Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on August 20, 2008, 07:50:28 AM
-
So many good reasons, here are just a few:
http://imvotingrepublican.com/
Thank you for listening.
-
That is wrong in so many ways :rofl
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU03RHHH1Qk&feature=related
-
LOL.. "I'm voting democrat because republicans are racists and those poor minority folks just can't get along without our help"
I think MT musta wrote that one..
lazs
-
I loled.
-
Vote for freedom of the citizens.
-
I was trying to figure out what thing republicans were doing that didn't allow women the right to do whatever they wanted with their own bodies..
I realized it must be prostitution and maybe drug use. But then.. I haven't seen democrats working that hard to allow em to be prostitutes or illegal drug users.. except maybe pot.. they are good with that.
lazs
-
Nice Post RedTop :rock :salute
-
I was trying to figure out what thing republicans were doing that didn't allow women the right to do whatever they wanted with their own bodies..
I realized it must be prostitution and maybe drug use. But then.. I haven't seen democrats working that hard to allow em to be prostitutes or illegal drug users.. except maybe pot.. they are good with that.
lazs
Try abortion rights.
-
So many good reasons, here are just a few:
http://imvotingrepublican.com/
Thank you for listening.
I think that someone posted this one up here before, I just don't remember which thread...?
-
"I'm voting Democrat because I think people need to depend on the government instead of their own abilities."
Thanks Red!
-
:rofl :lol ;) :D
-
Instead of:
And if you're thinking of voting something besides Republican, don't bother; stay home, we've got it all taken care of.
It should have been:
And if you're thinking of voting something besides Republican, you're a Commie loving terrorist.
-
I was trying to figure out what thing republicans were doing that didn't allow women the right to do whatever they wanted with their own bodies..
I realized it must be prostitution and maybe drug use. But then.. I haven't seen democrats working that hard to allow em to be prostitutes or illegal drug users.. except maybe pot.. they are good with that.
lazs
I also like how they try to blame Clinton's free trade deal with the Chinese on the Republicans :rofl
-
Credits? You mean all those people they interviewed weren't real? Who'd a thunk it?
-
That's great stuff MT... :aok
Vote Republican, get what you deserve..!
-
That's great stuff MT... :aok
Vote Republican, get what you deserve..!
So... vote Democrat and get handed a bunch of stuff you don't deserve? :lol
-
You know, all this talk about change is really meaningless.
That is, unless you change our flag while you're at it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiXhQUym0fA&feature=user
-
I was trying to figure out what thing republicans were doing that didn't allow women the right to do whatever they wanted with their own bodies..
I realized it must be prostitution and maybe drug use. But then.. I haven't seen democrats working that hard to allow em to be prostitutes or illegal drug users.. except maybe pot.. they are good with that.
:rofl
thanks for the laugh :aok
-
ah.. thanks sandy.. you consider abortion as simply women doing whatever they want with "their" bodies.
strange way of looking at it. kind of rough on the human sharing the "body" for a while tho eh?
lazs
-
Im voting Republican because this great nation has laws to protect the rights of citizens that decide to post crap like this video and because I dont want that marxist Obama in office (actually I believe hes more of a pure communist but time will tell).
-
Im voting Republican because this great nation has laws to protect the rights of citizens that decide to post crap like this video and because I dont want that marxist Obama in office (actually I believe hes more of a pure communist but time will tell).
I guess the "Marxist" definition is different overseas, same with communism.
-
I guess the "Marxist" definition is different overseas, same with communism.
Marxist (marxism):
1)a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production
2)a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
3)an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
4)an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
5)a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
6)a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)
Communism is mostly the same except the willingness to use the military to fulfill ideals (in Obamas case ideals being replace upper class with working class or more precisely non-working entitled class).
That pretty much sums up my understanding of Obama.
-
Marxist (marxism):
1)a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production
2)a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
3)an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
4)an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
5)a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
6)a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)
Communism is mostly the same except the willingness to use the military to fulfill ideals (in Obamas case ideals being replace upper class with working class or more precisely non-working entitled class).
