PDA

View Full Version : Keep Your Laws Off My Body



Prior22
07-04-2008, 06:03 PM
Yesterday I saw a bunch of Conservative Christians protesting near an abortion clinic. They went so far as to get in the faces of people entering the clinic with pictures of dead fetus'. If my girlfriend or any other women wants an abortion why cant she get one?

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both feel strongly about an issue. But while Democrats accept Conservative Christians being pro life and let them have their values, those same Christians want to overturn Roe v Wade and not let those with a differing viewpoint make the decision they want with regards to their child.

Basically I think its fine if someone is pro life. But why do you feel the need to control what other people do with their children? Its none of your business. I also find it ironic that Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of Washington not being involved in peoples lives (anti big government). Yet they support the Supreme Court getting involved in whether or not someone is allowed to have a legal abortion. Isn't this the ultimate Washington intrusion?

cubfan23
07-04-2008, 07:10 PM
We had protestors come to my neighborhood to protest a clinic and used pictures like that to.....I think thats taking it way to far. I am a catholic and I feel though that unless the person is sexually assaulted then they should have the kid. If they are that mature to have sex then they should be that major to have a kid. If they don't want a kid use the glove dont take an innocent human beings life. Thats my take on the situation.

gcoll
07-04-2008, 07:11 PM
If my girlfriend or any other women wants an abortion why cant she get one?
She can.

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans
No. It's not.


those same Christians want to overturn Roe v Wade and not let those with a differing viewpoint make the decision they want with regards to their child.
Well. They view that fetus as a human life. When you view it in that context, you can see why they're outraged over it being legal.


But why do you feel the need to control what other people do with their children?
Just because they're your kids, doesn't mean you can kill them.


I also find it ironic that Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of Washington not being involved in peoples lives
For the most part, they are....but you are allowed liberty....as long as you aren't denying someone else's liberty, or harming someone else.

Those conservative Christians consider that baby "someone else"


Isn't this the ultimate Washington intrusion?
No. Because 1) it doesn't exist. Abortions are legal. And 2)If it were...it wouldn't be the biggest intrusion.


*Note: I'm one of those "Pro choice, anti abortion" types of people. I think it shouldn't be illegal, but I also feel it is irresponsible, and morally ****ed up. But....I also want to pass the "Male Abortion Act" which allows men to choose whether or not they want to be fathers when they get a girl pregnant. If it is a choice, then turn about is fair play, yes? Bring that point up to a feminist though.

NotVeryOriginal
07-04-2008, 09:18 PM
*Note: I'm one of those "Pro choice, anti abortion" types of people. I think it shouldn't be illegal, but I also feel it is irresponsible, and morally ****ed up. But....I also want to pass the "Male Abortion Act" which allows men to choose whether or not they want to be fathers when they get a girl pregnant. If it is a choice, then turn about is fair play, yes? Bring that point up to a feminist though.

This is my biggest issue with the whole thing. What if the guy wants to be a father or at the very least is religious and against abortion, but you get some feminazi ****-wannabe that he has a one night stand with and shes like, "This is my body"?

Im on the fence, I think its better to die in a free society than live in an opressed one, so I can see why people are outraged about being told what to do with their own bodies, but at the same time this affect more than their bodies. Life is precious, and I find it funny that these same hippies that are pro abortion are also against polluting the earth, but arent we just doing what we have the right to do with our planet? :rolleyes: (For the record, im pro-earth and believe in global warming)

Apophis
07-05-2008, 12:45 AM
I also want to pass the "Male Abortion Act" which allows men to choose whether or not they want to be fathers when they get a girl pregnant. If it is a choice, then turn about is fair play, yes? Bring that point up to a feminist though.

I agree with what you are saying here, because it will prevent those women who get pregnant just to hold on to the man or if they are after money. but it can go the other way as well..

There are laws that protect criminals regardless of the crime they commit.. Lets say a woman is a rape victim and she doesn't want the child.. but the rapist does.. It opens up a whole can of worms..

sboyajian
07-05-2008, 07:05 AM
I'd be more open to the Male Anti-Abortion act, preventing women from getting abortions without consent of the father .. however it would never work because some men just take off.

The key thing here is.. protests are to be held peacefully. People who protest abortion clinics do not do so peacefully. It's the same with the PETA folks throwing blood on people with furs. They take it to far.

ari1013
07-05-2008, 10:11 AM
Yesterday I saw a bunch of Conservative Christians protesting near an abortion clinic. They went so far as to get in the faces of people entering the clinic with pictures of dead fetus'. If my girlfriend or any other women wants an abortion why cant she get one?

Thats the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both feel strongly about an issue. But while Democrats accept Conservative Christians being pro life and let them have their values, those same Christians want to overturn Roe v Wade and not let those with a differing viewpoint make the decision they want with regards to their child.

Basically I think its fine if someone is pro life. But why do you feel the need to control what other people do with their children? Its none of your business. I also find it ironic that Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of Washington not being involved in peoples lives (anti big government). Yet they support the Supreme Court getting involved in whether or not someone is allowed to have a legal abortion. Isn't this the ultimate Washington intrusion?
Well you're a classic pro-choice person. You feel that everyone has the right to make their own personal decision.

You have to understand that the opposite mindset is one of anti-choice because they believe that it's a criminal act. I'm sure there are things that occur in the world that you feel are wrong. Now imagine that you believed those things were akin to murder. That's where those people are coming from.

I don't think it's right for them to act violently as they sometimes do. That's quite hypocritical. But I do understand why they protest. As for me, I'm right there with you. If someone wants an abortion and has properly considered all the consequences and potential alternatives, then that's her choice.

blenderboy5
07-05-2008, 02:22 PM
Oh please.

If we're gonna play the stereotype game, it goes both ways. The far left sits up in their ivory tower and views anyone not okay with abortion as "backwards."

A true statement: every time a conservative supreme court justice is nominated, the "we can't read the constitution" crowd throws a fit. If that justice has not actually performed an abortion, he's unacceptable, pushing for segregated lunch counters, etc.

And if liberals are okay with people opposing abortion, and if no one is actually for abortion, just for or against the choice, how come it was such a terrible thing when Justice Alito's mother said "Of course my son's against abortion."

moonman
07-05-2008, 05:08 PM
If any person or persons or organization demonstrating for any side of any cause, impede in any way by any means such as shoving a poster of an aborted fetus in front of the face another who is seeking a lawful service from a licensed business establishment or licensed organization; then, that person, persons and/or organization sponsoring said demonstration can and should be sued for tortuous interference with a business relationship.

