• bloc said on Jun 04, 2009....

  "It’s also important to note that past 24 weeks, the laws do not permit abortion that isn’t tied to reasons of life and health (fetal or maternal)." source

• ALIENated said on Jun 05, 2009....

  Then what was Tiller doing every day? I thought he was king of the last minute abortion and that was why he was so hated and such a target.

  The bottom line is that a life is taken each time an abortion occurs. You can argue at what point a fetus becomes a baby, but what gives us the right to terminate another human being at any point in the process. Anyone that knows anything has seen how rapidly a fetus is recognizable as a human baby. You can argue that some babies are better off dead, never born. How sick is that? Who gives you the right to make that kind of determination? How many great leaders, potential doctors, people who might have cured cancer, have been tossed in the garbage can because of our arrogance and pretense of knowing the future. Where we start has little to do with where we end.

  Those percentages you show look like small numbers until you see what they are multiplied by ...

  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

  I will never understand the mind that can justify this ongoing atrosity. I suppose even good Germans could smell the flesh burning and look the other way.

• marie5 said on Jun 05, 2009....

  I am strongly against abortion. God creates the miracle of life. Such an amazing and beautiful miracle. As soon as a child is conceived it's life is real and his or her future is possible. I have a friend from high school who a couple years ago told me she had an abortion our junior year. We went to a Catholic school. Her parents were embarrased and didn't want to stop her from her future. They apparently didn't think about the fact that they were stopping their grandchild's future completely or that they were killing one of God's children. My friend was married two years ago and recently had a baby boy. She married a doctor and is one herself, but she has a child in heaven who would have been 14 this year that she killed. I was on my way to becoming a psychologist when I got pregnant and have not finished school yet, but I know I will some day. I feel better knowing I have a healthy and happy 10 year old who I would not give up for anything. Not even a PHD. God is the only one who has the right to judge someone, but I don't agree with what she did or anyone who gets an abortion.

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 05, 2009....

  bloc - thank you for the note.
  
  I am pro choice.  I believe that since the woman is carrying/feeding, it should be between her and her doctor.  
  

• bloc said on Jun 05, 2009....

  "You can argue at what point a fetus becomes a baby, but what gives us the right to terminate another human being at any point in the process."
  
  So you are against the death penalty? What about wars of choice? Be consistent and you might be taken seriously alien.
  

• GracieLee said on Jun 05, 2009....

  i'm pro abortion in its early stages.  i don't think a woman should have to give birth just because she got knocked up, if she attends to it immediately.  not speaking from personal experience though.  i have no experience with this subject.  i was always kind of manic on this subject, not wanting to make a baby if i don't want a baby.  not wanting to start something i don't want to finish.
  
  i don't consider a glob of cells to be a baby.  it must be done early.
  
  i'm also in favor of the death penalty, provided the conviction is supported by scientific evidence satisfactory to the experts.
  
  so basically, i have no problem with killing people, depending on the circumstances.  if someone attacked me, i hope i'd kill him.  i wouldn't want to stop short of killing him.  bop his head with a rock.  stick a thumb in his eye til it comes out the other eye.  twist his head around til it snaps.  make him watch a backstreet boys dance routine.  i am perfectly willing to kill.
  
  being kind of small, i just carry pepper spray.
  

• Lucytorial said on Jun 05, 2009....

  I've been in too many of these posts to know that there will never be a satisfactory statement from either pro or con choice.
   
  Most of you guys here no my stance.  It hasn't changed it never will.

• marie5 said on Jun 05, 2009....

  Wow, I agree with Lucytorial. It's hard to change stubborn minds. I am saying wow, because, Gracie Lee. Cells are alive and the beginning of a human life. If we killed all the cells in our bodies we would die. Not just a blob of cells. Being up to a woman, because it's her body is an excuse to try to make it right in peoples own minds. It's our body, but purposely putting any type of harm to our own bodies is wrong. Also, killing someone in self defense is a little different than killing an innocent victim. As Lucytorial pointed out though people will always have different views, but I hope that someday prochoice people change their minds. A lot of wonderful people can be born to this earth.

• Lucytorial said on Jun 05, 2009....

  This is my point Marie, everyone thinks their opinion is the right one, when in fact there is no right or wrong opinion.  We each are given a lfie to live and live it we must however we see fit to live it.   We each have our own morals and ethics, yours will be different to mine, the whole idea/ideal is to live your lifes ethics to the nth degree, if you do not then you fail to live.  If you understand my meaning.
   
   

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 05, 2009....

  This is a stubborn subject. 
  It only has to be right in their minds.  It's no one else's business. 
  That said, I believe better parenting in the first place would breed educated girls/women, so they never have to go through it. 
  This would decrease the number of abortions needed greatly. 
  But sometimes shit happens.
  
  I'd say a lot of them are mercy killings.
  
  
  

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 05, 2009....

  O

  It is not any kind of "bottom line" to maximize the psychological weight of abortion by making it sound like murder.

  If we have no right to interfere with life, then stop spilling seed or menstruating. If you insist on a fertilized egg as the holy grail, how can we stop at the human egg? How do we know what miracles we're crushing in other species? Talk about arrogance.

  A human being has to have fingerprints and a social security card. You get my drift. When I was 16 I guilted out an older girl who had an abortion and I was so convinced that I was right. That abortion was murder. And superficially, it can be labelled as such. It is true that a fetus can resemble a baby. The sonogram profile of my son at 8 weeks looked eerily like his profile at one year. A close up of my ass-cleavage looks like boobs, but it's still my ass. And a human fetus doesn't look any more like a baby than a lot of other feti.

  Anyone who argues that some "babies" are better off dead is cruel and off-point.

  Additionally, rights don't have to be given, you can make and take rights for yourself. Don't wait around to be given rights.

  As to the inadvertent destruction of cultural geniuses, with the dearth of great leaders now existing, it's unlikely that more births would produce very many more. A lot of doctors are downright dangerous (they perform abortions, too), and since curing cancer seems to be incredibly difficult, there is little chance that the genius who single-handedly could have done so has been aborted. More likely he/she/ it perished as a sperm, egg, zygote or fetus during a war or a traffic accident. Since we can never know such odd things, it's all drama to talk about it. Makes for a good fantasy but bad public policy.

  How much bad public policy has been passed because of our arrogance and pretense of knowing the absolute truth? And that's all that it is. Pretense.

  See? It's easy to understand those minds.

  O

• marie5 said on Jun 05, 2009....

  Any life aborted is a lost life. Not just that of possible doctors or public leaders. God loves us all. Not just the so called important people. The unfertalized human egg is not a life. That is why women have periods, because the body is not carrying a child. That is nature. A fertalized egg is a life. I'm not sure who was being calling arrogant, but I think most of us are here to discuss, agree or disagree and share our opinions. Not to point fingers or call people names. No our morals are not going to be the same. I think that's apparent in this world. I don't believe in killing any innocent life. Other species included. Better parenting I too think would help kids to make better decisions. I never got the menstration talk, sex talk, wait until your married talk. Nothing. I listened to all my parents rules so I think that would have made a difference for me. That's another topic.

• ALIENated said on Jun 05, 2009....

  So you are against the death penalty? What about wars of choice? Be consistent and you might be taken seriously alien.

