AND they leave you open for a career in the small town health food business if things go wrong. Alas, our current legal regime and a desire to have and hold jobs and be a parent has left a once promising career in mind surfing a mere memory.

I'm left with only the cold comfort of knowing that I elicit 'wood' from Dean. Well, you take what this life gives you.

On the topic of Dawkins, he's getting boring on the atheism front, so I tend to ignore him there. On evolutionary biology, however, he remains as fresh as he was in the mid-1970's. And that final chapter of The Selfish Gene remains one of the most influential pieces of writing I've ever encountered. Changes the way you think about genetics and life itself and comes just this far from offering a plausible explanation for how life got started.

[Fraggle145]

Hitchens/Dawkins et al certainly do seem to get condescending, but can you blame them when they're constantly having to reexplain that the world is not in fact 6,000 years old, etc.?

As a biologist in Oklahoma I know nothing about that. ;)

[Fraggle145]

Well silly me. Do i gots to go to Hogwarts fer that?

You'd be in Hufflepuff.

[KantoSooner]

Hitchens/Dawkins et al certainly do seem to get condescending, but can you blame them when they're constantly having to reexplain that the world is not in fact 6,000 years old, etc.?

Dawkins is downright abusive, and unnecessarily so; I fault him for that. Hitchins, on the other hand, is generally friendly. He expects some modicum of serious commitment in the form of reading, and synthesis of that reading, from his interlocutors but he's not prone to personal attack. And who can really hate on a guy who loved cognac and BJ's?

[FirstandGoal]

Nah, I'm a Slytherin.

FWIW, I'm one as well.
I mean, Gryffindors are great and all, but everybody knows the Slytherins have the best time. Then when they do **** they aren't supposed to be doing they aren't going to get in trouble cause they will just blame in on some unsuspecting 'Puff

[okiewaker]

Uh,,no controversy from me,,,,I seez what I seez. Tryna think,,,no other species on the planet purposefully and willfully takes the life of they unborn or young CEPT liberal women. They're a unique bunch.

[TAFBSooner]

Uh,,no controversy from me,,,,I seez what I seez. Tryna think,,,no other species on the planet purposefully and willfully takes the life of they unborn or young CEPT liberal women. They're a unique bunch.

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/07/science/in-shark-womb-fetus-cannibalizes-rivals.html

http://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=species+cannibilize+their+young&oq=species+cannibilize+their+young&gs_l=hp.3...2910.18511.1.19511.33.31.0.0.0.2.1490. 12291.2-12j13j3j1j0j2.31.0...0.0...1c.1.9.hp.7jMW2Ty0VHc&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.cGE&fp=2997ba6b8a85c4d8&biw=1067&bih=609

[TAFBSooner]

"I'd never recommend alcohol, drugs, insanity and violence to anyone. But they worked for me." - H.S.Thompson

. . .

I'm left with only the cold comfort of knowing that I elicit 'wood' from Dean. Well, you take what this life gives you.



^^^THIS is why I will still read Yet Another Eight Page Abortion Thread.

[C&CDean]

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/07/science/in-shark-womb-fetus-cannibalizes-rivals.html

http://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=species+cannibilize+their+young&oq=species+cannibilize+their+young&gs_l=hp.3...2910.18511.1.19511.33.31.0.0.0.2.1490. 12291.2-12j13j3j1j0j2.31.0...0.0...1c.1.9.hp.7jMW2Ty0VHc&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.cGE&fp=2997ba6b8a85c4d8&biw=1067&bih=609

Weak. Sauce.

[TAFBSooner]

Weak. Sauce.

And Okiewaker's wasn't?

If non-sentient species don't count, then Waker's comment was kind of pointless.

If all of Nature does count, then Waker should have done some research before making a claim.

[okiewaker]

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/07/science/in-shark-womb-fetus-cannibalizes-rivals.html

http://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=species+cannibilize+their+young&oq=species+cannibilize+their+young&gs_l=hp.3...2910.18511.1.19511.33.31.0.0.0.2.1490. 12291.2-12j13j3j1j0j2.31.0...0.0...1c.1.9.hp.7jMW2Ty0VHc&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.cGE&fp=2997ba6b8a85c4d8&biw=1067&bih=609

Heh,,Sharks. Now,,if it'd been Dolphins,,,we might got something.

[okiewaker]

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/07/science/in-shark-womb-fetus-cannibalizes-rivals.html

http://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=species+cannibilize+their+young&oq=species+cannibilize+their+young&gs_l=hp.3...2910.18511.1.19511.33.31.0.0.0.2.1490. 12291.2-12j13j3j1j0j2.31.0...0.0...1c.1.9.hp.7jMW2Ty0VHc&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45175338,d.cGE&fp=2997ba6b8a85c4d8&biw=1067&bih=609

Read the article,,,these mom sharks caynt help baby sharks are eating other baby sharks in the WOMB. Bahahahhaah. Maybe you misinterpret what I'm sayin. Keep searching Boolean ,,,I'm prit near sure you'll find what you're looking for.

[pphilfran]

Lots of animals kill their young...

[okiewaker]

If all of Nature does count, then Waker should have done some research before making a claim.

I didn't make this CLAIM on research,,,didn't have to.

[C&CDean]

Lots of animals kill their young...

Correct. They eat their pups/cubs AFTER they're born and for their own survival. Sometimes it's to prevent the baby from dying a slow, miserable death by starvation. It's a normal, natural thing.

Hacking a perfectly healthy infant to pieces and sucking them out - or cutting the neck of a late-term baby just so the chick can go spread her worthless legs yet again and make sure her "career" isn't jeapordized isn't even close to the animal world scenario. Watermelons and grenades.

[Fraggle145]

Correct. They eat their pups/cubs AFTER they're born and for their own survival. Sometimes it's to prevent the baby from dying a slow, miserable death by starvation. It's a normal, natural thing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hGhaE0YgU


Its not always for their own survival.

[KantoSooner]

Watermelons and grenades.

Damn.

THAT sounds like a project for the boys' 'S*** What Blows Up' weekend. Now you've got me all excited for summer to get here.

[C&CDean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17hGhaE0YgU


Its not always for their own survival.

Dude. Cats. Need I say more?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Dude. Cats. Need I say more?Male bears kill cubs to put the mother in heat again. Probably other creatures have that trait as well.

In the case of humans, killing infants in or out of the womb isn't done to put the woman in heat, nor is it done for food.

Some people are better (or smarter)than those animals. They kill other people for convenience, hate and power.:heart-borken: