My basic problem with YOU.

[granfire]

strong hate!!!

^_^

<3

 

[Ken Morgan]

I would more than happily share a table in a real-world pub with them too; for if you can argue vehemently and still respect a person then that is the grounds for true understanding of each other :bows:.

You're buying......right?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Some of my best friends atuniversity are pro lifers and conservatives. I still have some of them on Facebook.

I love it when people of very different beliefs and backgrounds can be friends, get along, and be classy without bullying or anything. Its cute and sweet.

And despite my persistent urging, you didn’t vote Conservative last week.....you were incorrect not to you know?

 

[Blade96]

LOL I doubt either of us would come close to falling under the category of cute

i'm cute.

And despite my persistent urging, you didn&#8217;t vote Conservative last week.....you were incorrect not to you know?

*starts laughing*

does totally fake cheerleading moves and waves ORANGE pom poms in Ken Morgan's face

 

[yorkshirelad]

[/quote]Riiiiigggght. And "killing babies" is the evocative and emotional language that anti-choice types tend to bander about. Please, let's get one thing straight here... a fetus is not a baby. They're two different entities. A baby is capable of breathing on it's own and surviving outside the womb, a fetus is absolutely dependent upon the mother for life..[/quote]


This is semantics! The baby, fetus or whatever you choose to call it is a human being. Our President was asked in the Saddlebak debate before the election when he thought life begins. His answer "That's beyond my pay grade". It is a living, breathing Human! And yes, this is an emotional topic. It's an emotonal topic because the topic involves killing the innocent for convenience.


[/quote]At best, a fetus has the potential to become a baby; at worst, it could technically be considered a parasite on the mother (I don't consider it such, but simply state another side of the argument). Miscarriages of non-viable fetuses occur quite regularly; often the fetus is no bigger than a few divided cells at the time. No one that I'm aware of considers this the death of a baby but if it occurs considerably later (especially when it has begun to develop more of the characteristics of an infant, and when the parents have invested significantly emotionally in this potential change in their lives), a miscarriage is often mourned in similar fashion to the death of a baby..[/quote]


Exactly, my wife has an aunt who has misscarried all three of her children, all within two months of being pregnant. She mourned them as she would've mourned any child. Misscarriages occur all the time, as does the accidental death of children. Just because babies die of SIDS, doesn't mean we are justified in killing them out of convenience!


[/quote]When the fetus has a solid chance to survive on it's own outside the womb (with modern infant ICU for instance), it is a much grayer area, and for that reason (and the fact that it's much more dangerous for the woman as well) I'm personally against late-stage abortions except in extreme circumstances (eg severe risk of death to the mother, etc.).[/quote]


This is nice to know!


[/quote]Doctors do not abort babies. They abort unwanted fetuses; whether the pregnancy occurred through rape or as a mistake is not my business. If a woman decides that having a child will ruin her life (or ruin her life now), then I believe that she's the only person who has the right to decide that, and to choose not to have a baby instead..[/quote]


Tiller aborted babies! He was a doctor! Just because you believe something is right, doesn't make it so!


[/quote]I agree with granfire strongly on this one; as someone who possesses a penis, I have a right to my opinion on this subject, but can be confidently certain that it will never directly be a question I have to face in my life. As such, I concede that I have no right to set policy for millions of women who might have to face such a decision.[/quote]


I have no intention on setting policy concerning this. I have no political ambitions, thank God! My opinion is however valid and I thank you for recognizing that fact. Just to confirm, you beleieve that both you and I have no right to set policy concerning this. If that's the case, if Michelle Bachman proposed a bill to overturn Rowe vs Wade, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Ok, so I unintentionally got into an argument with a friend of a friend the other day, the basic premise was that she stated something as fact that was, in a nutshel her opinion or beliefs.

I responded by saying, "That's all well and good, but remember that is only your opinion, not everyone is going to agree with you and just because YOU believe it to be so does not make it right."

That started the mess... I was patronizing her, she KNOWS its only her opinion, but damn it thats the way it SHOULD BE.

That got me thinking.

We all agree or disagree on many similar topics, whether it be Abortion, Tax Funding for private corporations, etc... many of us may acknowlage that it's only our opinion of what is right or wrong, some of us may not.

Here is where I draw the line in the sand.

If your "opinion" of what is right impacts me: I.E. forces me to do something against my will, I have a problem with you.

I.E. If you Stop me from Having an Abortion (aside from the obvious medical end of it since I am a guy, but you smartasses know what I mean) because it offends your sensabilities, I have a problem with you. Nothing is stopping you from not having one, don't project yiour value system on me and tell me I can't.

If you force me to pay to feed the less than willing to work, or put clothing on their backs, because it tugs your heartstrings for our fellow man, I have a problem with you. Nothing is stopping you from giving your time or money, don't project your value system on me and tell me I MUST.

The list could go on, But I think I have illustrated my opinion on this matter.

That's my rant for this morning, you may now go back to arguing why Obama is the devil and how we need to steal from the rich to pay for the poor.

In my opinion your opinion is that my opinion is waaaaaay right and your opinion is so far wrong it should not, in my opinion, even be discussed as a valid opinion at all…of course this is just my opinion

 

[yorkshirelad]

In my opinion your opinion is that my opinion is waaaaaay right and your opinion is so far wrong it should not, in my opinion, even be discussed as a valid opinion at all&#8230;of course this is just my opinion

Roger that! I'll consider that the case for me also.

 

[granfire]

In my opinion your opinion is that my opinion is waaaaaay right and your opinion is so far wrong it should not, in my opinion, even be discussed as a valid opinion at all…of course this is just my opinion

cute! ^_^

 

[Nomad]

This is semantics! The baby, fetus or whatever you choose to call it is a human being. Our President was asked in the Saddlebak debate before the election when he thought life begins. His answer "That's beyond my pay grade". It is a living, breathing Human! And yes, this is an emotional topic. It's an emotonal topic because the topic involves killing the innocent for convenience.

This is not semantics. Word choice, particularly in this debate, is itself emotionally and politically charged. Obama's comment that "that's beyond my pay grade" was a very clever way of sidestepping the debate and avoid giving us his opinion on this, because he recognized that his opinion (no matter which direction it fell) would be harshly criticized.

You missed my point. No, it's not a living, breathing human. If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the fetus dies. Period. There is currently no medical technology to sustain and grow such an early stage embryo into a normal, viable human being.

Your comment of "killing the innocent for convenience" is just another emotionally and politically charged phrase designed to sway people to your cause... it has nothing to do with the abortion procedure itself.

Exactly, my wife has an aunt who has misscarried all three of her children, all within two months of being pregnant. She mourned them as she would've mourned any child. Misscarriages occur all the time, as does the accidental death of children. Just because babies die of SIDS, doesn't mean we are justified in killing them out of convenience!

Actually, many miscarriages are not even noticed. They occur while the embryo is in such a tiny state that the woman may never even know she was pregnant. Often the only indicator would be a later than normal or heavier than usual period. Your wife's aunt and others I have known who had later miscarriages mourned the loss because they wanted to have a child and had emotionally invested in the possibility of being a parent, not necessarily because of the inherent value of the fetus. I'd contest that this emotional attachment would necessarily be absent in someone wanting an abortion. Again, comparing this procedure to someone killing a baby is not valid, and is an emotional and politically charged plea for your cause.

Tiller aborted babies! He was a doctor! Just because you believe something is right, doesn't make it so!

Nope. Simply stating it again in an emotionally charged way and adding exclamation points doesn't make your argument more cogent. Doctors abort fetuses. Not babies.

I have no intention on setting policy concerning this. I have no political ambitions, thank God! My opinion is however valid and I thank you for recognizing that fact. Just to confirm, you beleieve that both you and I have no right to set policy concerning this. If that's the case, if Michelle Bachman proposed a bill to overturn Rowe vs Wade, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided that only those with a vested interest, such as women of child-bearing age, get to vote on it.

 

[yorkshirelad]

You missed my point. No, it's not a living, breathing human. If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the fetus dies. Period. There is currently no medical technology to sustain and grow such an early stage embryo into a normal, viable human being. .

This does not make sense. How can something die, if it is not living? It is a human being that is being killed.

Your comment of "killing the innocent for convenience" is just another emotionally and politically charged phrase designed to sway people to your cause... it has nothing to do with the abortion procedure itself..

No, it's not, your viewing it that way because you don't want people to view it that way. Just because you don't view things a certain way, doesn't make the statement viod!

Nope. Simply stating it again in an emotionally charged way and adding exclamation points doesn't make your argument more cogent. Doctors abort fetuses. Not babies..

So when a "fetus" can survive outside the womb, it becomes a baby in your view? If that's the case, Tiller was killing viable babies. Btw, didn't Scott Peterson get convicted of two counts of homicide, one for his wife and one for his UNBORN CHILD?

 

[Nomad]

This does not make sense. How can something die, if it is not living? It is a human being that is being killed.

My mistake. Language is a little tricky. I'd revise that statement to read "If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the fetus cannot live".

No, it's not, your viewing it that way because you don't want people to view it that way. Just because you don't view things a certain way, doesn't make the statement viod!

This is exactly what I'm saying to you. Just because you view it as "killing the innocent for convenience" doesn't make it so.

So when a "fetus" can survive outside the womb, it becomes a baby in your view? If that's the case, Tiller was killing viable babies. Btw, didn't Scott Peterson get convicted of two counts of homicide, one for his wife and one for his UNBORN CHILD?

Okay, so had to do a little research to find out who Tiller was. I assume you mean George Tiller, the murdered abortion doctor who was the frequent target of violent pro-lifers (a beautiful oxymoron by the way).
So he "killed babies" as you put it, by:

In accordance with Kansas state law Tiller performed late-term abortions, which helped to make him a focal point for anti-abortion protest and violence. Tiller treated patients who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects. He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses, in cases where two doctors certified that carrying the fetus to term would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."[20]

So he performed a medical procedure in accordance with the law of the land, and was murdered for it. Wow. What a demon.

The fact that Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder shows the ambiguity of the issue of when life begins in the eyes of the law, and hardly serves to "prove" your contention that a fetus is identical to an actual living, breathing human baby. Also, Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she was murdered. The baby could easily have survived on it's own outside the womb if it were born prematurely at that stage, and I suspect that played into the verdict. It would have been much more interesting to see if two murder charges would have actually stuck if she'd been killed when the embryo was 1 month along.

 

[Blade96]

My best friend had an abortion. I (and her and her husband as well) would take offence to her being compared to, say, Waneta Hoyt, who killed actual, born, breathing, babies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waneta_Hoyt

 

[yorkshirelad]

My mistake. Language is a little tricky. I'd revise that statement to read "If a fetus is removed from the mother during the time period that lawful abortion is an option, the fetus cannot live"..

So the fact that the fetus cannot live without it's mother makes it morally ok to kill it in your view? In your opinion yes, In mine no.

Okay, so had to do a little research to find out who Tiller was. I assume you mean George Tiller, the murdered abortion doctor who was the frequent target of violent pro-lifers (a beautiful oxymoron by the way).
So he "killed babies" as you put it, by:

So he performed a medical procedure in accordance with the law of the land, and was murdered for it. Wow. What a demon..

Do a little more digging on Tiller. He became a millionaire killing viable babies. Some of the reasons for the death of these viable babies were as shallow as the mother was depressed that she couldn't enjoy herself with her friends. Nice guy! And no, I didn't and don't advocate the manner of his demise. The guy who killed him was a nut, but in the same instance, I wouldn't mourn the loss.

The fact that Scott Peterson was charged with two counts of murder shows the ambiguity of the issue of when life begins in the eyes of the law, and hardly serves to "prove" your contention that a fetus is identical to an actual living, breathing human baby. Also, Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she was murdered. The baby could easily have survived on it's own outside the womb if it were born prematurely at that stage, and I suspect that played into the verdict. It would have been much more interesting to see if two murder charges would have actually stuck if she'd been killed when the embryo was 1 month along.

So, the baby could've survive on it's own, but still you have a contension as to if the child was an "actual living breathing human baby". The irony may escape you, but it doesn't escape me!

 

[WC_lun]

Your information on Tiller is incorrect. There is a lot of bad stuff out there on him that just isn't true. I did not know him personally, ut someone I trust did. I'll take her word and the word of papers here in KAnsas City and in Witchita over some of the other news sources I've seen.

 

[Tez3]

Who knew this would turn into an abortion thread. There you go, the OP's point both missed and proved.

 

[bushidomartialarts]

Seems to illustrate one of his points very well. I'd be interested in exploring Cryo's other point about being forced to support things you disagree with.

For me, it rankles...but seems like it's part of the price of admission for living in a democracy.

 

[Tez3]

I think ever since man decided living in a community was to his benefit that compromises have had to be made. Co-operative living will mean it's safer, more economic and a better way of living but it's always going to have drawbacks for individual's 'freedoms' because a community is always going to have to decide on certain rules they abide by to allow a reasonably harmonious society. Unless you chose to live totally outside any society you are going to have to accept those rules. It obviously becomes harder and harder to have a harmonious society the bigger it becomes, what worked centuries ago in small villages where it was easier to have the agreement of everyone to what rules are followed is not going to work in modern cities. So I agree, a discussion on how to live in modern society and still be able to keep what 'freedoms' you consider necessary would be a good one.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Who knew this would turn into an abortion thread. There you go, the OP's point both missed and proved.

Of course this is only my opinion but I do believe that you are only stating your opinion

 

[Tez3]

Of course this is only my opinion but I do believe that you are only stating your opinion

Should I find some media type person writing on a political website to 'back up' my opinion to make it seem as if it is in fact, a fact?

 

[Steve]

Should I find some media type person writing on a political website to 'back up' my opinion to make it seem as if it is in fact, a fact?

It's not what you're saying. It's what you're failing to say. Why, for example, haven't you denounced the strange way that Americans leave the tea bag in the cup when they drink hot tea? That's suspicious, and even though you haven't expressed an opinion on the subject, I'm going to imply that you've done so intentionally because you secretly leave the teabag in the cup when you drink tea, too! (bear with me, I'm building to a point)

And because you secretly drink tea with the tea bag floating around in the cup AND you train in MMA, which we've previously established is solely an American invention, I conclude that you're not a British woman. Rather, you are... an AMERICAN. You might live in Britain, but you're secretly an American loving American. Admit it.