Outlawing abortion will not end abortion, rather outlawing abortion will serve to return abortion to the back alley butchers. Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, women and ultimately only the woman will have the final determination as to the outcome of a pregnancy. With respect to personal and/or religious views, outlawing abortion is bad public policy.

Having said all that, Roe v. Wade was decided on the issue of privacy. Legal scholars, many otherwise pro-choice advocates, find the decision to be bad law. They argue is there is no privacy provision in the constitution. The other side of that argument is that there is no 4th Amendment "secure in your person" protection without some measure of privacy.

Privacy rights in general, and particularly as right of privacy extend to abortion, is an issue I expect the SCOTUS will revisit in our lifetime and beyond.

ari1013
07-05-2008, 07:03 PM
Oh please.

If we're gonna play the stereotype game, it goes both ways. The far left sits up in their ivory tower and views anyone not okay with abortion as "backwards."

A true statement: every time a conservative supreme court justice is nominated, the "we can't read the constitution" crowd throws a fit. If that justice has not actually performed an abortion, he's unacceptable, pushing for segregated lunch counters, etc.

And if liberals are okay with people opposing abortion, and if no one is actually for abortion, just for or against the choice, how come it was such a terrible thing when Justice Alito's mother said "Of course my son's against abortion."
The difference would be forcefully keeping someone from having an abortion if she wanted to have one.

NotVeryOriginal
07-06-2008, 01:05 AM
If any person or persons or organization demonstrating for any side of any cause, impede in any way by any means such as shoving a poster of an aborted fetus in front of the face another who is seeking a lawful service from a licensed business establishment or licensed organization; then, that person, persons and/or organization sponsoring said demonstration can and should be sued for tortuous interference with a business relationship.

Outlawing abortion will not end abortion, rather outlawing abortion will serve to return abortion to the back alley butchers. Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, women and ultimately only the woman will have the final determination as to the outcome of a pregnancy. With respect to personal and/or religious views, outlawing abortion is bad public policy.

Having said all that, Roe v. Wade was decided on the issue of privacy. Legal scholars, many otherwise pro-choice advocates, find the decision to be bad law. They argue is there is no privacy provision in the constitution. The other side of that argument is that there is no 4th Amendment "secure in your person" protection without some measure of privacy.

Privacy rights in general, and particularly as right of privacy extend to abortion, is an issue I expect the SCOTUS will revisit in our lifetime and beyond.

So when a man impreganates a women its a women, and women only, that has final say and resposibility for the baby? OK, just dont bother me with child maintanace payments. You cant have it both ways, it (the child) either the resposibility of both or one. IMO its both, women have to carry the child until they deliver, at least for the forseable future, thats just how evolution turned out, but the child is still a child of two parents.

moonman
07-06-2008, 02:02 AM
^^^^ Once carried to term and a live human being enters the world, it is the legal responsibility of both biological parents. Prior to birth, the fetus is primarily the responsibility of the woman. That's simply a fact of biology and natural law.

So yeah, the decision to abort or carry to term belongs to the woman.

I do a lot of family law and yer not the first guy to try the "I never wanted the kid in the first place" excuse to get out child support. It doesn't pass the laugh test in any Court in the United States or in Canada, where it is called child maintenance.

gcoll
07-06-2008, 02:21 AM
Until men are able to carry a fetus to term, women and ultimately only the woman will have the final determination as to the outcome of a pregnancy.
Sure. But if having a baby is a choice....then I don't think it's fair to expect someone who got you pregnant, to be responsible for your choice, without their consent.

I don't think it's fair to give women the choice of whether or not to be a mother, and not give the same choice to a father.

That's what the "Male Abortion Act" is for.


It doesn't pass the laugh test in any Court in the United States or in Canada, where it is called child maintenance.
Of course it doesn't. Family law favors the woman.

NotVeryOriginal
07-06-2008, 02:41 AM
^^^^ Once carried to term and a live human being enters the world, it is the legal responsibility of both biological parents. Prior to birth, the fetus is primarily the responsibility of the woman. That's simply a fact of biology and natural law.

So yeah, the decision to abort or carry to term belongs to the woman.

I do a lot of family law and yer not the first guy to try the "I never wanted the kid in the first place" excuse to get out child support. It doesn't pass the laugh test in any Court in the United States or in Canada, where it is called child maintenance.

^^^^ Means you didnt even read what I wrote and just made your own assumption. You know what the first 3 letters in assumption is? ;)

No the child is alive once inception happens, from that moment on it is a human life growing until the day it dies. From that moment on it has two parents who are equal gaurdians, and from that moment on both parents have the right to choice or veto any decision made. Are you a guy or a women?

You honestly telling me that if a man wants to have a baby but his GF is a skanky hoe and wants to kill the unborn baby then he has no say? ****ing liberal BS at its purists. This is why Im a republican, being a white male in the western world is the evilest thing in existance :rolleyes:

moonman
07-06-2008, 02:55 AM
That you're striving for fairness, equality and responsibility is understood and appreciated gcoll.

What happens, under your "Male Abortion Act" when the male opts for abortion and female opts for carrying to term and vice versa?

Before we got married, my bride asked this question, "What would you do if the doctors told you to make a choice between saving my life or our baby who I was carrying? Without any hesitation I told her, I save you. Stunned she asked, "Why?" I answered, "My first commitment is to you, not to our child. I honor you first."

She is still stunned and shared that story with some women recently. Men and women see it differently. Once a decision to carry to term is made, all married guys know this, the woman's first priority becomes her child and her mate is second.

Still, we are only talking about heterosexual couples here and evidence shows that responsible people who happen to be gay are equally capable of raising children.

So now let's raise a second, more complicated question under your "Male Abortion Act." A male gay couple decide and contract with a female to artificially inseminate with the intention to adopt. Let's say the female changes her mind and wants to abort. Do both males, legally contracted to the female, have a say under the contract or does the Male Abortion Act only allow for the biological parties to have rights? In other words, how would you, under the Male Abortion Act and our right to contract, resolve such conflicts in the law?

NotVeryOriginal
07-06-2008, 03:11 AM
That you're striving for fairness, equality and responsibility is understood and appreciated gcoll.

What happens, under your "Male Abortion Act" when the male opts for abortion and female opts for carrying to term and vice versa?

Before we got married, my bride asked this question, "What would you do if the doctors told you to make a choice between saving my life or our baby who I was carrying? Without any hesitation I told her, I save you. Stunned she asked, "Why?" I answered, "My first commitment is to you, not to our child. I honor you first."

She is still stunned and shared that story with some women recently. Men and women see it differently. Once a decision to carry to term is made, all married guys know this, the woman's first priority becomes her child and her mate is second.

Still, we are only talking about heterosexual couples here and evidence shows that responsible people who happen to be gay are equally capable of raising children.