  Here we go again. Two wrongs make a right, blah blah blah. Do you believe in the death penalty? If not, why do you believe in abortion? In fact, why is it so important to you that we are free to murder the unborn? Why not err on the side of life? Because you serve the evil one, the one that loves death over life. You shall not kill. That is pretty clear. Murder is not the same as putting a criminal to death and not the same as killing someone in war. I thought we were having an honest debate. Oh, I forgot. I have to be crazy for you to feel comfortable supporting the murder of so many innocents.

  I suppose abortion is pretty tame compared to what is coming. We will soon be back to human sacrifices, I would imagine. Small children will be thrown on the fires of our stupidity. You say that cannot happen, but who would have thought the day would come that a child could be aborted only moments before its natural birth, that a child could be murdered even if it could live on its own? Obama has agreed with that while he abstained from voting on other issues. Does he secretly want to put an end to others suffering the life he as suffered? Once you head down the road we are on, where do you stop? I do not think we know the answer to that yet.

  And it all has its price. Take a look at what a culture of death looks like. I would imagine younger people feel lucky to be alive, to have escaped the evil wishes of their parents. And what will that second child think, the one that was not murdered? They can only think "that might have been me, what kind of monsters am I living with?" Is there any wonder they dress in black and worship the darkness? When we stray from God's will, it has its price. Look around and see the price. When you are being put to death before your time "simply because you are old", remember that you supplied the reasoning behind it -- life means nothing if it is inconvenient. I only hope there are people who fight to stop that kind of murder also.

• marie5 said on Jun 05, 2009....

  Alien, I just have to say AMEN to your post. I'm honest about my beliefs, but am always trying to put it nicely. Being blunt sometimes gets your point across better like in your case. Have a good night.

• GracieLee said on Jun 05, 2009....

  don't knock yourself for putting things nicely. it is a wonderful trait. being realistic, nobody is going to change their mind anyway, so you haven't failed by being sweet. so far everyone has been pretty civilized here, but i guess i just haven't been around long enough to know otherwise.

• bloc said on Jun 05, 2009....

  @marie5
  The problem is that alien isn't honest. I've known him for a few years now so I don't attempt to have a real conversation with him.
  
  Here's my short view on the issue. 4 cells (shortly after fertilization) the size of the period at the end of this sentence is not a human being. There is an easy way to make this clear. Imagine there is a fire at a fertility clinic. You rush in to save anyone in the building. At one corner of the building there is an 8 year old girl, and at the opposite end there are 10 fertilized eggs. You realize you only have time to save the girl or the eggs. Which would you save? Clearly the 10 fertilized eggs are not the same things as a child. They do not feel pain, they are not conscious, and they have no awareness at all.
  
  Now let's think about the death penalty. We make mistakes. How can someone that is pro-life accept the the death penalty when it will surely lead to some innocent people being put to death by mistake?
  
  The Bible also doesn't say anything specific about abortion which is why I always have a hard time understanding Christians on this issue. The Bible speaks out against usury very very clearly yet I don't see Christians up in arms over credit card companies charging 30% interest? I just don't understand it. If you read up on the history of Christianity on this subject you'll find that many churches, including the Catholic Church, have had varying opinions on this matter. Before science came along many churches believed that life began at quickening which is when the mother first feels the fetus move. They believed that this was the moment that the soul entered the body. Again, The Bible says absolutely nothing about this so it's hard for me to understand such absolute vitriol from the likes of alien while they completely ignore things the Bible is clear about, like usury.
  
  Also, there is the fact that many of us are not Christians. Why should Christian dogma be imposed on us?
  

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 06, 2009....

  O
   
  Let's talk about the "Culture of Life." Let's play their "culture of death" propaganda game and extrapolate the logical consequences.
   
  Every egg that CAN be fertilized MUST be given EVERY chance to be fertilized. This will obviously be possible in the near future. We can extract all eggs and do them in the lab, bringing all the life that God made available to fruition.
   
  Every sperm capable of fertilizing an egg MUST be given an egg to fertilize. Soon, not a problem. We'll be able to clone eggs and make them available for the squirmy little guys.
   
  Every woman who CAN procreate MUST procreate at the peak of her fertility. As long as she's trying, a failed egg or two will be forgiven, but beyond that she could face charges.
   
  Likewise, every fertile male MUST reproduce as God intended. Failure to do so and proof of spilled seed gone to waste are prosecutable crimes. Wet Dream allowance is strict and not tolerated beyond puberty.
   
  Since abortion, in the minds of the absolutists, has no differentiation of degree - whether zygote or near-birth, both are the same to them - then the components of life should be considered life, regardless of how small. And science will keep breaking them down into finer and finer pieces that are sacred. And as a brilliant thinker (?) said earlier, "Once you head down the road we are on, where do you stop? I do not think we know the answer to that yet."
   
  No one in this place can speak on behalf of God. It would be cool if that kind of idiotic dialogue would cease, and stop leaching respect away from folks who might otherwise be good company.
   
  Sometimes it feels like Fox News is planting bloggers in here, droning a mantra to convince themselves so they can keep pretending.
   
  O

• GracieLee said on Jun 06, 2009....

  The Bible speaks out against usury very very clearly yet I don't see Christians up in arms over credit card companies charging 30% interest? <br><br>
  
  damn good point, bloc.  that's one of my big issues, usury by credit cards.  the bible says absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, about abortion, but it goes off on usury.  jesus whips money lenders, the only time he gets violent in the bible.  and yet christians ignore jesus and focus on something that is completely ignored in the bible, something jesus never said a word about, something the ancient jews never said a word about, abortion, because, ladies and gents, they DIDNT CARE.
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 06, 2009....

  bloc-I can only assume you have read very little of the Bible or you would not make this analogy regarding usury.  If we Christians starting screaming credit card companies are against the Bible because they charge high interest rates we would be a laughing stock.  And anyone who reads the Bible as a whole and gets the overall message would agree any of the people who wrote the Bible, Jesus, and God would be against abortion.   

  Write the word abortion in the middle of a piece of paper and then on the left side put all the pros and on the right side put all the cons.

  The left can say 1-No hassle of future baby.  2-No need for coat hangers.  3-No loss of possible job.  4-No alienation from social groups (like in case of teenagers still in highschool) etc etc.

  The right side can say 1-ABC link.  2-The fine moral tightrope we have to walk as to 'is it human life or is it not human life?' 3-Higher suicide rates.  4-The higher chances of abuse from unscrupulous doctors and clinics.  5-The psychological torment.  6-The physical side-effects.  7-The damage to overall society.  8-The damage to our teenagers.  9-The exploitation by politicians and political groups.  And on and on.....  We on the right think this is a good enough reason to make abortion very rare.

  The main question here is:  Should a woman have the choice to determine if the pros outweigh the cons?  I think that right now we have dumbed abortion down to the point many of our ladies in society are not aware of the risks, and this happens when they are in a diminished capacity because finding out suddenly a baby is on the way has got to be monstrous for some woman in certain situations, and because of politics the truth and the risks are not being told.

  Is abortion taught in schools?  When a woman goes to get an abortion is she told everything?  This is the problem, politics has taken over to the point that our 16 or 17 year old girls think it is all right to sneak out of highschool during lunch and go and get an abortion and this is so horrible.  I think our ladies deserve far better than this.

  I honestly think if woman were honestly informed, not by someone from the far right who would call you a murderer or someone from the far left who says it is similar to getting your tonsils out, but an honest talk about everything that abortion entails, then I don't think anyone would get an abortion.

• GracieLee said on Jun 06, 2009....

  stop media bias, i think you argue very intelligently and make good points, but i think you are underrating the usury issue.  i really do.  yes, you may be a laughing stock, but usury is a serious crime and it needs to be addressed, and the bible is very firm against it.  do you abandon jesus out of fear of being a laughing stock?  is jesus a laughing stock?  i think it is very weak that the religious people of the world don't support their religion on the usury issue.  it hurts millions of people.  it is a very big black mark against the religious people of the world that they don't take on an issue out of fear of being laughed at.
  
  i think there should be an angry sense of righteous indignation at these credit card companies for charging usurous rates of interest. i think they need to be stopped and punished.  and i think it is an extremely big deal.  and the only reason they don't speak up is because they are .... kissing the asses of the wealthy usurers.  it is sickening.  but then again, we just gave the financial industry billions of dollars in bonuses out of our paychecks, so that's nothing new.
  
  it's time for the supporters of jesus to get out those whips and make honest men out of the greedy bastards who always have their way and take so much from us. in latin america, the christians have been outspoken supporters of the people against the exploiters.  not here though.  here they just fall in line and have no guts when it comes to standing up to the rich and powerful bankers.  why is that?  because nobody makes an issue of it.  time someone did.
  
  there is more support in the bible for an anti-usury campaign by religious people than there is for an anti-abortion campaign because the word abortion isn't mentioned ONCE in the bible, and yes i've read the bible cover to cover.  not .... friggin ..... once.  not once.  nope.  and the bible isn't known for hiding things between the lines.  it's pretty straightforward.
  
  btw, i really like some of your blogs, stopmediabias.  it's just this one point of difference.  on other issues i'm right there with you and thought of leaving comments but a lot of your blogs go back pretty far, so i figured okay, they're done, too late.
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 06, 2009....

  Gracie-Thank you for your comments.  The usury mentioned in the Bible is not the same as the interest charged by credit card companies.  First of all if a credit card company is charging 30% interest rates it is because #1-the person has very bad credit, #2-defaulted on their regular payments, and #3-the person didn't read the contract.  CCC's cannot do anything to anyone unless it is in writing and if it is not in writing the courts always weigh far more heavily on the contractor versus the contractee. 

  This is quite different from your brother falling on hard times and you lend him $100 and expect $130 back.  Of course their is a case to be made on the ridiculous and ambiguous fine print that CCC's put in their contracts that people don't read.  It is not CCC's fault we have stupid people and poor schools that don't teach our kids about the dangers and benefits of credit cards. 

  As far as abortion in the bible I must point you to:

  (King James)Exodus 21:22-23 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow; he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23-And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.

  Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

  Would any of the authors in the Bible agree with our abortion practices?  I highly doubt it.

    

   

• GracieLee said on Jun 06, 2009....

  yes but he only pays a fine for causing a miscarriage.  that section of exodus is familiar to me.  it is near the eye for an eye section, and if you hit a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage you only pay a fine, not a life.  if you knock out her tooth you lose a tooth.  anyway, i think it is horrible to mangle a baby inside the womb and i only go along with it if it is nothing but a clump of cells in the very early going. i have no problem with vacuuming out a bunch of cells. they aren't exactly going mommy mommy save me.
  
  i know that the jewish rabbis and commentators really expand on what appears in the bible, so it is similar to when the christian commentators say that abortion would be forbidden even if it isn't specifically referred to.  look at the rule against mixing dairy with meat.  it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that you are not allowed to mix dairy with meat at the same meal, but the rabbis insist that you can't anyway, because you can't cook a young animal in its mother's milk, therefore you had better not cook any meat in any milk on the chance that it may be a mother and child.  quite a stretch.  that is why cheeseburgers are not kosher.
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 06, 2009....

  Now lets be honest here.  You and bloc's main point is the Bible doesn't specifically mention abortion so your implication is abortion would not be taboo and we Christians are selective in our outrage because we allow usury. 

  My pointing out those verses is showing the recognition of the unborn and the seriousness of terminating the unborn either with or without mischeif.  And where does is say you will pay a fine? 

  If God, Moses, Jesus, Job, Matthew, etc.. could weigh in on this debate would they say the deliberate termination of a human life is OK?

  And again this suppose to be honest.  This nonsense about a bunch of cells.  Once an egg is fertilized and starts growing in the womb if you interupt and cease that process you are stopping the process of human life.  A difficult fact people like myself and my friend Alien like to bring up is at one time every single one of us was just a bunch of cells. 

• bloc said on Jun 06, 2009....

  @smb
  
  I don't think those versus contradict my point of view at all. What I'm contesting is the idea that 4 cells is the same thing as a breathing child. I've never seen anything in the bible that says that they are. My position is that late term abortions should be illegal except for some extreme cases like risks to the mothers health and a few other things. At the same time, I find the fire breathing charge of murder against people that take the morning after pill to be less than compelling.
  
  
  

• marie5 said on Jun 06, 2009....

  I had to laugh at the statement made about a woman being charged if they didn't get their eggs fertalized every time they were fertile. That's a little over the top. As for Christians. Catholics when they are married vow to welcome any new life. We believe all life is precious. Catholics are urged to use family planning not birth control. When you have sex on birth control you are stopping the possiblility of life. When you don't have sex when you are fertile there is no possibility of getting preagnant.I don't think people should have to be Catholic or even believe in God to find that abortion is wrong, yes wrong!!!! I always think of it in this perspective. My son who is 10 now is five feet tall, has beautiful blue eyes, freckles and dark hair. He's the center on his basketball team and he played third base thismorning in his baseball game. He is smart, fun and since the day he was conceived he has been a miracle in my life. There are so many things in my life that wouldn't be if I hadn't had him. Do any of you that are pro choice have children? If you do how can you possibly be pro choice? The love is so strong it's undescribable. If at any time I had aborted him, even days after conceiving he would not be here today. it isn't fair for a human being to decide for a living being to take their life away. I do not believe in the death penalty either by the way.

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 06, 2009....

  O
  
  Marie, you are applying backwards-logic.
  
  I, too have a son - he's 12. He wasn't aborted, obviously. If he had been, I wouldn't know it. Neither would he.
  
  If I spill tears over all the near-life experiences that have been cut short, there won;t be any left for the actual folks that made it here.
  
  This kind of reasoning is like that ridiculous passage in The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button where the dancer's car accident never would have happened if not for a particular chain of Rube Goldberg-like events that put her in the path of a distracted driver. Well DUH. The same can be said of every event.
  
  Please, cut the drama.
  
  O
  

• bloc said on Jun 06, 2009....

  I think there are a few different ideas floating around here. Smb and marie seem to have a less absolutist position than alienated. Is that so?
  
  I'm trying to understand the nuances so here's a question. Are any of you familiar with ectopic pregnancies? This is when the egg implants some place that it isn't supposed to. These pregnancies pose very serious health risks to women including death and almost never are viable. Yet, there is a very very very very rare chance that they can be viable. What should happen in these cases? btw, the typical treatment is to take methotrexate which is essentially an abortion.

• marie5 said on Jun 06, 2009....

