Romney Picks Paul Ryan...

[ballen0351]

So in your opinion Steve when is a baby a baby?
Are fetuses alive?

And why should killing the unborn be acceptable in a civilized society?

 

[Steve]

So in your opinion Steve when is a baby a baby?
Are fetuses alive?

And why should killing the unborn be acceptable in a civilized society?

Personally, my opinion is that a fetus is a baby and should be protected when it's viable outside the womb. I think that any late term abortion should be illegal save for situations where there is a legitimate, urgent, unavoidable medical need. That's my opinion.

Regarding the why, I'll just say a couple of things. First, I don't believe that we should ever kill an unborn baby; however, you and I don't agree on what that word means.

Second, I personally don't like the idea of abortions at all and if anyone within my sphere of influence were to consider one, I'd do my best to help them and deter them from it. But, I'm able to distinguish between my personal opinion and what I see as being outside of my sphere.

And finally, I'll remind you of your position on legalization of weed. Remember that conversation, and your position? You stood firmly behind the position that alcohol is legal and weed is not, and for you that was all you needed. In this situation, abortion is legal, but you don't like the law, and suddenly you're entirely gung ho about changing the laws to suit your own personal beliefs. It's ironic that you bring up the concentration camps during WWII because I tried to reason with you using this very same example when discussing lifting the prohibition on weed and you dug in your heels. Should I dig up some of your quotes? Have you so quickly forgotten?

As I said before, as someone who has in the past been staunchly in support of the, "It's the law, so deal with it," camp who has in the past also railed against the Federal government usurping powers outside of its constitutional purview, you're coming down on the wrong side of this issue. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't made any sort of ruling concerning weed. They have most certainly done so on the subject of abortion... and, as an aside, on internment camps.

I understand that this is emotional. It's emotional for everyone, and truthfully, even posting in this thread was a huge mistake for me. It goes against my cardinal rule: No posting or reading in the Study during an election year... at all.

 

[billc]

5 people out of 300 million get to decide what is constitutional and are assumed that that is what is right. That is why the constitution needs to be changed to allow a super majority of both houses to overrule the supreme court, and the president should not be allowed in on that decision since he is allowed to appoint the supreme court.

 

[Steve]

5 people out of 300 million get to decide what is constitutional and are assumed that that is what is right. That is why the constitution needs to be changed to allow a super majority of both houses to overrule the supreme court, and the president should not be allowed in on that decision since he is allowed to appoint the supreme court.

I disagree. I think that the founding fathers did just fine and the checks and balances work pretty well. Allowing congress to overrule both the President's veto AND the supreme court's constitutional rulings would be a terrible idea.

 

[ballen0351]

And finally, I'll remind you of your position on legalization of weed. Remember that conversation, and your position? You stood firmly behind the position that alcohol is legal and weed is not, and for you that was all you needed.

And if you remember I said several times I would not care if they banned alcohol tomorrow. I would equally not loose my mind if they made weed legal tomorrow. Im against it because I know the trouble it causes and I know how much MORE work it would cause me in my already hard job, but if it were legal then it is what it is.

In this situation, abortion is legal, but you don't like the law, and suddenly you're entirely gung ho about changing the laws to suit your own personal beliefs.

Well yes thats the point of a representitive form of Govt you look for people that believe the same as you do and want to change the laws to what you believe. Thats knida the point right? I also respect the law Ive personally removed protesters from an abortion clinic a few blocks from our Poilice station. Ive personally searched the building when the Docs were afraid someone broke in and were waiting to get him. Ive walked staff to there cars when they were afraid. Ive locked up fathers who were there to try to stop there girlfriends from getting an abortion and killing his baby. So I do disagree with the law and do want it changed but I also respect the law

It's ironic that you bring up the concentration camps during WWII because I tried to reason with you using this very same example when discussing lifting the prohibition on weed and you dug in your heels. Should I dig up some of your quotes? Have you so quickly forgotten?

Right so the argument is correct when you use it for weed but wrong when I use it for life?

As I said before, as someone who has in the past been staunchly in support of the, "It's the law, so deal with it," camp who has in the past also railed against the Federal government usurping powers outside of its constitutional purview, you're coming down on the wrong side of this issue.

I understand I am on the opposite side of the courts on this matter. Im also on the opposite side of several other laws I disagree with. Some you mentioned before including seat belts, and helments for example.

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court hasn't made any sort of ruling concerning weed. They have most certainly done so on the subject of abortion... and, as an aside, on internment camps.

I understand that Im only saying the courts have been wrong in the past and in this case I believe they are still wrong.
I also dont think comparing weed to a babies life is really on the same lvl.

I understand that this is emotional. It's emotional for everyone, and truthfully, even posting in this thread was a huge mistake for me. It goes against my cardinal rule: No posting or reading in the Study during an election year... at all.

I like your posts they are usually well thought out I may not agree with them but I respect them.

 

[shesulsa]

I lived my life FAR from a monk when I was in the military and when I first became a police officer. For some reason woman seem to really like young guys in unforms. Even then I was able not get anyone pregnant. Its really not that hard.

I'm so glad for you that you had no birth control failures. That doesn't mean others are so fortunate.

#1 Yes I have been a mentor for over 10 years thru a program that pairs Police officers with troubled youth. Oh and my wife is a volunteer here http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5301295/k.BE9A/Home.htm

That's great. Many people I know who support forced birth don't do a damn thing.

#2 Does my sisters kid count we have had her for a little over a year

Nope.

#3 my wife wants to we hhave discussed it. We may at some point once are youngest gets into school

I can respect people who walk the walk.

#4 again does my sisters kid count

Nope.

#5 Yes I have Ive also visited childrens prisions as well

Juvenile Hall and Youth Authority don't count - my ex was a juvenile night probation counselor at Orange County Juvenile Justice Center. Some of those kids are happy to have three hots and a cot.

How about you?

1. I participate in fundraisers for displaced women and their children, donate to shelters all the time and, as I said earlier, give martial arts lessons to foster children for free. 2. My living situation is not the best to foster a youth in need, unfortunately. I'd LOVE to but the rest of my family is SO not on the same page. So I mentor through my martial arts program for now.

Sure have meet them all the time and you know what there is always a way. But if you were in such a bad place why are you having sex to begin with?
Oh I forgot I cant expect people to be RESPONSIBLE were not that far along in our human development

Sex is an innate drive. We've been having it since we developed on the planet. You simply cannot force human beings to behave exactly the way you want them to. But this is not just about pregnancies from consensual sex and you know it.

Never have never will. My sisters used enough for my whole family

Then you wouldn't know.

Thats about right. not only do they pay my sisters medical care, they pay for her kids day care, they pay her morgage, even gave her a $30k grant to furnish her house

I really hate to hear about people who exploit loopholes in the system and mainly because of all the people getting denied. Veterans are others that are losing out on what they should unequivocally have because some have managed to manipulate the system. If this were my sister, I'd likely be very angry.

If you claim your poor enough you will seen it. My sister brags about cutting her hours and taking a low pay check in and getting her portion of her morgage payment reduced

So report her for fraud. You know, since you seem to believe so strongly in morals..

Then you need to move. I get woman in to shelters all the time here no waiting.

Are you really suggesting that every woman with no resources just needs to ... move?? What? pack up the backpack and hitchhike to where? Do tell us where you live; I know at least three women right now who can't get services. I'll tell them to pack up their kids, crap and just ... move. Because moving is free. Seriously - I think it's GREAT that you have beds available in shelters where you live. I would ask you to please realize and remember that there are many, many, many places in these United States where the waiting list is LONG.

And
When my youngest was digansed with aspergers syndrome we had to fight to keep my son out of the system, The state tried for months to get us to put him in a program. I had to send multiple letter requesting they stop calling me and coming to my house.

The dichotomy of how our government agencies work is just amazing. What kind of program? Are you talking about special education? Because I'm talking about SSI and medical so he could get treatment. We had to wait until he was 19 and attempted suicide, go to the hospital and say, 'he officially no longer lives with us and he is not employed" before he could get on SSI and get medical. Boy did they hurry then.

Thats what a small % of these woman face most are just, wait what did Obama say about his daughter "dont want to be burdend with a baby"

For some women it's that simple. For others it's not.

This is forced reproduction - forced birth.

I have to wonder how many pro-lifers hunt or fish. Or if they cry out when, in the animal kingdom, the babies born to animals and mammals who cannot stand or eat are killed by their mothers or the alpha male or by their siblings. Life is sacred, after all.

And if you're wanting to stop the "unnecessary killing of babies" then SUPPORT FREE BIRTH CONTROL!!! Make it so that fewer unwanted pregnancies happen! But conservatives DON'T. WANT. THAT. EITHER. And this belies the totalitarian ulterior motives behind the GOP and how they have used religion to brainwash the masses.

Where will you stop? Are you next going to want women who miscarry to have investigative physicals? You know, to find out WHY they miscarried? So that if they ingested something toxic that could cause a miscarriage you could charge them with murder? Why don't we get to charge men with murder every time they tug one off?

COME TO YOUR SENSES.

People will never stop ****ing. Women will never stop getting pregnant. And there will never be only women who want the babies they get with or without their consent. And as long as this happens, women will never stop aborting their pregnancies, even to the cost of their own lives.

And that - for the ignorant - is what makes this about women. Because a potential baby is more important that an established life upon whom many others already depend. Or so some would think.

 

[elder999]

5 people out of 300 million get to decide what is constitutional and are assumed that that is what is right. That is why the constitution needs to be changed to allow a super majority of both houses to overrule the supreme court, and the president should not be allowed in on that decision since he is allowed to appoint the supreme court.

 

[cdunn]

5 people out of 300 million get to decide what is constitutional and are assumed that that is what is right. That is why the constitution needs to be changed to allow a super majority of both houses to overrule the supreme court, and the president should not be allowed in on that decision since he is allowed to appoint the supreme court.

:rtfm:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.

:rtfm:

 

[elder999]

thats right you cant ask the baby so Id rather error on the side of caution and not kill them

There's no viability outside the womb before 20 weeks.

THere's no spine before 11 weeks, so they're not capable of living.

There's no brainwave activity before 6 weeks, so they're not even "alive" by all legal definitions.

There's no heartbeat before 5 weeks........


In short, it's not a "baby"-you couldn't even ask a 1 week old baby, anyway. The question is existentially absurd, and only part of the argument from a moral, emotional point of view-and that's okay-if it's morally repugnant and ciriminal to you, as it is to me, then you should do as I've chosen to do.

And never, ever, ever have an abortion.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.equip.org/articles/viabi...on-once-it-can-live-outside-the-mothers-womb/

Bioethicist Andrew Varga points out a number of problems with the viability criterion. First, “how does viability transform the nature of the fetus so that the non-human being then turns into a human being?” That is to say, viability is a measure of the sophistication of our neonatal life-support systems. Humanity remains the same, but viability changes. Viability measures medical technology, not one’s humanity. Second, “is viability not just an extrinsic criterion imposed upon the fetus by some members of society who simply declare that the fetus will be accepted at that moment as a human being?” 9 In other words, the viability criterion seems to be arbitrary and not applicable to the question of whether the unborn is fully human, since it relates more to the location and dependency of the unborn than to any essential change in her state of being. This criterion only tells us when certain members of our society want to accept the humanity of the unborn. And third, “the time of viability cannot be determined precisely, and this fact would create great practical problems for those who hold this opinion.” 10 For example, in 1973, when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, viability was at about twenty-four weeks. But now babies have survived 20 weeks after conception. This, of course, puts the pro-abortionist in a morally difficult situation. For some health care facilities are killing viable babies by abortion in one room while in another room heroically trying to save premature infants (preemies). It seems only logical that if the 21-week-old preemie is fully human, then so is the 28-week-old unborn who can be legally killed by abortion. This is why philosopher Jane English, who is a moderate on the abortion issue (i.e., her position does not fit well into either the pro-life or pro-choice camp, although she seems closer to the latter), has asserted that “the similarity of a fetus to a baby is very significant. A fetus one week before birth is so much like a newborn baby in our psychological space that we cannot allow any cavalier treatment of the former while expecting full sympathy and nurturative support for the latter…An early horror story from New York about nursers who were expected to alternate between caring for six-month premature infants and disposing of viable 24-week aborted fetuses is just that — a horror story.” English writes that “these beings are so much alike that no one can be asked to draw a distinction and treat them so.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

Personally, my opinion is that a fetus is a baby and should be protected when it's viable outside the womb. I think that any late term abortion should be illegal save for situations where there is a legitimate, urgent, unavoidable medical need. That's my opinion.

Regarding the why, I'll just say a couple of things. First, I don't believe that we should ever kill an unborn baby; however, you and I don't agree on what that word means.

“how does viability transform the nature of the fetus so that the non-human being then turns into a human being?” That is to say, viability is a measure of the sophistication of our neonatal life-support systems. Humanity remains the same, but viability changes. Viability measures medical technology, not one’s humanity. Second, “is viability not just an extrinsic criterion imposed upon the fetus by some members of society who simply declare that the fetus will be accepted at that moment as a human being?” 9 In other words, the viability criterion seems to be arbitrary and not applicable to the question of whether the unborn is fully human, since it relates more to the location and dependency of the unborn than to any essential change in her state of being. This criterion only tells us when certain members of our society want to accept the humanity of the unborn."

 

[elder999]

“how does viability transform the nature of the fetus so that the non-human being then turns into a human being?” That is to say, viability is a measure of the sophistication of our neonatal life-support systems. Humanity remains the same, but viability changes. Viability measures medical technology, not one’s humanity. Second, “is viability not just an extrinsic criterion imposed upon the fetus by some members of society who simply declare that the fetus will be accepted at that moment as a human being?” 9 In other words, the viability criterion seems to be arbitrary and not applicable to the question of whether the unborn is fully human, since it relates more to the location and dependency of the unborn than to any essential change in her state of being. This criterion only tells us when certain members of our society want to accept the humanity of the unborn."

Again, essentially an emotional response. As I said upthread, the legal line, and limit of viability are purely arbitrary, especially in an era when it's rapidly becoming possible that a full-term fetus can be developed ex-utero.

In any case, however, one cannot speakof a fetus at 20 weeks or 19, or 1 as a "baby." This is true limit of viability I was speaking of-it's not a baby, and-for now-if it's removed from the uterus it cannot become a "baby." The earliest pre-term babies to survive have all been over 21 weeks-the lower limit of viability is, as I said, lung development. Without 'em, or, at least, (ahem!) part of 'em, there is no "baby."

 

[Big Don]

True or false, the end result of a successful pregnancy is the birth of a child?

Yeah, if it isn't a baby, you aren't pregnant.

 

[elder999]

True or false, the end result of a successful pregnancy is the birth of a child?

Yeah, if it isn't a baby, you aren't pregnant.

Kinda like, "if it isn't a butterfly, it's not a chrysalis"???? :lfao:

I mean, is it an inchworm, a chrysalis, or a butterfly?

If you crush a caterpillar, have you killed a butterfly?

That chrysalis-is that a buttefly?

What about those egg-sacs I took off my apple trees? Are those "moths?"

The answer to all of these, of course, is no.

Again, if it's a fetus, it's not a "baby." It's not a "baby" until it breathes air. If you kill it, and it couldn't breathe air, it wasn't a "baby."

Doesn't mean you didn't kill it.

 

[Tgace]

Its an innocent human life.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[elder999]

Its an innocent human life.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

It's certainly "life," because you can kill it. It has all the properties of life: metabolism, growth, etc.

However, it's debatable whether or not it can be called "human life" at 20 weeks.

Humans breathe air, not amniotic fluid.

At 20 weeks, it is, at best-for now- a life form capable of achieving humanity. A potential human life, no different than the egg or the sperm it arose from, just a little further down the path.

"Innocent," of course, is an emotional distinction, and scientifically irrelevant.

 

[geezer]

It's certainly "life," because you can kill it...

"Innocent," of course, is an emotional distinction, and scientifically irrelevant.

Innocent? Hardly! What about "Original Sin". From a very strict Christian point of view, I thought every human carried the stain of original sin unless washed by the "blood of the lamb", or at least baptized, or something. One evangelical in-law of mine got all over my agnostic *** for not getting my kids baptized. Said they'd go straight to hell if they died unbaptized and unsaved. Seems like his "god" was going to send all those aborted fetuses and unbaptized children to burn in hell for all eternity. Sheesh, makes an MD aborting an embryo seem pretty tame by comparison. Course I probably got it all wrong. I can get confused about doctrine ...there's so many different ones, you know.

BTW is there a special department in hell where they've got devils in lab-coats hunched over microscopes, torturing microscopic embryos that are "fully human" but were aborted in an unsaved (i.e. sinful) state???

 

[Tgace]

It's certainly "life," because you can kill it. It has all the properties of life: metabolism, growth, etc.

However, it's debatable whether or not it can be called "human life" at 20 weeks.

Humans breathe air, not amniotic fluid.

At 20 weeks, it is, at best-for now- a life form capable of achieving humanity. A potential human life, no different than the egg or the sperm it arose from, just a little further down the path.

"Innocent," of course, is an emotional distinction, and scientifically irrelevant.

Well that's a load over intellictualized crap. It sure isn't cannine life or a fish. The genetic code is pretty clear on what it is. Trying to overlook the value of human life is a process used by many questionable historic figures and atrocities.

Not a human till it breathes air? Really? So if a doc brains the crowing head of a newborn infant that wouldn't be murderer? As long as it didnt draw breath? The hooops people will jump through to make killing a child in the womb not an ethical problem astounds me.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[elder999]

Well that's a load over intellictualized crap. It sure isn't cannine life or a fish. The genetic code is pretty clear on what it is. Trying to overlook the value of human life is a process used by many questionable historic figures and atrocities.

Not a human till it breathes air? Really? So if a doc brains the crowing head of a newborn infant that wouldn't be murderer? As long as it didnt draw breath? The hooops people will jump through to make killing a child in the womb not an ethical problem astounds me.

2

It's an ethical problem-I'll agree.

It's not "overintellctuallized crap," it's science-sorry.When you start calling it a "baby," or a "child, and when it's capable of being "human," are scientific-not ethical issues.



Killing it, regardless, is clearly an ethical issue.

And I didn't say it wasn't human until it "breathed air," I implied it wasn't human until it was capable of drawing air. If it goes full term or is born in the 22nd week, it's capable of breathing air, and clearly "human" for all time in between.

If it's out of the amniotic fluid and in our atmosphere prior to 21 weeks, it dies, because it's not quite full "human" yet.

It certainly isn't capable of living, or capable of being kept alive.....after 21 weeks, though, all bets in that regard-scientifically speaking-are off.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The genetic code is pretty clear on what it is. Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Without having any interest in joining a debate on the ethics of abortion, I will just say that the genetic code argument doesn't hold much water. After all, a cancerous tumor has the same genetic code. So does your appendix.
The potential for personhood found in the genetic code does not, in and of itself, equate to personhood. Personhood is a legal or ethical state, not scientific, and it's pointless to try and prove (or disprove) it scientifically.