So now let's raise a second, more complicated question under your "Male Abortion Act." A male gay couple decide and contract with a female to artificially inseminate with the intention to adopt. Let's say the female changes her mind and wants to abort. Do both males, legally contracted to the female, have a say under the contract or does the Male Abortion Act only allow for the biological parties to have rights? In other words, how would you, under the Male Abortion Act and our right to contract, resolve such conflicts in the law?


Under a similar situation with a partner Id agree. But that is the exception, not the rule. IMO the 'vote' from one parent to carry the child overrides the vote for abortion. Even if you agree with abortion, how can you agree in a fair, equal society in which men and women should have equal footing and opertunity in all walks, from the army to the home, and yet say the womens right in child bearing overrides the mans?

In the situation with the gay couple, their votewould count as one, I guess the one who was the hiological father (or mother in a reverse situation) would get the choice. But the question you highlited shows a problem with the current system. So some -itch of a women decides that she wants to back out, she is effectively killing someone elses baby with litle or no consideration for the father. A system which protects a womens right to do this is anything but fair and equal.

moonman
07-06-2008, 03:13 AM
^^^^ Means you didnt even read what I wrote and just made your own assumption. You know what the first 3 letters in assumption is? ;)

No the child is alive once inception happens, from that moment on it is a human life growing until the day it dies. From that moment on it has two parents who are equal gaurdians, and from that moment on both parents have the right to choice or veto any decision made. Are you a guy or a women?

You honestly telling me that if a man wants to have a baby but his GF is a skanky hoe and wants to kill the unborn baby then he has no say? ****ing liberal BS at its purists. This is why Im a republican, being a white male in the western world is the evilest thing in existance :rolleyes:

Wrong, I read every word of your post. The Courts (US) have held consistently that the rights of the fetus are derived solely from the intent or apparent intent of the mother. This is why in some cases, Scott Peterson for example that a defendant in a criminal murder case is charged with two counts of murder. One for the mother and one for fetus intended to be carried to term.

On the other hand, had the victim Laci Peterson made it known that she intended to abort, Scott Peterson would have been charged and convicted of one count of murder. When the intent of the mother isn't known, the Court's assume the mother intended to carry to term and extend legal protection to the fetus.

Just for clarity sake. Say while making an illegal turn I run over a pregnant pedestrian, killing her and her fetus. Let's say she just kissed her boyfriend goodbye and was walking toward an abortion clinic. I am charged with only one count of criminal negligence. If she were crossing the street for the purpose of being admitted to a hospital to give birth, I am charged with two counts of criminal negligence.

I agree with Courts BTW. I think granting rights to the unborn based on the intent of the mother is exactly where the Court's should come down on the issue.

NotVeryOriginal
07-06-2008, 03:24 AM
....the world is just one ****ed up place.

What does a guy killing his pregnant wife have to do with a guy wanting to have a baby (or for religious reasons being dead set against abortion) but having no say in the matter because the current law system in the west gives all the power to the female?

gcoll
07-06-2008, 03:32 AM
That you're striving for fairness, equality and responsibility is understood and appreciated gcoll.
That's what I do.


In other words, how would you, under the Male Abortion Act and our right to contract, resolve such conflicts in the law?
I'm a very simple man. I'll try to put this simply.

All the Male Abortion Act does, is allow fathers to accept or decline parental responsibility over their child, when they get someone pregnant.

If the woman decides at any point to abort the fetus (as is her right), then there are no paternal matters to be resolved as there is no more baby.

Simple enough?

In your gay couple example, unless the gay couple has something in writing.....I think they're kind of screwed. They can probably sue to recoup anything they may have lost. If there was some kind of verbal agreement (as there had to be) I would say they could probably win some kind of settlement or something.

Just for clarity sake. Say while making an illegal turn I run over a pregnant pedestrian, killing her and her fetus. Let's say she just kissed her boyfriend goodbye and was walking toward an abortion clinic. I am charged with only one count of criminal negligence. If she were crossing the street for the purpose of being admitted to a hospital to give birth, I am charged with two counts of criminal negligence.

Really? That seems kind of odd. So, the actual fetus is considered to have more rights, if it will one day be a baby?

If I kill a suicidal person, can I ask for a lesser sentence, because he was going to kill himself?

It seems odd that the law would view a fetus differently based on what will happen to it in the future.


What does a guy killing his pregnant wife have to do with a guy wanting to have a baby (or for religious reasons being dead set against abortion) but having no say in the matter because the current law system in the west gives all the power to the female?
For the sake of clarity. The Male Abortion Act does nothing to give fathers a say in whether or not an actual abortion happens.

*Note. And I do notice the flaws in my "Male Abortion Act", but I still think I can put up a decent argument for it.

moonman
07-06-2008, 03:55 AM
Under a similar situation with a partner Id agree. But that is the exception, not the rule. IMO the 'vote' from one parent to carry the child overrides the vote for abortion. Even if you agree with abortion, how can you agree in a fair, equal society in which men and women should have equal footing and opertunity in all walks, from the army to the home, and yet say the womens right in child bearing overrides the mans?

In the situation with the gay couple, their votewould count as one, I guess the one who was the hiological father (or mother in a reverse situation) would get the choice. But the question you highlited shows a problem with the current system. So some -itch of a women decides that she wants to back out, she is effectively killing someone elses baby with litle or no consideration for the father. A system which protects a womens right to do this is anything but fair and equal.

Exception to the rule or law? In western democracy or republics, there is no such thing. An exception would make one above the law and as corrupt and unmanageable as our justice system might appear, I can assure you that in my ten years of writing law and motion briefs on numerous legal issues I have yet to come across an exception. It doesn't happen. Honest.

moonman
07-06-2008, 04:26 AM
G'day gcoll,

thanks to you and NotVeryOriginal for engaging. It's been fun and interesting but this is my last post for the nite or morning as it is on the left coast.

Anyway I wish the mods or someone else would do something worthwhile like actually posting how one gets part of a quote into those rectangles. Just a suggestion.

You say, "All the Male Abortion Act does, is allow fathers to accept or decline parental responsibility over their child, when they get someone pregnant."

I passionately disagree. While pregnancy is occasionally the result of trickery it is also a possible known outcome and no man should opt in or opt out based on whim, fancy or prerogative. If a man impregnates a woman and delivers a child, he is responsible.

You wrote, "Really? (Editorial comment omitted) So, the actual fetus is considered to have more rights, if it will one day be a baby?"

Yes, in lay terms you are correct.

You teased, "If I kill a suicidal person, can I ask for a lesser sentence, because he was going to kill himself?"

You can ask sure. Good freakin' luck sellin' it to a judge or jury.

Bang on point, "It seems odd that the law would view a fetus differently based on what will happen to it in the future."

Really? Then it must likewise seem odd to you that newborn children don't have full rights and privileges as adults?

You noted, "*Note. And I do notice the flaws in my "Male Abortion Act", but I still think I can put up a decent argument for it."

Agreed, and when you do put a decent argument for it I'll sign on to it.

moonman
07-06-2008, 04:41 AM
....the world is just one ****ed up place.

What does a guy killing his pregnant wife have to do with a guy wanting to have a baby (or for religious reasons being dead set against abortion) but having no say in the matter because the current law system in the west gives all the power to the female?

You're making three rhetorical points. But each is worth answering anyway.

Maybe you haven't noticed but the fetus is totally dependent upon the mother for its existence so long as it exists in the womb. This is why the law has determined that any rights the fetus has, while in the womb, is totally dependent upon the intent of the mother. It's her body. She is the host. The fetus cannot survive unless the mother is willing.

So if a guy is wanting to be a father and/or is dead set against abortion for religious reasons it might a good idea to find a like minded female, no?

gcoll
07-06-2008, 04:56 AM
Anyway I wish the mods or someone else would do something worthwhile like actually posting how one gets part of a quote into those rectangles. Just a suggestion.

Copy/paste the text you wish to quote. Highlight it, and click on that little talk bubble icon.


While pregnancy is occasionally the result of trickery it is also a possible known outcome and no man should opt in or opt out based on whim, fancy or prerogative.

The same rule applies to women.

But, women are given a get out of jail free card.

I don't think that's fair.


If a man impregnates a woman and delivers a child, he is responsible.
See....but the "and delivers a child" part. That was entirely the woman's choice. That has nothing to do with the guy. If abortion is her choice....then carrying the baby to full term, is her choice. I don't see how this involves the man. He had nothing to do with this choice, why is he held responsible for it?

A 16 year old girl....has sex. Gets pregnant. Isn't prepared to have a child...that's okay. She can have an abortion.

A 16 year old male...has sex. Gets a girl pregnant. Isn't prepared to have a child. Too bad. He's ****ed.

"Keep your laws off my body" ---fine.

But don't expect other people to be responsible for choices you made about your body. And if the decision of whether or not to have an abortion, is entirely the woman's choice....she is entirely responsible for the results of that choice. I don't see why a guy owes her 18 years of payments for a choice she made about her body.

That's where the male abortion comes in. You don't want a baby....sign this paper here. Let the woman know you do not want a baby, and will not be caring for it. Then, the choice is hers. Carry it to term if you wish. Abort it if you wish. After all, it is HER body, and HER choice, i figure the results of that choice are HER responsibility, no?

And if she's against male abortion on moral grounds, she should have found a like minded male.


You can ask sure. Good freakin' luck sellin' it to a judge or jury.
I'm gonna plead insanity.


Really? Then it must likewise seem odd to you that newborn children don't have full rights and privileges as adults?
Well, yes it would.....but that wasn't my point.

I'm not comparing fetus to adult, or fetus to baby....I'm comparing fetus to fetus. It seems odd that it's future, determines how it is viewed by the law. Physically, it's the exact same thing.

moonman
07-06-2008, 06:53 AM
Geez, I can't believe I'm still awake here. In my youth, I lived in Toronto, she lived in Windsor. It was a weekend thing. An abortion in Detroit cost $200.00 and back in the day they were easier to get than in Canada. So one day I get a call that I owe her $200.00. I'm like aren't we going to talk about this first? "No, it's done." she says.

A week later I show up at her door hand her $100.00 and tell her to lose my phone #. I'm ticked at being left out of the decision. I never learned her reasons for doing it. Maybe she thought I wouldn't be around or wouldn't pay support. I've never cared what her reasons were. I'm was po'd at how cold she was about it. I assumed she talked to friends or family because women rarely make decisions without talking to someone. So I was bugged as well that she was getting advice about my seed and our creation from everyone but me.

So it ain't like I ain't sympathetic to your idea. I just don't see it as an area where law can make things equal because men and women are not equal with regard to child bearing.

NotVeryOriginal
07-06-2008, 07:45 AM
Geez, I can't believe I'm still awake here. In my youth, I lived in Toronto, she lived in Windsor. It was a weekend thing. An abortion in Detroit cost $200.00 and back in the day they were easier to get than in Canada. So one day I get a call that I owe her $200.00. I'm like aren't we going to talk about this first? "No, it's done." she says.

A week later I show up at her door hand her $100.00 and tell her to lose my phone #. I'm ticked at being left out of the decision. I never learned her reasons for doing it. Maybe she thought I wouldn't be around or wouldn't pay support. I've never cared what her reasons were. I'm was po'd at how cold she was about it. I assumed she talked to friends or family because women rarely make decisions without talking to someone. So I was bugged as well that she was getting advice about my seed and our creation from everyone but me.

So it ain't like I ain't sympathetic to your idea. I just don't see it as an area where law can make things equal because men and women are not equal with regard to child bearing.

Men naturally produced more testosterone, as such are naturally strong and more agressive, both key skills in being a soldier, also men are shown to hold up better under prolonged pressure related to combat. So because of this men should be the ones that fight wars and women should mind their own business and keep the **** out.

Also, nature by design makes monogamy a silly idea. Most animals arent monogamous, it works against their best interest, survival of the species.

These are both example of how nature doesnt work if we are to believe in higher evolution, or just evolution in general. This is like me meeting mindy on friday, flying to vagas and placing a 20 grand bet, 10 from each of us, that the Red Sox win thr world series. She tyhen decides she wants to pull out before the bet is place, lo behold this November the Red Sox win and I get a call from Mindy asking for her half. You cant have it both ways.

Im sorry to hear about what that ***** did, that sucks. If that was be Id probably have capped her in the knee or sumit.

ari1013
07-06-2008, 08:53 AM
That's what I do.


I'm a very simple man. I'll try to put this simply.

All the Male Abortion Act does, is allow fathers to accept or decline parental responsibility over their child, when they get someone pregnant.

If the woman decides at any point to abort the fetus (as is her right), then there are no paternal matters to be resolved as there is no more baby.

Simple enough?

In your gay couple example, unless the gay couple has something in writing.....I think they're kind of screwed. They can probably sue to recoup anything they may have lost. If there was some kind of verbal agreement (as there had to be) I would say they could probably win some kind of settlement or something.


Really? That seems kind of odd. So, the actual fetus is considered to have more rights, if it will one day be a baby?

If I kill a suicidal person, can I ask for a lesser sentence, because he was going to kill himself?