  A child that is already conceived is not backward logic. If he handn't been conceived yet then I could understand your point on could have beens, but I never made any statement like that. Once a child is conceived it's not about could have beens or a change of events. It's a done deal. It's hard for me to imagine someone with a child that felt them move about inside them, who very early on felt the changes in ones body, because of pregnancy can beleive in abortion. I guess I will never understand it, but I don't apologize for it.
  I beleive that life begins at conception. I do not in any way believe in abortion. ont even in rape victim cases.  
  To answer your question bloc on serious risks to women. It is a difficult decision to make. The Catholic church beleives that everything must be done to save both the fetus and the mother, but that the mothers life is to come first. In the past a human was beleived to be a breathing being, but new science and more research in bible stories has proven differently. That life begins at conception.
   

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 06, 2009....

  O
  
  Quote:
  
  There are so many things in my life that wouldn't be if I hadn't had him.
  
  There is no way to be sure about that. You are appealing to the unknown for your reasoning. Also, you might have had an even greater experience with another child that has never come to be because you didn't date that next guy because you had that kid, etc. ....
  
  You are buying into the idea abortion=murder. At some point, yes. At a previous point, no. When is that point? Certainly before any kicking starts. Why? Because there are no absolutes (unless you want to start fertilizing every egg you produce - that would indeed be consistent with your line of thinking if taken absolutely) and consideration for the pre-born is the same as consideration for the dead who once were alive. Neither exist. Why should they be put before the actual living?
  
  O
  
  

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 06, 2009....

  yeah, why should they?
  
  

• GracieLee said on Jun 06, 2009....

  i kind of get tired of arguing.  i'm pro choice in the first trimester, pro life in the last, and i don't really know exactly when in the second trimester is too late for an abortion.  i am not having one and never will, and i lose interest in arguing.  i've already shared my opinions, why repeat them?  have fun, guys.  i don't believe in some kind of holiness of life as soon as it is conceived.  i just don't.  i don't buy it.  you don't want to have a baby, don't have a baby.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 07, 2009....

  One of the things I find interesting about abortion is how incredibly guarded it is.  This is too the point the millions of woman have suffered from side-effects if they knew about them beforehand would have never have gone through with it.  This is evident by the amazing contradictions in our society.

  Tobacco, a personal choice by Americans to take the risk.  Tobacco is villianized, made illegal to certain groups, the product of major propaganda, strictly regulated to the point inspectors under 18 go into stores and put on undercover stings to catch people selling to minors, etc etc and why?  Because is tobacco is bad for everyone and really really bad for certain groups.

  Why isn't abortion, since it is legal, why isn't there the same emphasis of doom in our society?  Even from the left.  Technically if a teenager is smart enough to make a decision about abortion she should be smart enough to do the research and determine what is truth and what is being misrepresented?  

  Drugs advertised on TV by law have to put every possible side-effect, even ones that happen in rare cases.  The same emphasis is not put on abortion and this is why I believe our young girls and ladies deserve better than this.  The graph above doesn't really have a major effect on you when it comes to late-term abortions until you factor in their have been 50 million abortions since Roe.

   

• Lucytorial said on Jun 07, 2009....

  Same old same old - nothing new here at all.  Its like a broken record. 

• ALIENated said on Jun 07, 2009....

  Yes, yes, I think we should try to get the laws on abortion extended to maybe five years old. If we decide our children are too big a burden, we should be able to take them to someone like Tiller and they could just humanely put them to sleep. That is what we could call it, "putting them to sleep". That sounds better than murder. You know, like abortion sounds better than murder. I am sure that our new president would go along with that. Maybe even Catholics would go along with it now that they have traded their morals for a better economy. (When does that start, by the way?). Why should our convenience stop at birth? We should be able to murder, I mean put our mistakes to sleep if we want to. We are "progressive", right? We should be really progressive. I mean those stupid, crazy conservatives want to put murdering, rapist, criminals and terrorists to death, and they fight wars that cause death. We should be able to murder, I mean put our children to sleep to at least the age of five. Hell, why not 10. That is when they really start causing problems. How about 18. That would make much more sense. Besides, we have global warming to think about. We do not have time for a bunch of whining children.

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 08, 2009....

  O
   
  Wow. It appears that ALIEN finally popped his cork. All pretense to rationalism abandoned!
   
  Oh wait, maybe he's being sarcastic. He used to have a sense of humor, as I recall.
   
  Why not simply restore full rights to the dead? They'll be just as appreciative of your struggle on their behalf as the pre-born will be. Because once they're born, they're like me...nearly aborted, abortion under discussion, illigitimate, mixed-race zygote conceived by a white woman before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was even a consideration, but saved by a persistent voice that just couldn't take the easy way out...and not at all impressed by you calling it "murder." Would I have been murdered? I can't seem to remember. From my ZPOV (zygote point of view) I'm not sure it would have been anything. The only certainty is that I wouldn't be here for ALIENated to call "Professor" all the time. Would you all be missing me now? I think not. You wouldn't know I was gone. So maybe this is a desperate Republican membership drive aiming toward the future, but I wouldn't count on it.
   
  All this makes as much sense as repeatedly calling abortion "murder." What about euthanasia? Is that "murder?" One man's common sense is sensationalism to another.
   
  O

• marie5 said on Jun 08, 2009....

  I won't be continuing in this blog either. People twist others words just to get them to argue some more or maybe they just hear what they want. I am a Catholic and I beleive every life is precious and very real upon conception. There's really no arguing with that. It's science and it's God's word. I have only been preagnant once and that child born from that pregnancy is with me today. If I had CHOSEN not to have him he would be dead. End of Story. All I was stating is that when you are a mother you can't imagine life without that child. Then again there are selfish and cold people in this world that don't care much for their children so I can't speak for all women. I think people that are pro choice know they are killing a baby, but choose their needs first. They think it's a womans choice and that's that. I guess if they can live with that and not care about their final judgment day, then it is what it is. God Bless us all!

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 08, 2009....

  O
   
  But Marie, they may be killing an angry old Republican. Even HE was a baby once. "Baby" - it sounds so cute. Would you abort little baby Hitler if a Time Machine allowed you to? Hmmm?
   
  We're talking about a growing collection of cells which potentially may develop into what will one day be recognized as a full-fledged independent human being. Not even a kicking fetus. And you know, cells invented Death in the first place. Death didn't even exist until biomolecular evolution was already underway.
  
  The first cells were anaerobic heterotrophic bacteria. They didn’t require
  free oxygen, and they did not make their own food.
  
  Then evolved chemoautotrophs, bacteria that could use chemical
  energy from their surroundings for growth and development. They gave
  birth to photoautotrophs, beings able to capture energy from sunlight itself.
  
  These predecessors finally produced the ability to bond with CO2 which,
  combined with hydrogen, turns into organic molecules. Without much
  oxygen in the atmosphere to break them down, organic molecules had great
  stability.
  
  THE PROBLEM: Earth-locked sources of hydrogen were depleted quickly.
  No hydrogen, no new organic molecules.
  
  Now here, it seems that a choice had to be made...
  
  A bunch of big, fat, stable organic molecules could hang out together, enjoy
  life while it lasted, and one-by-one fade into the sunset, literally returning
  to dust.
  
  Or, they could do something about it.
  
  Life fought back from this threat of stagnation through the
  photoautotrophs. Still innovating as life seems destined to do, they created
  descendants with the power of oxygen-forming photosynthesis, creatures
  called cyanobacteria.
  
  Awkward backfire moment:
  
  Increased atmospheric oxygen acted to break down organic molecules. One
  manifestation of the early effects: fire.
  
  At the same time, molecules started learning how to extract hydrogen from
  H2O (water). And they did this everywhere. Around the world. In unison.
  Their cumulative effect was fascinating for them but potentially deadly for
  the offspring organics they sought to create...
  
  For then, there was too much oxygen. As little as 2 billion years ago there
  was so much oxygen in the atmosphere that the whole world might catch fire.
  Oceans formed and more oxygen was released that had previously been
  locked up in iron and soil.
  
  Then life made another worldwide decision. It decided to beat them by
  joining them. Life decided to breathe.
  
  Just in time to save the Earth from the barbeque came the appearance of
  the aerobic resperatoid, a breathing creature that raised organic efficiency
  for the next step: multicelluar organisms.
  
  Leading from this to protein synthesis, we finally reach the realization of DNA,
  which requires proteins to replicate.
  
  And the rest is – prehistory. But for multicelluars to exist, the individual cells composing them had to be recyclable. And so they developed congenital obsolesence - a built-in self-destruct that persists in all multi-celluar organisms today.
   
  Also, please keep in mind that God invented abortion - just like He created everything else. He must not have necessarily wanted to allow a fetus or zygote to kill its hostess.
   
  Any baby that is "meant" to be born will find a host sooner or later.
  
   
  O
   
   
   
   

• bloc said on Jun 08, 2009....

  @marie
  
  
  See we agree more than we might think since we both agree that medical procedures which protect the mother, even if they harm the fetus, are difficult but acceptable. 
  
  
  Regarding science and conception. Science does not say that life begins at conception because it doesn't. The sperm and egg are both alive prior to joining so life is just a continuous chain between parents and children. 
  
  
  Thank you for having a reasonable discussion about this. 

• ALIENated said on Jun 08, 2009....

  Wow, professor moon, that was quite a diatribe. And you think I have popped my cork? At least I do not want to kill angry old Republicans. Nor do I want to kill abortion doctors or unborn babies. Was that a Freudian slip, that you want to kill old Republicans? And I call it murder because that is what it is. A life that would otherwise become a man or a woman is terminated. Do you not find it strange that a doctor, like Tiller, can extract and murder a baby and maybe an hour later (after the baby is born) terminating the baby's life would be considered murder? Do you not find it criminal that our president would advocate leaving a viable baby to die simply because it did not die during an abortion? I suppose calling a baby a zygote somehow soothes your conscious. That is the way political correctness (or newspeak) works. If something sounds too much like what it is, simply change the name. Murder becomes abortion. Pervert becomes gay. Liberal becomes progressive. Oops. Liberal is becoming a negative label so liberals are now "progressive". That sounds better. But it means the same thing. A rose is a rose, as they say. I will take those angry old Republicans any day. Most of them still believe life is sacred unlike Democrats (I mean progressives) who give murder a pleasant name so they can easily get rid of their mistakes. Strange, progressives want us to take responsibility for what we are (supposedly) doing to the planet and they are not even willing to take responsibility for their own mistakes.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 09, 2009....

    If abortion is not a type of murder then what is it?  This is where we conservatives become frustrated as evident by Alien and Marie. 

  We can say it's not murder because a ball of cells or a ball of tissue is technically not yet a human being but that presents a paradox in our society: 

  1-Enter Dr. George Tiller who was doing these late-term abortions.  Was what he was doing murder?  This guy was putting down babies that in other cases of premature birth in for example a car accident the baby could be kept alive and survive.  That's certainly not a ball of cells.

   2-Lacy Peterson-Nearly every public servant in our government even hardcore pro-choicers voted for the Lacy Peterson law that says you kill a pregant woman it is two murders.

  A fetus is either a human life or not a human life OR it begins a non-human life and eventually grows into a human life.  Does it grow into a human life after pregnancy or before, after 10 weeks, 12 weeks, 5 months, here in lies the question we should have answered long before we flushed 50 million of the unborn and I can't imagine how this confusion and in-betweens prey on ladies who are all ready in the midst of a crisis. 

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 09, 2009....

  O
  
  I didn't say I wanted to kill anyone.
  
  Oh, BTW, how do you guys feel about C-sections?
  
  I think that's interfering with the natural birth process and we should stay out of it. Let the baby and the Mom work it out themselves.
  
  Agreed?
  
  O
  

• Lucytorial said on Jun 09, 2009....

  Bwaa ha ha ha hold on, hold on.  We must be murdering millions more with the pill!
   
  All those damn eggs, going to waset, all that food being produced going to waste, too few people in the world such a crying shame.
   
  We should start a group ~ stop people taking the pill and killing oops sorry MURDERING millions of babies.
   

• stopmediabias said on Jun 09, 2009....

   How exactly does taking pill have anything to do with actual abortion?  Or could this be an evasion because you can't answer the question. 
   
   The only thing I'm doing is pointing out the contradictions.
   
  How the hell does this affect young girls who are standing in the middle?
   
  Are they laughing? 
   
   

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 09, 2009....

  O
  
  "Actual" abortion - oh you mean as YOU define it? The murder thing?
  
  God protect us from your followers.
  
  O
  

• bloc said on Jun 09, 2009....

  @smb I don't see what the contradictons are. 4 cells is not a human being, an 8 month fetus is in my opinion. Btw, all late term abortions in this country are heavily regulated. 
  
  
  "four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow." wikipedia 

  
  

  This seems OK to me.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 10, 2009....

  moon-you are a dishonest pinhead, sorry that's my opinion.
   
  bloc-put a bill through Congress defining the termination of "4 cells" as murder and nearly every single Democrat and some Republicans would vote against it.  Put those same four cells into a Lacy Peterson and every member of our government (except those campaigning) would vote for it, sorry that's is a big fat contradiction.
   
  Tiller was doing late-term abortions b/c mother's claimed they were feeling depression.  This makes him a hero or murderer?  Does the fact he was making millions of dollars a year help or hurt his hero status?
   
  Maybe the "benefits" of abortion outweigh the moral aspects of terminating what will be human life because every case is different but come on we should be honest here.  We shouldn't try to justify our actions with bullshit because all it does is prey on our young girls who are stuck in the middle.

• ALIENated said on Jun 10, 2009....

  Four cells, c-sections, the pill. I thought we were having an honest debate here, but as usual it turns to a stupid debate. If there was some way to determine when a fetus becomes a baby and insure that no abortion takes place after that point, that would be acceptable, but the comments made here show how little regard abortionsts have for any baby less than a couple of hours old. In my opinion all abortions should be heavily regulated, but even that becomes a joke to those who care little for human life. The fact that Tiller performed so many last minute abortions proves that. Instead of asking "what is the absolute latest point we can perform an abortion" we should instead be asking "what is the earliest point at which we should stop performing abortions". We should worry about the mother's health, IF there is something to worry about, but, be honest now, the majority of the time the mother's reputation or inconvenience is really what everyone is worrying about. Abortion is commonly used as after the fact birth control. This issue is like so many issues today. People get so caught up in the politics of it all, and they want their side to prevail, that they forget that a human life in involved, not a sack of garbage. Plus, it is fine to worry about the mother's health when that is truly a concern, but what about the health of the baby? Why should a human being die simply because a woman cannot hold her liquor or whatever? Face it, our "throw away" mentality has simply reached its ultimate conclusion. Human beings are now expendible in our search for pleasure and convenience. Why should I care about saving our environment when abortion advocates are trying to make sure there will be no one around to need it. It is very strange how those who support abortion also support the rights of terrorists and criminals on death row. It is really hard to understand how they can support those who probably deserve to die and comdemn innocent babies, who have done nothing wrong, simply because they exist.

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 10, 2009....

  O
  
  And so the name-calling begins. This is where I leave.
  
  Why not try stopping mental bias?
  
  O
  

• bloc said on Jun 10, 2009....

  @smb
  
  
  I think the lacy peterson law should not exist because it's clear that the purpose is to push the religious rights agenda and try to sneak in a change to the definition of what a human is. 
  
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 10, 2009....

  Alien-Great point!  When does a fetus become a baby?  Nobody here seems to want to answer that question.  Us right wing wackos seem to think that once a sperm fertilizes an egg and begins growing that a termination of that is in fact terminating human life.   

  Moon-Don't get pist at me because you can't keep up with the debate.

  bloc-So you don't think killing a pregnant woman is actually killing two people?

• Lucytorial said on Jun 10, 2009....

  SMB ~ Did you even read the comments above? come on, its a ludicrous joke what people are saying here.... my comment was based on the crap some were touting.
   
  I've already stated my thoughts on this topic far too many times to get caught up in it again.  It goes nowhere.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 10, 2009....

  Lucy-we are not talking about eggs or sperm or living cells, we are talking about when a sperm in that once in a million chance fertilizes egg and it begins to grow when does that growth begin as a viable human?  Is it the second the fertilization happens or is it when the baby takes its first breath?

• Lucytorial said on Jun 10, 2009....

  And?

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 10, 2009....

  O
  
  Relax, Lucy. Folks like you and me are just here to have a little recreational debating and garner whatever amusement from it we can.
  
  Hey mediaboy - go back to ignoring me, okay? Insults from partisan zombies carry little weight. I can't get pissed at Rush Limbaugh's audioanimatron. But I will say Go Fuck Yourself, Asshole. 'Cause you deserve it. :)
  
  Remember Lucy, we can't productively argue with people whose idea of a fair debate is framed by questions like "Are you FOR murder or AGAINST murder?"
  
  O
  

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 10, 2009....

  O
   
  BTW - why are all these "conservatives" fixated on the moment the egg is fertilized? Why is that the magic moment? Every egg is a potential life. A one-in-a-million or more freak accident is the deciding factor? Why? Because they're assuming Divine Intervention (God meant for this life to be). If that is so, then won't God make that life inevitable? In other words, these vessels we inhabit are not, in and of themselves, all that important, are they? They are all quite similiar even down to the subatomic level, and an intervention might mean that this Inevitable Life will actually be born into a better situation? In fact, we should label abortions interventions if we accept the idea of an immortal soul. If "conservatives" could wrap their minds around their own beliefs holistically, they'd conclude that no man can stop God's will. We might even be comforted by a theory involving BABIES (how they love that phase of life - at least THEORETICALLY - how many living babies are they helping out? - of course after birth is not their responsibility) with the idea that anyone who dies before the age of 2 gets a rebirth on the house! Maybe Hindus could help incorporate that. I figure if I can be biracial I can be bireligious.
   
  Just another pinhead contribution to be ignored.
   
  O

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 10, 2009....

  I didn't read every reply.  I glanced over the whole of it.

  1.  Christian Republicans are hypocritical on a number of issues.  So what.  They SHOULD be socialists.  Jesus sure as hell was.  But they are staunchly against it.  The Bible mentions multiple times that usary is one of the worst things you can do.  They don't really care.  I don't see any of that as viable argument fodder.  People are hypocrits get over it.

  2.  It is obvious that the GOAL somehow factors in.  That is why it is perfectly okay to create eight or more lives knowing in advance you were going to destroy seven as long as you create one.  It's basically seven abortions, without the benefit of being able to claim you were drunk, condom broke or other random calamity.  But yet they support invitro.  That for me is a major stumbling block in the logic.

  3.  The concept that women who have abortions wouldn't if they were better educated is silly.  Since roughly one third of pregnancies in the US end in abortion someone thinks they are better educated than a huge percentage of women.  I'm not saying someone is calling women dumb.  I'm simply letting the facts speak for themselves.

  4.  The Lacy Peterson law is a disaster.  Killing a pregnant woman, particularly if she isn't 7+ months along is not killing two people.  Even if it was just like executions are legal and murder is not, and what a soldier does on the battlefield is not murder we legalized abortion/interuterine murder ages ago.  It isn't a murder and if it was we would be able to lock up women who do drugs or drink or perform other dangerous activities while pregnant under attempted murder.  We can't because we know that it's not. 

  5.  Life begins at birth by the way. 

  6.  I'm not a Christian and I don't want to have laws imposed over me that are based in religion.  Sure tote up your bullshit about how US law is derived from the Bible.  That's a side effect of Rome conquering the world one upon a time.  Everybody everywheres figured out that you can't go around robbing and killing people all willy nilly.  It just don't work.  The American Indians figured it out.  The Chinese figured it out.  Hell wild animals figure it out.  The parts of our law directly derived from the Bible are so fucking basic that you could drop a bunch of children off on an island and they'd figure it out by the time they were in their teens.  (or they'd all die.)

  If your right God will give you a cookie when you get there.  The problem is that when you are wrong there is no punishment but what your children suffer. 

• ALIENated said on Jun 10, 2009....

  I totally agree. Our laws are basic, even if you do not consider the influence of the old testament. Thou shall not murder. (Too bad Hitler and Stalin did not see it that way, but I suppose not everyone gets it, as you said.) I am not sure what your point is. Laws based in religion? Murdering an unborn baby should fall under our laws about murder, no matter what inspried those laws. If our laws are so basic, why do we ignore them in the case of the unborn? Why does a mother get to disobey our laws simply because she will be inconvenienced by a baby? I am inconvenienced by not having a job, but I do not get to go out and disobey the law by robbing a bank. How can liberals whine about terrorists being tortured and totally ignore the rights of our most innocent citizens simply because a mother sentences them to death? Does liberal compassion stop at a woman's vagina? Do slavery-hating liberals think that a mother "owns" the baby that is inside her? Is it her slave that lives or dies at her whim? Man, it must be confusing to be a liberal and have to keep all these inconsistencies straight. Let me see ... I am against murder over here and for it over here. I feel good that I want to save big fish and that I am indifferent to human babies. And it is OK if I call people assholes because I am a liberal intellectual and I live in Hollywood.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 11, 2009....

  See there is no answer to my questions from your side because it poses a shameful paradox.  If you say yes life begins the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg then woops we've flushed 50 million human lives since Roe V Wade.  If you say no, life begins when the baby starts showing characteristics of a child like movement of fingers and toes and kicking then woops Mr Hero on the left "Dr" Tiller murdered thousands.

  Stating life begins at birth makes you a radical sitting on the fringe based on the numbers of all from the left and the right who voted for Lacy.

  Sleep well people all you people on the left. 

• ALIENated said on Jun 11, 2009....

  That is the sad thing. They do sleep well. I wonder what it is like living in a world with no God (other than political correctness), no respect for human life, and no conscience. I suppose this total disregard for innocent life is what causes liberals to go ape shit over other issues, like saving whales or showing up in New Orleans to help flood victims. Those are important issues as well, but those efforts are hard to take seriously when you step back and look at the total picture, that inconsistency, that caring for one person or persons in one situation and that willingness to murder in another. Of course there is a God, and I would assume all this will be explained to them at some point. There will probably even be an explanation of the difference in killing those who are trying to kill you, in wars and battles, and murdering innocent babies who have done absolutely nothing wrong, except maybe turn up in the wrong belly. And I suppose this will all be taken to its ultimate conclusion if people like Mr. Borax have their way. There will probably be no more natural births, every baby will be aborted (and there will be no need for any kind of marriage). Only the state will be allowed to "grow" babies in a controlled environment so they can be trained to agree with the state from day one. Thank God I will be witnessing all that from heaven. I just hope my job is accompanying people like Borax and Tiller to the DOWN elevator on their way to meet their master.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 11, 2009....

  I think the thing about there being no God is that it makes liberals have a profound love of life that conservatives cannot grasp.  An unborn baby isn't a life, it might be one day but as several examples have pointed out above (and even you ALIEN have stated you don't care about the Morning After Pill which is an abortion, particularly if you stick the definition of life begins at conception) and you don't need to treat it as such.  I'm focused on the life and happiness of people who are already here.  We need to improve the lives of everybody because we get one life and it shouldn't be wasted fighting if we don't absolutely have to.  We believe in protecting the planet so that it will be here for our children.  You know your children and grandchildren will not die of old age.  They will be raptured up into heaven so what's the point of caring for the earth?  There is none God's about to destroy it because America elected a black pres-. . .blackish president.  Or something about two guys getting the same tax breaks as you. 

  Christians do not love life because they are a death cult.  Your ENTIRE religion is focused around the concept that once you die you get rewarded for being a submissive sheep.  Which oddly enough is a major variant particularly from Judaism which teaches if you're good God will hook you up and if you're not he'll screw you.  There is no mention of Hell in the OT for a reason.  It didn't exist at that point.  The closest thing is Sheol and that is more like Catholic Purgatory than actual Hell. 

• stopmediabias said on Jun 11, 2009....

  Sean-How many candidates have gotten votes running on an atheist ticket?  Even liberals believe in God, at least when it is politically favorable to them.

  And if you can just say an unborn baby is not life then you need to get some kids. An 8 month old baby is just as dependent on its mother inside the womb as it is outside.

  And their are morning after pills that stop sperm from fertilizing an egg and will do nothing if the fertilization actually happens.  

  You are hilarious when you start talking about religion.  It's like a life-long vegan talking to people about eating meat or a pacifist talking about the concepts of war or really fat guy giving people advice on dieting.  It doesn't really work until you've actually done your homework and then walked in our shoes.

• Lucytorial said on Jun 11, 2009....

  @ mOOn ~ I know, the idiocy strikes me as more than humerous though.
   
   

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 11, 2009....

  O
  
  Now a zygote is a "citizen." There's no getting through to some people. I'd like someone to address my actual comments point by point instead of hitting me with your cliches.
  
  O
  

• ABOVE_TOP_SECRET said on Jun 11, 2009....

  Choice....yes

  Late term...NO!

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 11, 2009....

  O
   
  Hit 'em high!
   
  Hit 'em low!
   
   
  O

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 11, 2009....

  1.  I've done my homework.  And on more than one religion.  And I did walk in your shoes.  Then I became an adult and the time came to put away childhood things.

  2. We've been over this, there are WAY more agnostics and atheists in this country than we are given credit for.  Going to church on Easter Sunday and Christmas Morning does not a Christian make.  Nor does claiming it on a poll.  If you counted all of the "pretend" Christians as Agnostics as they should be counted the tables would probably be close to even.  We are years away from ever maybe having an atheist president though.

  3.  No an 8 month old baby is no where near as dependent on its mother as one inside the womb is.  In fact there have been cases gasp!  Of men raising infant children without women around because some tragedy befell the woman.  I've yet to hear a story about a man bearing a child for 9 months in his belly.  (sans that post op tranny)

  Also Plan B does not opperate as you've claimed.  It prevents the embryo from attaching to the wall.  Plan B refers to a specific medicine, not a group of similar products.  Plan B is an abortion.  You just don't know for sure if you needed it or not.

• kelly said on Jun 11, 2009....

  "moon-you are a dishonest pinhead, sorry that's my opinion."
  
  
  Getting called a pinhead by a pinhead.  Ouch.

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 12, 2009....

  O
  
  Life is full of little pricks.
  
  O
  

• ALIENated said on Jun 12, 2009....

  I liked you better when you were TheNuttyNakedProfessor.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 13, 2009....

  Moon-Lucy-Kelly- You just continue making these stupid pithy comments without actually getting into the debate.

  Once again:  When does life begin?

  Can any of you honestly answer this question?

  Sean-my point on dependancy is if you say an unborn baby is not life without specifically narrowing it down you are saying a 7-8-9 month baby is not life.  Logically a newborn needs a parent to survive.  They are similar in how dependant they are and if delivered under bad circumstances can survive (unlike a fetus that is only a few weeks old.) 

  If a woman can go to doctor Tiller and have here 7-8-9 month baby aborted and this is her choice then why should she not have the choice to kill her newborn? 

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 13, 2009....

  O
   
  You aren't "debating" - you're posting the party line. There isn't a cell in your brain open to an idea they haven't already compressed into a bumper sticker slogan. You won't compromise even on terminology and nomenclature so that an actual exchange of ideas can take place. You, too, could be pithy if you weren't so intent on bloviating. (I'm doing O'Reilly-speak so he can understand me). Anyone tired of the ALIENated-mediaboy broken-record tirades can engage in some rant-resistant posts listed on the bottom of this page. They won't come into those because slurs like "murderer" and "baby killer" aren't tolerated there, though you will find people who represent opposing viewpoints articulating their stands rationally.
   
  O

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 13, 2009....

  O
   
  I liked you better before your stroke.
   
  O

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 13, 2009....

  The fact is that a 9 month old does not need a parent to survive SMB and you know it.  A fetus does.

  Life starts at birth.

  Lets be honest unless you are debating the stats found above that abortions of babies more than 21 weeks old (that's five months and one week) make up 1.1% of all abortions you're debating something that doesn't happen.  1.1 is, shit I wonder what percentage of people are struck with lightning.  You should be debating over 61% that is made up of abortions in the first 9 months or basically not at all.

  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If Republicans ever put forth someone who's goal would be change the Constitution (none of this flimsy SCOTUS bs) protecting the 61%, ban the 1.1%  I don't give a shit, make any doctor who performs it for any reason that wasn't the LIFE of the mother (not her health, her actual life) a murderer, along with the woman who consented and put them both to death.  Hell I'll toss in the next 3.5 and let you publicallly hang any body involved with the abortion of a child 4-5 months along.

  Have you ever really thought about why so much energy is being flung at an event that virtually never happens? 

• GracieLee said on Jun 14, 2009....

  straw man. the pleasure of setting up a straw man to knock him down. the orgy of self righteousness, proving who the right and best people are. those are my guesses.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 14, 2009....

  Moon-LOL- You are so scared it's funny.

  Sean-I was meaning dependent, if you take a baby out in the woods and leave it there it wouldn't last an hour.

  As far as stats regardling late-term abortions Dr. Tiller did 250 late term abortions in 2003 and what is 1.1% of 50 million.

  The whole crux of this debate from my perspective is this:

  #1-Calling someone a murderer who performs late term abortions and people like my friend Alien who says all abortions are murder.