That pretty much sums up my understanding of Obama.
You got that from Wiki-pedia. A very trustworthy source.
-
You got that from Wiki-pedia. A very trustworthy source.
Its close enough.
-
ah.. thanks sandy.. you consider abortion as simply women doing whatever they want with "their" bodies.
Bottom line. Yes.
-
Democrat or republican there both full of it, Politics suck
-
Bottom line. Yes.
Cant agree. Abortion rights are (in my mind) special permission for woman to murder children without repraisal. I dont believe biological traits should afford anyone special rights. Female, gay, whatever...
OR you could offset this right with a mans right to say... VOTE and then strip it from all the women. Id go for that.
Oh wait... I also think the 'A' word should be one official topic of non-discussion. I can see it getting hot way to quickly and I enjoy killing... er... flying with you all.
-
Who owns your body? The Government... or you?
I'm selfish. I'm not willing to surrender the rights to myself, in the flesh or otherwise; to any corporate or government entity.
Me. Myself, MINE.
Hands off... I intend to retain the right to self-determination. Now, having established who owns my body; WTF about that simple proposition would give me or anybody else the right to determine who's in charge of your body?
Cripes.. think it through and use your energy and seemingly overwhelming desire for taking my rights away on something a bit more worthy.
-
So many good reasons, here are just a few:
http://imvotingrepublican.com/
Thank you for listening.
you should post this over on www.flamewarriors.net but I suspect I know why you did not. :D
-
Marxist (marxism):
1)a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation of workers by the owners of the means of production
2)a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
3)an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
4)an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
5)a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
6)a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)
Communism is mostly the same except the willingness to use the military to fulfill ideals (in Obamas case ideals being replace upper class with working class or more precisely non-working entitled class).
That pretty much sums up my understanding of Obama.
(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p185/pxdig/Bunny2.jpg)
-
Cant agree. Abortion rights are (in my mind) special permission for woman to murder children without repraisal. I dont believe biological traits should afford anyone special rights. Female, gay, whatever...
That's fine. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Pro-choice works great in this regard.
-
That's fine. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Pro-choice works great in this regard.
Pro-choice? Does that mean the baby about to die has a choice now?
-
Pro-choice? Does that mean the baby about to die has a choice now?
Does that mean you prefer to make that choice personally, or are you deferring the choice to someone else... like a church group, government or corporate interests?
I hate abortion. Disgusts me. I also hate the concept of legislating common sense. I particularly detest the 'do-gooder' twits that have decided to surrender my right to decide what's best for me at the most basic level possible... my actual person belongs to nobody other than me.
You wanna outlaw abortion, then you better get together and decide when a fetus is an entity protected by the other laws on the books already. Then, it's not abortion. It's murder.
Meanwhile, abandon all thought of telling me, my wife, my kid or anybody else that your gonna let the government get free title and ownership of any part of us... because that sir; is a threat of slavery.... and that leads to a future I do not wish to contemplate.
-
You wanna outlaw abortion, then you better get together and decide when a fetus is an entity protected by the other laws on the books already.
Some states if you murder a pregnant woman (Kalifornia is one) you get charged with a double murder......but those same women can choose to abort without it being called murder.
-
I'm voting Democrat because, well, I'm an elitist and I know how to spend your money better than you and what's good for you. :rofl
-
Some states if you murder a pregnant woman (Kalifornia is one) you get charged with a double murder......but those same women can choose to abort without it being called murder.
Yup.
Fix that. You wanna protect unborn children, then this society needs to decide just when that fetus becomes a 'person', and then that person gets the 'protection' of the law... such as it is. No other legislation is required.
-
Meanwhile, abandon all thought of telling me, my wife, my kid or anybody else that your gonna let the government get free title and ownership of any part of us... because that sir; is a threat of slavery.... and that leads to a future I do not wish to contemplate.
I gather you miss my point, it isn't the gov't telling you how to control your body, it's about someone deciding whether a baby lives or dies. That isn't the womans body being torn apart now is it?
-
I gather you miss my point, it isn't the gov't telling you how to control your body, it's about someone deciding whether a baby lives or dies. That isn't the womans body being torn apart now is it?
It absolutely is... and you keep fixating on 'baby'. Address the issue of when that growth, attached to the mother and unsupportable outside her, becomes a person protected by the existing laws of the land.
You want to stop baby murders.. that's how you do it. Define WHEN it's a person, get that legislated.
-
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p212/CactusJumper/ButtonDV.jpg)
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p212/CactusJumper/vaderforprez.jpg)
(http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p212/CactusJumper/vader.jpg)
He's got my vote...... :rock
-
hang.. that is the point.. in some states if a pregnant woman loses a baby because of a crime committed against her the criminal is charged with murder. It seems that we do have an inherent belief that a fetus is a life.. a human life.
I have always taken the cowards way out of this and said that when a fetus is "viable" without the mother then it is a citizen and it is murder (unless it is killed to save the mother.. almost never) to kill the child.
It has become more and more likely that shorter and shorter term babies will survive. It is making it hard to hide from the morality for me.
lazs
-
I also like how they try to blame Clinton's free trade deal with the Chinese on the Republicans :rofl
You aren't very good at recent history, are you?
-
Yup.
Fix that. You wanna protect unborn children, then this society needs to decide just when that fetus becomes a 'person', and then that person gets the 'protection' of the law... such as it is. No other legislation is required.
Some have tried to do just that including legislation to protect a defenseless human being who lives outside the womb in spite of an attempt to murder him. Obama was against providing that protection and even later lied about it.
-
You might be a democrat if it doesn't bother you that we have murdered 40 million of our babies but become indignant when we execute child rapists/murderers.
-
hang.. that is the point.. in some states if a pregnant woman loses a baby because of a crime committed against her the criminal is charged with murder. It seems that we do have an inherent belief that a fetus is a life.. a human life.
I have always taken the cowards way out of this and said that when a fetus is "viable" without the mother then it is a citizen and it is murder (unless it is killed to save the mother.. almost never) to kill the child.
It has become more and more likely that shorter and shorter term babies will survive. It is making it hard to hide from the morality for me.
lazs
It's probably the concept of PC conditioning that's lead us here.. the issue has been packaged with such powerful and emotive words... most of the sheeple have no desire to really face the issue, so they take the easy way out and hop on the 'save the unborn babies' bandwagon.
Meanwhile, you and I and everyone else are really discussing the oncoming loss of ownership of our own corporal entities.
It's an exceptionally simple proposition, really. The coming choice of the age and the final bastion of the fight for freedom is being waged around your body and it's parts... will YOU be allowed to decide when you can end your life? Will YOU be allowed the dignity to pass on on your terms? Will YOU be allowed to decide who, if anyone has rights to your component parts? Will YOU be allowed to decide what goes in or comes out of your body?
Will YOU be allowed to choose?
Gawdammit.. it's my body. Mine. I reserve all rights to it. Any attack on those rights, no matter what moral skirt you hang on it, is an attack against personal freedom. On the most basic level possible.
There's a LOT of money riding on this... think of the 'players'... think of who will be the winners... who will lose. It really is not about 'unborn babies'. It's about who owns you and everything relevant to the palpitating mass of flesh that IS you. Think it through... and shudder.
It's not about 'save the babies' It's about saving your rights to your body and all it contains.
-
It's probably the concept of PC conditioning that's lead us here.. the issue has been packaged with such powerful and emotive words... most of the sheeple have no desire to really face the issue, so they take the easy way out and hop on the 'save the unborn babies' bandwagon.
Meanwhile, you and I and everyone else are really discussing the oncoming loss of ownership of our own corporal entities.
It's an exceptionally simple proposition, really. The coming choice of the age and the final bastion of the fight for freedom is being waged around your body and it's parts... will YOU be allowed to decide when you can end your life? Will YOU be allowed the dignity to pass on on your terms? Will YOU be allowed to decide who, if anyone has rights to your component parts? Will YOU be allowed to decide what goes in or comes out of your body?
Will YOU be allowed to choose?
Gawdammit.. it's my body. Mine. I reserve all rights to it. Any attack on those rights, no matter what moral skirt you hang on it, is an attack against personal freedom. On the most basic level possible.
There's a LOT of money riding on this... think of the 'players'... think of who will be the winners... who will lose. It really is not about 'unborn babies'. It's about who owns you and everything relevant to the palpitating mass of flesh that IS you. Think it through... and shudder.
It's not about 'save the babies' It's about saving your rights to your body and all it contains.
You might be missing an essential piece of the puzzle? You would have no rights, no body, no nothing, if your mother had decided you didn't deserve a shot at life like so many have in recent years.
-
You might be missing an essential piece of the puzzle? You would have no rights, no body, no nothing, if your mother had decided you didn't deserve a shot at life like so many have in recent years.
Was still her choice. And, there were plenty of women that made that choice.. and in 1950, it was illegal. Lots of women were mutilated, lots of carnage, as you would put it, for maximum effect, lots of dead babies.
Rather than spinning the conversation off on the usual '10 points' dodges, try looking at it from a perspective of causality.
What causes abortions? How do we control misuse of Abortions?
Fix that. Don't deny a basic human condition... work with facts, reality, cause; effect.
-
You want me to fix the basic human condition but would no doubt complain vehemently if I dictated terms of morality. There are consquences for imprudent behavior. I wouldn't have it any other way. An unborn human being should not be denied existence for the convenience of the mother or society. Perhaps if we make it less convenient to remove a mistake by killing a person some will act a little more prudently?
-
It's probably the concept of PC conditioning that's lead us here.. the issue has been packaged with such powerful and emotive words... most of the sheeple have no desire to really face the issue, so they take the easy way out and hop on the 'save the unborn babies' bandwagon.
Meanwhile, you and I and everyone else are really discussing the oncoming loss of ownership of our own corporal entities.
It's an exceptionally simple proposition, really. The coming choice of the age and the final bastion of the fight for freedom is being waged around your body and it's parts... will YOU be allowed to decide when you can end your life? Will YOU be allowed the dignity to pass on on your terms? Will YOU be allowed to decide who, if anyone has rights to your component parts? Will YOU be allowed to decide what goes in or comes out of your body?
Will YOU be allowed to choose?
Gawdammit.. it's my body. Mine. I reserve all rights to it. Any attack on those rights, no matter what moral skirt you hang on it, is an attack against personal freedom. On the most basic level possible.
There's a LOT of money riding on this... think of the 'players'... think of who will be the winners... who will lose. It really is not about 'unborn babies'. It's about who owns you and everything relevant to the palpitating mass of flesh that IS you. Think it through... and shudder.
It's not about 'save the babies' It's about saving your rights to your body and all it contains.
If abortion is about "your" body and not the babies, then how about using suicide as a means to prevent an unplanned birth?
-
You want me to fix the basic human condition but would no doubt complain vehemently if I dictated terms of morality. There are consquences for imprudent behavior. I wouldn't have it any other way. An unborn human being should not be denied existence for the convenience of the mother or society. Perhaps if we make it less convenient to remove a mistake by killing a person some will act a little more prudently?
Another dodge.
You obviously are assuming that abortions are all about sluts being slutty and abusing the system. The sluts should be forced to have and raise the kids, because we need more useless people in bigger ghettos.
See how easy it is to pull the emotional trigger?
Again.. fix the cause, provide better options to people facing the choice.
-
If abortion is about "your" body and not the babies, then how about using suicide as a means to prevent an unplanned birth?
Should definitely be high up on the list of options.
-
t's probably the concept of PC conditioning that's lead us here.. the issue has been packaged with such powerful and emotive words... most of the sheeple have no desire to really face the issue, so they take the easy way out and hop on the 'save the unborn babies' bandwagon.
Meanwhile, you and I and everyone else are really discussing the oncoming loss of ownership of our own corporal entities.
It's an exceptionally simple proposition, really. The coming choice of the age and the final bastion of the fight for freedom is being waged around your body and it's parts... will YOU be allowed to decide when you can end your life? Will YOU be allowed the dignity to pass on on your terms? Will YOU be allowed to decide who, if anyone has rights to your component parts? Will YOU be allowed to decide what goes in or comes out of your body?
Will YOU be allowed to choose?
Gawdammit.. it's my body. Mine. I reserve all rights to it. Any attack on those rights, no matter what moral skirt you hang on it, is an attack against personal freedom. On the most basic level possible.
There's a LOT of money riding on this... think of the 'players'... think of who will be the winners... who will lose. It really is not about 'unborn babies'. It's about who owns you and everything relevant to the palpitating mass of flesh that IS you. Think it through... and shudder.
It's not about 'save the babies' It's about saving your rights to your body and all it contains. - Hangtime
Hangtime, bear with me as I try to clarify my own thoughts on this.
you said somewhere that you are against abortion on a personal level. Do you mind explaining why?
Do you believe an "abortion survivor" is a person the moment it is free of the mother?
-
So... vote Democrat and get handed a bunch of stuff you don't deserve? :lol
no , no you got it backwards,
vote democrat, and hand over a bunch of stuff you don't deserve!
-
Another dodge.
You obviously are assuming that abortions are all about sluts being slutty and abusing the system. The sluts should be forced to have and raise the kids, because we need more useless people in bigger ghettos.
See how easy it is to pull the emotional trigger?
Again.. fix the cause, provide better options to people facing the choice.
I'm willing to bet that abortion as a result of rape, incest, or a life threatening situation for the mother represents less than 1 million of those 40 million aborted since roe v wade, probably much less.
What's left? I'll define slutty behavior as sex outside of marriage. How would you define it? I'll also define an unwanted pregnancy within marriage as poor planning. However, none of these justify murdering someone. If a woman won't control her own body there's always adoption.
-
Hangtime, bear with me as I try to clarify my own thoughts on this.
Don't you mean 'bear with me while I sharpen my knife.. the one I'm gonna use to cut yer balls off depending on how you answer the following..."
;)
you said somewhere that you are against abortion on a personal level. Do you mind explaining why?
I have never been comfortable with killing... wanton, senseless death is not something any sane individual can countenance outside of extreme circumstances.... often not even IN extreme circumstances. There are people no longer walking on this planet thanks to my direct actions. Vis-a-vis, I've been able to contribute to the population growth thanks to my preemptive actions previous to that chain of events. Is a soldier a murderer when he kills in the process of preserving his own life? Allow me to sharpen MY knife while you ponder the answer to that question.
Moving on... my daughter was raped when she was 12. Thank god she was not impregnated by that act. Had she been I would have recommended an abortion. My wife was in complete agreement. She's now 25, happily married, and is due to deliver my grandaughter in the next few days. She's definitely pro-choice... how is it a woman, about to deliver, can still defend a pro-choice stand? I'll have to ask her someday.
Do you believe an "abortion survivor" is a person the moment it is free of the mother?
A viable infant, in or out of the mother is a 'person'... that's my opinion; don't know if it's defenseable.
-
However, none of these justify murdering someone. If a woman won't control her own body there's always adoption.
That's an option that needs massive redesign... and it should get fair play. Society should be expending more effort in this area... a LOT more. Remove the social and societal roadblocks for unwed mothers to pursue this, you'll likely make the biggest impact on the murder rate of unborn viable infants.
-
That's an option that needs massive redesign... and it should get fair play. Society should be expending more effort in this area... a LOT more. Remove the social and societal roadblocks for unwed mothers to pursue this, you'll likely make the biggest impact on the murder rate of unborn viable infants.
I may be wrong but I don't believe any unwilling mother in the US would have the least bit of trouble giving up her child for adoption.
-
Don't you mean 'bear with me while I sharpen my knife.. the one I'm gonna use to cut yer balls off depending on how you answer the following..."
naah. I'm just looking for the smallest common denominator in my own views on this. but I ain't saying I wouldn't point out an inconsistancy on your part :)
I have never been comfortable with killing... wanton, senseless death is not something any sane individual can countenance outside of extreme circumstances.... often not even IN extreme circumstances. There are people no longer walking on this planet thanks to my direct actions. Vis-a-vis, I've been able to contribute to the population growth thanks to my preemptive actions previous to that chain of events. Is a soldier a murderer when he kills in the process of preserving his own life? Allow me to sharpen MY knife while you ponder the answer to that question.
You are referring to the killing human being(s) that are indisputeably conferred human rights. I wanted you to talk about the killing of human fetuses, and why you are against it on a personal level. I think you said that somewhere in this thread, or another (correct me if I'm wrong about that)
Is a soldier a murderer when he kills in the process of preserving his own life?
I don't believe ANYONE is guilty of murder if killing a person is necessary in self defense of their own life. Homocide, yes. murder, with malice aforethought - no.
A viable infant, in or out of the mother is a 'person'... that's my opinion; don't know if it's defenseable.
well, lets see if its defensible. I have these questions...
1. what do you mean by viable?
2. if a fetus becomes a person when it is born, it seems that "viability" would be moot. the new person is entitled, and the doctor would be obligated, to give all emergency care to save the human life, wouldn't he? (If you are taken to the emergency room with trouble breathing, the doctors wouldn't make you pass a viability test... as a person you would be entitled to emergency care even if doctors think you might not make it.)
-
While in itself not a total end to the moral argument...There is another take on it. Countries' like China and India, even despite having restrictive laws actually governing their population (China does, at least, have both enforced sterilization and mandatory abortion. India, ASFAIK, doesn't have such draconian measures in place) Are still growing at a rapid rate. India's population, which was just 350 million in 1947, at the time of their separation from the British empire, grew to an astounding 1.2 billion by 2001. And, both of these countries, per capita, are basically poverty-level, partly due to an over-abundance of workers, coupled with a lower standard of education (due to simply having too many people to teach.)
Now, I bring up this issue during your morality arguments' simply because it wouldn't really be unthinkable for the U.S. to find itself in the same boat in 50 years-maybe less, with immigration factored in. Especially if a lot of that immigration comes' from cultures' that emphasize large/unrestricted families. Roe vs. Wade might just be the tip of the iceberg for us.
http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/birth_plan.htm (http://economics.about.com/cs/moffattentries/a/birth_plan.htm)
http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/indiapopulation.htm (http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/indiapopulation.htm)
-
well, lets see if its defensible. I have these questions...
1. what do you mean by viable?
2. if a fetus becomes a person when it is born, it seems that "viability" would be moot. the new person is entitled, and the doctor would be obligated, to give all emergency care to save the human life, wouldn't he? (If you are taken to the emergency room with trouble breathing, the doctors wouldn't make you pass a viability test... as a person you would be entitled to emergency care even if doctors think you might not make it.)
1. I dunno... it's a hugely important question, but the experts seem to disagree. To me, a simple sod, and a man to boot, I'd have to defer in respect to the answer provided by my wife... '20 weeks'. She's unable (or unwilling) to discuss it further. As I recall, most hospitals indicate that at less than 22 weeks gestation and the fetus will likely not survive outside the womb regardless of the effort expended by the hospital.
2. Your describing the chinese method of abortion, or ??
-
1. I dunno... it's a hugely important question, but the experts seem to disagree. To me, a simple sod, and a man to boot, I'd have to defer in respect to the answer provided by my wife... '20 weeks'. She's unable (or unwilling) to discuss it further. As I recall, most hospitals indicate that at less than 22 weeks gestation and the fetus will likely not survive outside the womb regardless of the effort expended by the hospital.
2. Your describing the chinese method of abortion, or ??
#1 Interesting answer... I respect that opinion. I don't know whether I agree or not... still thinking about it. I'm not sure that I think that "viability" is a valid test whether a human being in development should be killed or not. It doesn't quite pass the smell test - considering we often see what we want to see particularly when there is a big payoff in convenience for the mother who aborts... (i'm referring to casual abortions) "viability" sounds like a rationale to me.
Re: #2, its the subject of some current proposed legislation... the issue came about I think when a woman went in for an abortion. The procedure was done half-***ed and the baby was pulled out alive. I don't know if the doctors fought to save the struggling baby once it was out of the womb, or if they killed the live baby after it was out. Either way, I think they were sued, prompting legislative attempts to address the issue of whether an abortion survivor out of the womb becomes a person with human rights... (incidently, Obama has twice voted against allowing doctors to save the infant - requiring them to kill it - in these cases. (his justification is that allowing the baby to live would violate the spirit of roe vs wade, and belabor what had been a lawful medical procedure)
I know how I feel about this spiritually, but I am just trying to arrive at a logical and consistant view under US law.
We learn the obvious differences between living things and inanimate objects very early. We know that when a human sperm successfully penetrates a human egg, we know that it is the begining of something, and we know that it isn't a 1967 Pontiac.
So, why are you against casual abortion?
-
So, why are you against casual abortion?
It's a symptom of a sick, morally bankrupt society.... cure the cause, you solve the problem. Some of the proposals I trotted by my wife evoked interesting reactions; to say the least.
Example... Young teen has had 2 abortions, is requesting a third. Wifes solution: Abort. Then sterilize her. She had her chance; she blew it.
Wow... I mean... wow.
Perhaps we've been asking the wrong people, enh?
-
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzone/410/grammar/colons1.htm
-
Ya know... the birth control pill does a couple of things. It prevents ovulation, but it also makes the uterus incapable of supporting a zygote. It is entirely possible that a woman can ovulate while taking the pill, but she'll likely just expel the fertilized egg.
If you want to make the case that life begins at fertilization, it's something to keep in mind.
-
Ya know... the birth control pill does a couple of things. It prevents ovulation, but it also makes the uterus incapable of supporting a zygote. It is entirely possible that a woman can ovulate while taking the pill, but she'll likely just expel the fertilized egg.
If you want to make the case that life begins at fertilization, it's something to keep in mind.
Interesting point...Morning after pill...same type of thing....
Thing is....I have never known a woman who knew when her egg was fertilized. So...Birth Control pill..morning after pill...no one ever knows do they?
-
Example... Young teen has had 2 abortions, is requesting a third. Wifes solution: Abort. Then sterilize her. She had her chance; she blew it.
Wow... I mean... wow.
Perhaps we've been asking the wrong people, enh?
lol... strike 3 and yer outta there... I can appreciate the sentiment...
-
Ya know... the birth control pill does a couple of things. It prevents ovulation, but it also makes the uterus incapable of supporting a zygote. It is entirely possible that a woman can ovulate while taking the pill, but she'll likely just expel the fertilized egg.
If you want to make the case that life begins at fertilization, it's something to keep in mind. - Sandman
I understand this is a rare occurance, Sandman. It sounds to me like an unintentional accident, ie, the goal is to stop fertilization of the egg from happening at all... but something - stress or some other influence - causes ovulation and the egg might be fertilized and subsequently expelled. But like Redhat said, a woman who is not specifically watching for this would most likelly not even notice it.
To me, these circumstances - the fertilization and death of the egg - would amount to an unintended and rare accident, whether or not you believe that human life begins at conception.
-
Just to get back on subject (I feel too strongly about abortion to reply with out a whole bunch of curse words).
I have lived, for the last 16 years, in a Democratic experimentation. I am referring to the Army. We have socialized medicine. We have all the government programs the Democrats want to force on the rest of the country (they have to test them on us first). I have seen what the Democrats want for America and I am bloody well against that! A goodly percentage (though not as much as it used to be, I will admit) of my peers/subordinates/leaders are ardent Republicans. The idea that the government can better solve anything is laughable. Try to do anything around here and if you do not have the right form signed by the right person, come back tomorrow but only from 0900 - 1000 because the rest of the day we are "processing paperwork/eating lunch/gossiping/smoking/o.f.o. The good news is that in four years I can retire and be a civilian again. Happy days then....
WMTom
-
I'm voting Republican because... wait, I'm 15, I cant.
DAMMIT! :noid :noid :noid