It seems odd that the law would view a fetus differently based on what will happen to it in the future.


For the sake of clarity. The Male Abortion Act does nothing to give fathers a say in whether or not an actual abortion happens.

*Note. And I do notice the flaws in my "Male Abortion Act", but I still think I can put up a decent argument for it.
With regards to the suicide question, the answer is a resounding yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

Dr. Kevorkian served 8 years for second degree murder. The court was lenient because it was an "assisted suicide" rather than a premeditated attack on someone who wanted to live.

eyememine
07-06-2008, 07:36 PM
With regards to the suicide question, the answer is a resounding yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

Dr. Kevorkian served 8 years for second degree murder. The court was lenient because it was an "assisted suicide" rather than a premeditated attack on someone who wanted to live.
Such BS. He is actually a hero of mine

eyememine
07-06-2008, 07:37 PM
With regards to the suicide question, the answer is a resounding yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

Dr. Kevorkian served 8 years for second degree murder. The court was lenient because it was an "assisted suicide" rather than a premeditated attack on someone who wanted to live.
Such BS. He is actually a hero of mine

ari1013
07-06-2008, 09:01 PM
Such BS. He is actually a hero of mine
And that's why he wasn't given the typical sentence for murder.

gcoll
07-07-2008, 12:06 AM
With regards to the suicide question, the answer is a resounding yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

Dr. Kevorkian served 8 years for second degree murder. The court was lenient because it was an "assisted suicide" rather than a premeditated attack on someone who wanted to live.

Not really sure that's comparable to what I was talking about.

Let me try it a different way....

A cancer patient, that will die soon. If I murder him, should it be viewed the same as murdering someone who will live a full life? Of course.

That's why I don't see how say....a kick to the stomach of a pregnant woman who will have the baby, is different than a kick to the stomach of a pregnant woman who will not have the baby.

It seems odd that the law would view the exact same crime, differently....based on what will happen to the fetus in the future. Seems kind of crazy actually.

ari1013
07-07-2008, 10:20 AM
Not really sure that's comparable to what I was talking about.

Let me try it a different way....

A cancer patient, that will die soon. If I murder him, should it be viewed the same as murdering someone who will live a full life? Of course.

That's why I don't see how say....a kick to the stomach of a pregnant woman who will have the baby, is different than a kick to the stomach of a pregnant woman who will not have the baby.

It seems odd that the law would view the exact same crime, differently....based on what will happen to the fetus in the future. Seems kind of crazy actually.
I see what you mean. So long as the intent is there, it's murder.

Mziolkow
07-07-2008, 11:17 AM
This is all a matter of one group of people trying to force their belief system on others. I dont see it so much as a matter of morals, but rather as a matter of Religion. It is no different than the gay marriage debate and Stem cell research.

I think all of these should be a matter of personal choice. THey should be open and valid options for anyone who feels the need to use them. If youre a member of the religious right then dont use them and stay out of other peoples lives. If your 15 year old daughter gets pregnant(probably because your "abstinence is the only way" thought process didnt clue her into these little things called condoms) then you can force her to have the kid and not allow her to live her life the way she intended to live it. If youre agains gay marriage then dont get married to other people of the same sex and dont worry about it. And if you dont feel comfortable with Stem Cell Research, then dont go running to the doctor looking for a cure when your child has diabetes, or breaks his/her neck, or when you get Alsheimers or ALS, or MS.

Hopefully most people never have to take advantage of these(except gay marriage, I dont really care what gays/lesbians do as long as it doesnt affect me), but it is nice to have the option if something unforseen happens. Frankly, im tired of these people using religion as a reason to affect decisions on public policy. Organized Religiion when used in this manner, is just an excuse to overlook rational thought.

jlohm1
07-07-2008, 05:05 PM
So, Prior22, your saying its OK to kill an innocent baby? b/c ppl dont want to have an adaption, we should punish the baby by killing it?

jlohm1
07-07-2008, 05:09 PM
A 16 year old girl....has sex. Gets pregnant. Isn't prepared to have a child...that's okay. She can have an abortion.

I disagree... unless she was raped. I think if you get pregnant that young, she should have an adoption.

jlohm1
07-07-2008, 05:14 PM
Lets say a woman is a rape victim and she doesn't want the child.. but the rapist does.. It opens up a whole can of worms..

whats the probability of that? I dont know about all sates, but in most, a woman can have an abortion w/o approval from the biological father. so no matter what the dad says, she can have an abortion. he has no legal say.

Mziolkow
07-08-2008, 08:25 AM
If a woman feels comfortable with having an abortion or feels she needs to have one, then she should be able to make that decision for herself and not have it made for her by a rich guy that doesnt know what it is like to be in that situation. If she doesnt have an issue living with that nor the possibility of health complications as a result of the procedure, then she should have every right to do as she pleases. However, if she is under the age of 17 or 18 there should be some form of parental consent.

ari1013
07-08-2008, 09:21 AM
I disagree... unless she was raped. I think if you get pregnant that young, she should have an adoption.
Teenagers have one of the highest probabilities of complications during birth. http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1159.asp

Especially in an instance of rape, the girl should be allowed to consider an abortion as one of her options.

ari1013
07-08-2008, 09:23 AM
If a woman feels comfortable with having an abortion or feels she needs to have one, then she should be able to make that decision for herself and not have it made for her by a rich guy that doesnt know what it is like to be in that situation. If she doesnt have an issue living with that nor the possibility of health complications as a result of the procedure, then she should have every right to do as she pleases. However, if she is under the age of 17 or 18 there should be some form of parental consent.
The problem I have with consent is that rape victims often are too embarrassed to tell their loved ones (especially in those rare instances when it was the father or uncle or other relative that raped them). Take that case in VT for example.

FanofCubs
07-09-2008, 07:31 PM
I actually know a woman who told the father she was on the pill (yes it's his fault for not using protection) and said she would not get an abortion for 100,000 she'd have the baby and give him the rights on birth.

For the record I am pro choice. I don't want the women who are so cavalier about human life to be mothers.

FanofCubs
07-09-2008, 07:34 PM
I would like the liberals to stop lying about stem cell research. It is only not paid for by the government. Private labs are free to do it but most scientists will tell you that the hope is greatly exaggerated.

On a related note if you ever have a baby save the chord! My nephew is alive because my brother and sister in law did.

blenderboy5
07-09-2008, 08:45 PM
I'd like liberals to stop lying about embryonic stem cell research and admit its "benefits" (aka pie in the sky unproven junk science told my shaking actors abstaining from medicine to testify before congress) pales in comparison to adult stem cell research.

DenButsu
07-09-2008, 08:52 PM
pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff ft


You really ditto'ing Rush's talking points there, bb?

:pity:

No need to roll around in the mud, man.

Mziolkow
07-09-2008, 09:16 PM
I'd like liberals to stop lying about embryonic stem cell research and admit its "benefits" (aka pie in the sky unproven junk science told my shaking actors abstaining from medicine to testify before congress) pales in comparison to adult stem cell research.

Yah if you would actually do some research or know something about the topic at hand, you would know that when Michael J. Fox testified, he was on his medicine, and that the symptoms he showed were partialy due to the side affects of his medications. So before you just listen blindly to the crap that Rush spews, do some research. But then again that would involve taking initiative to gain knowledge, and thats only something a liberal would do.

blenderboy5
07-09-2008, 09:30 PM
1) The MJ joke was a rude joke lol. Chill.

2) I actually don't listen to talk radio. People who listen to talk radio tend to be on their way to jobs sitting in a car, and as I usually sleep in the mornings and don't listen to talk radio anyway, Rush never gets listened to.

3) Adult stem cell research has helped dozens of diseases and cured people with a lot of diseases. Just a simple google search will help those who would rather fry frozen embryos (sigh, yes Mziolkow, that's also a joke...).

4) And what exactly has embryonic stem cell research, which has been going on for the same amount of time as adult stem cell research, produced? Fjunny Rush rants, yes. But other than that? Zip. Nadda. Zero. Oh sure, Hollywood stars and disingenuous liberals say "vote for this program, it'll cure alzheimers'," but meanwhile Adult stem cell research is already curing diseases.

5) So in conclusion, before you get all high and mighty on me here, actually look at research. Though embryonic research has a ton of magical properties that have so far cured few, adult stem cell research has helped. It's helped tons of people. Private business supports it with donations for research as they do with most things with a future.

DenButsu
07-10-2008, 01:24 AM
5) So in conclusion, before you get all high and mighty on me here, actually look at research.

Okay.

Here's a news report from June 25th:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20080625-9999-1m25stem.html


Repairing damage to brain may be nearer

Study gets stem cells to function in mice

SAN DIEGO – A team of San Diego scientists has moved embryonic stem cell research a step closer to helping repair the brains of stroke victims and people with diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

The team, led by the Burnham Institute's Stuart Lipton, figured out how to coax the embryonic stem cells of mice to become nerve cells that, when transplanted into a mouse brain damaged by stroke, link themselves to the existing network of neurons.

The mice showed therapeutic improvement, and none of them developed tumors, which has been a problem associated with the implantation of stem cells, according to the article published today in The Journal of Neuroscience.

Lipton said that since submitting the article several months ago, his team has been able to achieve the same result with human embryonic stem cells implanted in mice.

Conditions such as stroke, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's disease destroy brain cells, causing speech and memory loss and other debilitating consequences. In theory, transplanting neuronal brain cells could restore at least some brain function, just as heart transplants restore blood flow.

“This is a step in the right direction for producing specific nerve cells for cell replacement therapy,” said Arnold Kriegstein, head of the stem cell program at the University of California San Francisco.

Embryonic stem cells, present just days after fertilization, ultimately evolve into the more than 200 different cell types in the body. It is this morphing power of the cells that many people hope may one day be harnessed to create cures for some of society's worst diseases.


And I'm not "all high and mighty".

It's just that your jokes don't tend to come across as jokes when you mix what you consider to be humorous inflammatory rhetoric in with serious statements of inflammatory rhetoric. It all tends to blur together, and what's intended as funny and what's intended as serious are practically indistinguishable much of the time.

But that one - making fun of someone with Parkinson's (celebrity or otherwise) - wouldn't be funny regardless of how it was intended anyways.

blenderboy5
07-10-2008, 01:36 AM
Like I said...

Adult stem cell research has helped human beings. Real people. Actually helped.

Embryonic stem cell research may one day, possibily, if everything works out well, help mice remember where they left their cheese.

DenButsu
07-10-2008, 01:45 AM
Like I said,,,,

Adult stem cell research has helped human beings. Real people. Actually helped.

Embryonic stem cell research may one day, possibily, if everything works out well, help mice remember where they left their cheese.

The same might have been said of pig insulin and dogs, but here I am today alive and (somewhat) well because the scientists doing the research had the foresight not to stop with the dogs, but actually carried it onwards to human application.

Which, of course, is the plan with embryonic stem cell research, which you're deliberately trying to spin in the most ludicrous way possible, and flippantly dismiss the not-yet-realized but very realistic possibilities/probabilities that that research will deliver some remarkable medical advances in the not-too-distant future.

Including, I hope, a cure for diabetes.

blenderboy5
07-10-2008, 02:04 AM
There's no reason we need to be doing embryonic stem cell research. Not with the moral costs. And not with the incredible benefits of ASCR

PHX-SOXFAN
07-10-2008, 11:32 AM
There's no reason we need to be doing embryonic stem cell research. Not with the moral costs. And not with the incredible benefits of ASCR

the moral costs are only viewed as such by a minority of this country.

blenderboy5
07-10-2008, 01:32 PM
Well yes, potential life has been cheapened.

But there is absoultely no reason for embryonic stem cell research when the alternatives are better morally, actually helping people, getting investment in private business, productive, showing results, etc.

moonman
07-10-2008, 02:30 PM
Well yes, potential life has been cheapened.

But there is absoultely no reason for embryonic stem cell research when the alternatives are better morally, actually helping people, getting investment in private business, productive, showing results, etc.

Puh-leeze show me where in 232 years of jurisprudence that "potential life" is protected by some statute, code, case law or qualified theory of constitutional law or legal doctrine.

Under BB's theory of extending constitutional protection to "potential life" he would make it a criminal offense for a man to have a vasectomy or a woman to have her tubes tied.

So now the extreme RW position isn't extending civil rights protection to the moment of conception, it is extended beyond to the point of some vague notion as to the potential for life to exist. Incredible.

blenderboy5
07-10-2008, 02:34 PM
moonman, honestly?

Don't be a douchebag to me, don't put words in my mouth, don't slander my positions.

If you can't do the above, don't respon to my posts.

It's merely a fact that ASCR has few of the moral implications and slippery slope endings that exist with the wacko, unproven ESCR that can't even help mice remember things.

Padres Son
07-10-2008, 02:51 PM
Well yes, potential life has been cheapened.

But there is absoultely no reason for embryonic stem cell research when the alternatives are better morally, actually helping people, getting investment in private business, productive, showing results, etc.Tough to show results when the practice is so restricted.

I look at this from a REALISTIC point of view. You can argue opinions and morals all day long if you want, but here are the facts:

-- Outlawing abortion will not stop it from occurring. This is an indisputable fact with plenty of evidence to back it up. Abortion is not an invention of evil 20th century western medicine. People have been practicing abortion for 5,000 or more years. It's almost irrelevant whether it's legal or illegal because it will happen either way.

-- As long as abortion is legal and safe (which it is), there will be an abundance of available embryonic stem cells.

-- There is incredible promise in the ability of embryonic stem cells to cure disease and improve quality of life.

Based on those three facts, how can you justify opposing abortion and preventing federal funding of stem cell research? It does not make sense.

To me, fervent religious belief is the only somewhat "jusifiable" opposition to these things. If you believe that God will punish you in the afterlife because you didn't do anything to stop abortion (not because you had an abortion yourself), then MAYBE I could understand why you'd oppose it.

It makes me sick that all these good little "conservatives" feel like they're toeing the conservative line to oppose abortion and stem cell research. Opposing abortion and stem cell research is a RELIGIOUS archetype, NOT a conservative one. The republicans abandoned true conservatism and aligned with many religious ideals long ago to corner the religious vote. Over the years, the two have blended to create this "neo-conservatism" that has resulted in many non-religious republicans representing a religious-toned ethos.

I am not a liberal. I am a conservative, but I am not a republican. It's time for people to distinguish between the two.

blenderboy5
07-10-2008, 03:11 PM
-- Outlawing abortion will not stop it from occurring. This is an indisputable fact with plenty of evidence to back it up. Abortion is not an invention of evil 20th century western medicine. People have been practicing abortion for 5,000 or more years. It's almost irrelevant whether it's legal or illegal because it will happen either way.

That's a terrible argument.

Murder has been having since the beginning of time (not saying abortion is murder...)

So how roberry. Treason has been going on for years. Petty theft has been going over for years.

In fact, since there have been humans, there has been crime and other things society regulates. The fact that they occur doesn't mean they should be legalized. Quite the opposite in fact



-- As long as abortion is legal and safe (which it is), there will be an abundance of available embryonic stem cells.


I'm pretty sure abortion isn't the biggest reason we have ESC. I thought it was the freezing of embryos when people who have trouble having children do to clinics and stuff also



-- There is incredible promise in the ability of embryonic stem cells to cure disease and improve quality of life.


There's also promise that one day I may grow wings and learn to fly. I'm not getting rid of my car anytime soon though.



Based on those three facts, how can you justify opposing abortion and preventing federal funding of stem cell research? It does not make sense.


They're two different complicated issues.

Abortion is done by irresponsible women who either didn't take the steps towards safe sex or didn't ask their partners to (or were lied to by their partners/forced, which is sometimes the case).

ESCR is a pie in the sky thing that is seriously dwarfed by the alternatives



To me, fervent religious belief is the only somewhat "jusifiable" opposition to these things. If you believe that God will punish you in the afterlife because you didn't do anything to stop abortion (not because you had an abortion yourself), then MAYBE I could understand why you'd oppose it.


Not really. I just like when sweet innocent girls who were raped by their fathers (cause that's why women have abortions, right?) have to suffer.



It makes me sick that all these good little "conservatives" feel like they're toeing the conservative line to oppose abortion and stem cell research.

'Cause that's not demeaning at all.


Opposing abortion and stem cell research is a RELIGIOUS archetype, NOT a conservative one. The republicans abandoned true conservatism and aligned with many religious ideals long ago to corner the religious vote. Over the years, the two have blended to create this "neo-conservatism" that has resulted in many non-religious republicans representing a religious-toned ethos.

Hardly. It's a moral issue (though of course morals often equal religion).

Conservatives are more religious anyway.

And I'm not against stem cell research. I'm against the harvesting of embryos for embryonic stem cell research.

And it's not always a moral issue because god says so. Often it's a "wow this could lead to cloning or other genetic issues." It's the same reason some conservatives are against aborting children with the potential to have downsyndrome.

Padres Son
07-10-2008, 04:23 PM
That's a terrible argument.

Murder has been having since the beginning of time (not saying abortion is murder...)

So how roberry. Treason has been going on for years. Petty theft has been going over for years.

In fact, since there have been humans, there has been crime and other things society regulates. The fact that they occur doesn't mean they should be legalized. Quite the opposite in factYou're missing the obvious point that all of the crimes you mentioned are transgressions against another person or people. Abortion is not. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about when life occurs, because I know your rebuttal to this is going to be "abortion is a transgression against the life of the baby." Abortion only affects the pregnant woman... it is not a crime against another person, and is therefore, nobody else's business.


I'm pretty sure abortion isn't the biggest reason we have ESC. I thought it was the freezing of embryos when people who have trouble having children do to clinics and stuff also Yes, that's the source now... but it's much easier to remove a very, very premature embryo (basically just a clump of cells) that's been naturally incubating in a womb than to artificially inseminate an egg and incubate it in a lab (very expensive).


There's also promise that one day I may grow wings and learn to fly. I'm not getting rid of my car anytime soon though.Good argument. Thanks for taking the time to explain to me why embryonic stem cells aren't important.

Here's a great explanation of why we need ESC. It directly addresses your argument about how "ASC are curing diseases but ESC's haven't cured anything.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=21722



They're two different complicated issues.

Abortion is done by irresponsible women who either didn't take the steps towards safe sex or didn't ask their partners to (or were lied to by their partners/forced, which is sometimes the case). Or maybe the condom broke, or maybe the pill didn't work... So they should be punished for the rest of their lives, right?


ESCR is a pie in the sky thing that is seriously dwarfed by the alternativesReferences? Proof? Backup? Because there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who, for some reason, believe it's important.


Not really. I just like when sweet innocent girls who were raped by their fathers (cause that's why women have abortions, right?) have to suffer.I'm so tempted to make this my sig.


'Cause that's not demeaning at all.Don't take it personally. If you just happen to agree with everything the republican party represents, then, congratulations, you've found the perfect party for you. It's just hard to believe that in the span of 50 or so years, the republican party has gone from believing in personal freedoms (including abortion, separation of church and state, not spying on its own citizens) to the opposite. Is it coincidence that everyone in the party has changed their mind, or are they following the lead of a party that's changed it's views to gain votes?


Hardly. It's a moral issue (though of course morals often equal religion).

Conservatives are more religious anyway.

And I'm not against stem cell research. I'm against the harvesting of embryos for embryonic stem cell research.

And it's not always a moral issue because god says so. Often it's a "wow this could lead to cloning or other genetic issues." It's the same reason some conservatives are against aborting children with the potential to have downsyndrome.Morals are fine, but why would you try to push them on other people? That's called evangelism.

And I agree with you that lines have to be drawn... but not at the expense of millions of people with potentially curable diseases.

moonman
07-10-2008, 05:13 PM
moonman, honestly?

Don't be a douchebag to me, don't put words in my mouth, don't slander my positions.

If you can't do the above, don't respon to my posts.

It's merely a fact that ASCR has few of the moral implications and slippery slope endings that exist with the wacko, unproven ESCR that can't even help mice remember things.

The fact you're missing BB is that religion has been used to stop our pursuit of knowledge and understanding in all the disciplines. We had 500 years known as the Dark Ages for no other reason than religion controlled government and economies.

The gubment restricts ESCR citing some faith based "Christian" ethical consideration and as a result of those restrictions ESCR hasn't delivered what it had promised. Can we rig the system anymore and juice the science such that we return to the Dark Ages?

BTW, you used the word slander entirely out of context. I merely pointed the absurdity of your notion by giving it some legal context.

gcoll
07-10-2008, 08:39 PM
**** it. Let's harvest those embryos.

ari1013
07-10-2008, 09:11 PM
Tough to show results when the practice is so restricted.

I look at this from a REALISTIC point of view. You can argue opinions and morals all day long if you want, but here are the facts:

-- Outlawing abortion will not stop it from occurring. This is an indisputable fact with plenty of evidence to back it up. Abortion is not an invention of evil 20th century western medicine. People have been practicing abortion for 5,000 or more years. It's almost irrelevant whether it's legal or illegal because it will happen either way.

-- As long as abortion is legal and safe (which it is), there will be an abundance of available embryonic stem cells.

-- There is incredible promise in the ability of embryonic stem cells to cure disease and improve quality of life.

Based on those three facts, how can you justify opposing abortion and preventing federal funding of stem cell research? It does not make sense.

To me, fervent religious belief is the only somewhat "jusifiable" opposition to these things. If you believe that God will punish you in the afterlife because you didn't do anything to stop abortion (not because you had an abortion yourself), then MAYBE I could understand why you'd oppose it.

It makes me sick that all these good little "conservatives" feel like they're toeing the conservative line to oppose abortion and stem cell research. Opposing abortion and stem cell research is a RELIGIOUS archetype, NOT a conservative one. The republicans abandoned true conservatism and aligned with many religious ideals long ago to corner the religious vote. Over the years, the two have blended to create this "neo-conservatism" that has resulted in many non-religious republicans representing a religious-toned ethos.

I am not a liberal. I am a conservative, but I am not a republican. It's time for people to distinguish between the two.
I agree with you completely. If people are so ardently opposed to the lost potential lives then thinking about this logically, at least the embryo could be used to save another life.

NotVeryOriginal
07-10-2008, 09:21 PM
The fact you're missing BB is that religion has been used to stop our pursuit of knowledge and understanding in all the disciplines. We had 500 years known as the Dark Ages for no other reason than religion controlled government and economies.

The gubment restricts ESCR citing some faith based "Christian" ethical consideration and as a result of those restrictions ESCR hasn't delivered what it had promised. Can we rig the system anymore and juice the science such that we return to the Dark Ages?

BTW, you used the word slander entirely out of context. I merely pointed the absurdity of your notion by giving it some legal context.

Not really.

Im against organized religion too, but that state meant is wrong in so many ways.

blenderboy5
07-11-2008, 01:01 AM
You're missing the obvious point that all of the crimes you mentioned are transgressions against another person or people. Abortion is not. I'm not going to get into an argument with you about when life occurs, because I know your rebuttal to this is going to be "abortion is a transgression against the life of the baby." Abortion only affects the pregnant woman... it is not a crime against another person, and is therefore, nobody else's business.


Not really.

First, I don't know when life begins. What makes a fully delivered baby more of a person than a baby who will be delivered in 24 hours? And what makes that baby (and I do consider that a baby, not all fetuses but definitely that one) more of a person than the one to be born in 48 hours? I have no idea when life begins really, and what the propers definition of life should be and is. I don't pretend to know that either.

And abortion affects the father, the mother, and yes, the potential life. But as I said, when that becomes a life...i don't know



Yes, that's the source now... but it's much easier to remove a very, very premature embryo (basically just a clump of cells) that's been naturally incubating in a womb than to artificially inseminate an egg and incubate it in a lab (very expensive).


Great. Let's just suck the brains out of that sucker for Fox then!



Good argument. Thanks for taking the time to explain to me why embryonic stem cells aren't important.


Read the rest of my posts. It's too complex compared to the alternatives which are really better imo.



Here's a great explanation of why we need ESC. It directly addresses your argument about how "ASC are curing diseases but ESC's haven't cured anything.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=21722


You're really gonna use outdated science from 3 years ago? Especially in light of ASCs being able to "morph" like ESCs and in light of non-ESCs being "converted" into ESCs-like cells



Or maybe the condom broke, or maybe the pill didn't work... So they should be punished for the rest of their lives, right?


That happens all the time, right?

I'm against abortion in 90% of call cases. The exceptions being incest or rape (1%), life of the mother being in danger (3%), life of the child/fetus/whatever the pro-abortion lobby prefers is in danger (3%), and accidents like breakage.



References? Proof? Backup? Because there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who, for some reason, believe it's important.


Well good for them. But I believe the alternatives are not only more effective (they've actually, you know, helped people without harvesting fetuses) but morally better. If the destruction of embryos is the only possible way to save humans with terrible diseases, I'd consider it. But it obviously isn't.



I'm so tempted to make this my sig.


I'd be honored. It's one of my better jokes.



Don't take it personally. If you just happen to agree with everything the republican party represents, then, congratulations, you've found the perfect party for you.

Can a person ever really agree 100% with another person?


The fact you're missing BB is that religion has been used to stop our pursuit of knowledge and understanding in all the disciplines. We had 500 years known as the Dark Ages for no other reason than religion controlled government and economies.


Not really. The Catholic Church kept Europe together after the Roman Empire fell. In fact, the Christian alliances stopped muslims from invading, which would have drastically altered the future of our society (though thanks to falling birth rates and migration and sharia law in europe, they're invading again). It kept historic records and civilization together



The gubment

Seriously? Government is such a hard word to write out?

[QUOT] restricts ESCR citing some faith based "Christian" ethical consideration and as a result of those restrictions ESCR hasn't delivered what it had promised. Can we rig the system anymore and juice the science such that we return to the Dark Ages?


If it had any promise, wouldn't private businesses invest?


BTW, you used the word slander entirely out of context. I merely pointed the absurdity of your notion by giving it some legal context.

:clap:

Great spin.

You equated my position with the traditional/stereotypical catholic church beliefs, said I was opposed to vasectomies, and accused me of being against people getting their tubes tied.