  I think this kind of rhetoric just creates a bigger space between the right and the left BUT is brings up an important point:  WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN!

  #2-Abortion by EVERYONES account is bad for woman and the overall numbers of abortions should be kept as low as possible.

  Everyone agrees with this yet abortion is never promoted as bad, it is diminished, which I've pointed a zillion times we have Planned Parenthood telling kids it is the same as gettng your tonsils out.

  There are going to be millions of young impressionable girls who are going to come to age and have to deal with this issue and right now we have those on the left that portray it as a lunch break procedure like getting your teeth cleaned and those on the right that claim murder.  There has to be a middle ground. 

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 14, 2009....

  Yeah I know your point was that if you took a baby out in the woods it wouldn't last an hour.  But that is different from needing a mother.  If you took a baby and handed it to her twelve year old brother and left him someplace with a steady supply of water and formula the child would (physically) be okay.  If you took a 9 month old and placed it in a faciility with 30 other abandoned infants and a couple of nurses it would survive and survive without a fuck ton of machines.  If you took a five month old baby out of the womb its pretty much history even with todays tech.  Even a few weeks premature is incredibly dangerous even with our tech.  But eventually that is unlikely to be true.

  What 1.1% of 50 million doesn't matter anymore than what 1.1% of seven hundred fifty billion.  The point is that 1.1% basically means it doesn't happen and it's dishonest to base your debate around something like that.  And I'm just as harsh on the other side when they try to bring up rape or incest babies which also don't happen often enough to be discussed.

  2.  I'd like to see just one report claiming an abortion is no more dangerous than tonsils out.  Just one.  Of course it's bad and has its risks, so does the alternative. 

  3.  Honestly I don't think there can be a middle ground on this topic until the Right admits defeat.  Which most seem to have, even Rush can be quoted saying he doesn't believe Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned.  So why not come to the table and start working on ways to diminish it?  Because that steps right into another minefeild of the Right.  Sex ed.  They want to cling to the abstinance only school which has been a proven failure.  Sex ed has to start, and has to start early.  I know you don't want to hear it but really the talk has to happen around ten eleven.  And it is too big a responsibility to trust to parents who often times don't have many of the answers themselves.

  America has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the industrial world, by far.  This is despite having the strictest laws on abortion.  This is despite keeping porn out of the hands of children.  This is despite having an age of consent two to three years higher than anyplace else on earth.  The reason is obvious, we spend so much energy blindfolding children that they learn about sex basically by watching porn, talking to guys in the locker room and experimenting.  Its not working, by no measure of success can it be called working and yet we stay the course.  Everybody all around us is suceeding and the response is "Just because Europeans can solve a problem with their little pinko faggety socialism we're America damnit!  I would rather have my teen daughter be pregnant and get an abortion than let someone explain to her how to have sex and not get pregnant.

  We KNOW across the board that people who are well educated on a subject make better decisions on it.  Considering the consequences, results, possibilities (I simply don't want to debate the semantics of my language being negative when referring to a child amongst other things) of sex we should be educating them early.  It has to happen BEFORE they start experimenting which means it needs to happen before puberty cus once puberty hits that ship sails.  Earlier on average for girls than for boys on a side note (probably cus it's easier on the whole for them)

   

• ALIENated said on Jun 14, 2009....

  ... engage in some rant-resistant posts listed on the bottom of this page ...

  Yes, go and engage in some truth free, feel good chat. Why do name callers always complain about name calling. ha ha ha

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 14, 2009....

  To be fair the conversation might be more productive with less name calling. . .dummy.  :-P

  I don't who you quoted  to know if they are name caller, I assume they are people a hypocritical that way.  I only harp on it when it's completely uncalled for or getting out of hand.  Which is rare once the super nuts (which sadly are all  on "my" team) wander away.  Shelter, andora and the like.

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 14, 2009....

  O

  I was called several things before I identified media boy (what is he? 17?) as an asshole. He keeps assholing all over the place, it's not my fault. How exactly did I display "dishonesty?" Where, precisely, have I revealed "fear?" What, anyway, is a "pinhead?" I think asshole covers my response adequately. Name-calling that I object to is of a more serious nature. Calling folks murderers and pedophiles, things like that, based on kneejerk reactions and very broad generalizations. It's all political and propaganda.

  Media twit seems interested only in engaging Sean and thinks it is a "debate."

  I believe in the immortal soul more than any "Christian" who's said anything here. I bet Jesus likes me better than he likes you.

  O

• ALIENated said on Jun 14, 2009....

  Media boy? This coming from Mr. Hollywood and Vine? ha ha ha ha ha. I am a bit older that 17. And leave Sean alone. He is an atheist, but he can debate you under any table. (I suppose, since I never read your posts.) If you thought someone was murdering someone, what would you call them? And Jesus loves us all.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 14, 2009....

  Hey just cus I'm all for gay rights doesn't mean I wanna to under the table with Moon!  That's all you ALIEN!

  Thanks for the compliment btw.

• mOOn_platOOn said on Jun 15, 2009....

  O
  
  Jerry Falwell needed Larry Flint.  I understand.
  
  O
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 15, 2009....

  Sean-The right believes that we should take every avenue to prevent abortions and abortions (while are a part of our society) should be demonized like every other terrible thing in our society, not promoted.  You claim late-term abortions are rare which is true but technically if you look at the actual number we are talking a lot of tax-paying lives that could have been adopted.

  Planned Parenthood stated on their website that abortion wasn't anymore dangerous than getting your tonsils out.  Maybe it is in a physical sense but how can they possibly factor in any mental side-effects.

   "Honestly I don't think there can be a middle ground on this topic until the Right admits defeat." 

  How smug are thee? :>

  We define human life as to when the sperm fertilizes the egg and begins to grow.  Obviously we recognize a breathing alive human is different than an undeveloped fetus but science tells us that creature no matter how undeveloped is unique and human. 

  Where is there a middle ground from there?  The right can loosen when it comes to sex education but as far as abortion how are we suppose admit defeat?  We could say "ok you guys were right it is not human until 5 months"  woops Dr Tiller was known to snuffed out babies 5 months and later, so where do go from here?  When abortion was brought into mainstream back during Roe did we ever imagine we would have a Dr. Tiller? 

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 15, 2009....

  1.  Fine go on and demonize it. 

  2. We define human life as to when the sperm fertilizes the egg and begins to grow.

  If this is even sorta true why isn't the right completely up in arms about invitro?  Why does the definition of when life begins slide depending on what the end result is instead of the process?

  Abortion aside we don't try mothers/pregnant women who engage in risky behavior, drinking, smoking, remaining physically active etc etc. 

  3.  If the right loosens on Sex Ed and shit I don't really have any interest in the first five months.  First trimeter with an exception for the mothers LIFE, not her health, her life.  Then you know what I'LL HELP SHOOT ALL THE TILLER'S of the world as a peace offering.

  Tiller is defended by the Left and tolerated by the Moderates because the truth is he is Normandy Beach.  He's the buffer zone that must be battered down.  The Mods will abandon the outpost if we know that you'll take that sit on it and we'll be cool.  Just you know. . .appeasement hasn't been proven a succesfull strategy in the past.

Comment on "Beginning an honest debate about abortion"

Currently tagged	abortion Different morals amen ove the top End of Story cry politics stongly against Pro Choice wow Gracie Lee truth mongers (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment