I might have just chosen a side

[KaiineTN]

I hate it when I see people arguing Presidential candidate's views on issues where the President doesn't, or constitutionally shouldn't, have any say at all. A real Presidential candidate, when asked about abortion, would say something like "I'm not even going to touch that one, because as President, I have no power over such matters, and it would be immoral of me to use my position of power to influence a matter that should be decided at the local level. Obviously, I have my own personal opinions regarding abortion based on my own values, but I, like you, have no right to impose my own opinions and values on the lives of others."

[Gypsiyee]

Again it is only in medical and scientific discussion when denoting the stages of development of a child and of course when people are trying to justify abortion that a developing child in the womb at any stage is referred to as anything but baby. You don't hear expectant mothers talking about their embryo or fetus. Furthermore common phrases reinforce that the commonly accepted societal definition of baby does not stipulate a state of being born. "When the baby is born", "The baby is coming", "We are having a baby".

As far as anti-choice, the implications are as erroneous as me referring to someone's position as anti-life.

It insinuates nothing as it does not address conditions under which you find it to acceptable to kill a baby, just as anti-choice does not insinuate someone is against all choices one could make in life. Taken in context of abortion you know exactly what it means, taking it out of context of abortion anti-choice is like wise off the mark. The only time the two are not in the same ball park is if you wish to apply a different contextual view of one and not the other.

So you want to fully argue with yourself here? First context doesn't matter, then it does? Because, you know, out of the context of abortion, pro-baby killing means just that. Advocating killing babies. When it's convenient for you, you want to argue context, then completely flip and argue it again from the other side when it's not convenient to use the same argument? That's pretty effective.

The candidate you support for president is supportive of late term abortions. A hundred percent score given by NARL is pretty much a tell all. You would take issue with something Palin did and express horror at the pictures and videos of the results. Would you take issue with Obama in his failure to vote against partial birth abortions, instead simply voting present knowing that the majority was not there to pass a bill in opposition to them?

Again, it must be nice to live in a world where everything is so black and white. His stance on late term abortions is *only* in the case of danger to the mother. I think Arlos has even made an entire post with citations about this, which you've clearly ignored, but what's new. Please, let me know when Obama gets in there with a coat hanger and performs questionable abortions with his own two hands - then and only then will it be comparable to what your VP has done, because what she advocates and has done *is* black and white.

No you can't compare the two exactly the latter is far worse, at least said animal has some chance of escaping with it's life.

I guess crippling and maiming an animal to live a tortured life is fine because at least they're alive, so that's better. I guess you're the type of person who would sooner see a person live as a vegetable for the rest of their life against their wishes regardless of the mockery their life will be because hey, at least they're breathing. Sure it's supported by a machine, but it's breath.

:eyecrazy:
I'm critical of a system that by it's design promotes irresponsibility, I would not however go so far as to suggest that the solution is to completely remove people from this world at any stage. Justifying abortion with that argument is flat out frightening.

I guess I missed where I used it as a justification. I was simply stating that I find it peculiar that you want to overpopulate the world then bitch about the results of overpopulation. Here's something to think about - you're critical of a system that by design promotes irresponsibility, but what is more irresponsible than selfishly birthing a child into this world that will not be provided for? Again this goes back to your "it's okay if it's miserable, as long as it's alive" argument. Hey, so what if the rest of their lives are going to be terrible and they live with families who don't love them, or can't afford to feed them, or shelter them, and they won't get the opportunities they deserve - at least they're alive!

I would say there are things far worse than death, something you don't seem to realize, but death isn't even the word for a first term abortion. I've never met someone who's so against quality of life as you are.

Fortunately for me my pie doesn't taste and smell like utter shit, so I don't have to dress it up and throw all kinds of extra toppings on it just so it's palatable.

Actually, I'd venture to say that based on this thread, your pie does indeed taste and smell like some of the nastiest projectile diarhea shit to have ever graced ones bottom after a particularly stinky helping of taco bell.

[Harrison]

Never at any point in time should anyone be able to make the decision that someone's life will be worth living or not, fucking never.

That is the worst argument for abortion I've heard yet.

By your logic, I'm sure billions of wonderful people would have been aborted by a bunch of ignorant assholes.

[ClakarEQ]

Never at any point in time should anyone be able to make the decision that someone's life will be worth living or not, fucking never.

That is the worst argument for abortion I've heard yet.

By your logic, I'm sure billions of wonderful people would have been aborted by a bunch of ignorant assholes.

says the guy who is ok with cap. pun. Harri, you realize cap. pun is making a decision to take someones life.

[Harrison]

*GASP* thanks for the fucking newsflash. What ever would I do without such revelations?!

[ClakarEQ]

Lue, you didn't answer my questions but that's ok, per your post this must also be fact, while you didn't say it, I don't see how I could be left to conclude anything else:

You do not agree with cap. pun. - life and its continuance is critically important to you

You do not agree with euthanasia - life and its continuance is critically important to you

Your opinion is greater than the opinion of the one being affected on issues of life and death (e.g. don't connect me to a respirator, but YOU would do it anyway) - life and its continuance is critically important to you

You feel it is ok for science to create man completely outside of normal means but you are NOT ok when man wants to take it apart. - IVF, or other forms of medical or science assisted pregnacies

You do not agree with any form of stem cell research or bioresearch that may require embryos, be it aborted or not regardless of the potential this could bring to science.

You must not be ok with IVF or other forms of scientific fertilization because statistically more fail than succeed and even when they do succeed often times several fertilized eggs are ABORTED.

And those are some of the points IMO why pro-life folks are hypocrites and very narrow minded on the topic.

I have yet to read any post by any person of this board to say they are ok with late term abortions. All of this thread and any other thread we've had on the topic there has been a consistant mantra, first term, never late term unless life threatening to the mother.

[Harrison]

Next we'll start aborting children who are in the womb with a genetic predisposition to depression. Afterall, they'll be unhappy people. We can't have that!

Why not just kill them if we learn they'll be developmentally handicapped in some form as well? Seriously, it makes me sick.

[Naethyn]

'computers double their performance every month'. Humans, in contrast, are developing much more slowly, and so must change their DNA make-up or be left behind. 'The danger is real,' he said, 'that this [computer] intelligence will develop and take over the world.'

[Gypsiyee]

Next we'll start aborting children who are in the womb with a genetic predisposition to depression. Afterall, they'll be unhappy people. We can't have that!

Why not just kill them if we learn they'll be developmentally handicapped in some form as well? Seriously, it makes me sick.

again, it's not a justification and I'm not using it as such, but it is certainly one reason people use in their consideration for abortion - they feel it is far more cruel to bring a child into this world that will have no quality of life than to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus is no more than a fertilized egg (read: not a baby, no function, no organs, nothing.)

as far as your question on aborting if the child will be developmentally handicapped, that is already something that doctors present when it is discovered that the child will be handicapped. Again this comes down to quality of life - some people feel if there is no quality of life, it is far more merciful to not force someone to lead a life of pain.

At the end of the day, it is the parents who have to deal with it, not you. It is the woman who risks her own life for it, not you. It is the woman who deals with the consequences of her decision every day, not you.

It is not up to you or me to decide what is or is not morally right. This is why the Terry Schiavo case was such a controversy - I personally feel she should've been let go long ago, you probably feel she should've lived as she was for as long as the machines could keep her alive. People will never agree on this subject or what is more merciful. I tend to believe that every case is different and you simply cannot paint this subject with a broad brush. Until you have walked in those shoes, you cannot condemn others for being forced to make that choice. It is a harder decision than you can ever fathom, and I seriously hope you're never in a situation where you're forced to make that choice with a woman.

I'd certainly rather see a zygote aborted than an infant starve, but that's just me.

[Harrison]

No, I think Terry should have been cut off once her brain no longer existed in any normal sense of the word. It was reduced to CSF from what I remember. That isn't a human being anymore, it's a body.

[ClakarEQ]

Next we'll start aborting children who are in the womb with a genetic predisposition to depression. Afterall, they'll be unhappy people. We can't have that!

Why not just kill them if we learn they'll be developmentally handicapped in some form as well? Seriously, it makes me sick.

The other side of that argument is we'll start making them smarter, with blue eyes, brown hair, long legs, big dick, big boobs, no negative genes (like the "booze" gene), you know, 100% grade A+++ designer babies.

Harri, you realize those options exist already, parents are given a choice to say, keep their baby that will have downs for example or abort it beause it can be detected early enough in the pregancy.

I can appreciate what you mean though, for example, a baby born with no arms or legs will never know what it's like to have them so the quality of life for that child will only ever be based on the lack of arms and legs, if that makes sense :\.

On the flip side, you can't look beyond the knowing parents of that same embryo (again didn't develop arms or legs) and the parents means, abilities, desires to keep, maintain, and sustain the yet to be child and the hard choice they may have to keep it or not.

That is a choice I hope to never have, but the entire point of this is, choice.

edit, I got ninjaed

[Gypsiyee]

That isn't a human being anymore, it's a body.

and factually, a zygote isn't a human being either. that's all I'm trying to say - I understand how abortion looks on the surface.. my point is that there's a lot more to it than that surface. We know the details of the Schiavo case because they were so public - every abortion is not as public, so we do not get to scratch deeper to learn the specifics. but when you do, more often than not (not including those who abuse it) the decision becomes as clear as it was in the Schiavo case.

Abortion is a touchy subject, and I personally don't feel like I could ever bring myself to do it if I was faced with the situation; however, I know that what is right for me is not right for all, and the decision needs to be made on an individual level based on the facts that apply to the individual case.

[Lueyen]

Again it is only in medical and scientific discussion when denoting the stages of development of a child and of course when people are trying to justify abortion that a developing child in the womb at any stage is referred to as anything but baby. You don't hear expectant mothers talking about their embryo or fetus. Furthermore common phrases reinforce that the commonly accepted societal definition of baby does not stipulate a state of being born. "When the baby is born", "The baby is coming", "We are having a baby".

As far as anti-choice, the implications are as erroneous as me referring to someone's position as anti-life.

It insinuates nothing as it does not address conditions under which you find it to acceptable to kill a baby, just as anti-choice does not insinuate someone is against all choices one could make in life. Taken in context of abortion you know exactly what it means, taking it out of context of abortion anti-choice is like wise off the mark. The only time the two are not in the same ball park is if you wish to apply a different contextual view of one and not the other.

So you want to fully argue with yourself here? First context doesn't matter, then it does? Because, you know, out of the context of abortion, pro-baby killing means just that. Advocating killing babies. When it's convenient for you, you want to argue context, then completely flip and argue it again from the other side when it's not convenient to use the same argument? That's pretty effective.

The first quote was a response to your assertion that a baby was a baby and a zygote wasn't. The context was centered around the unborn child and the validity of the application of the term baby. The latter paragraph was arguing that I did not in use of the term in the context insinuate anything beyond the unborn in the use of the term baby. It is only you that argued a changed context, applying your anti-choice term to only the unborn, yet my saying my pro-baby killing term insinuated something beyond the unborn. I fail to see what context I supposedly changed in my argument, both arguments are discussing things in the context of abortion and unborn babies. What I did say is that if you take the term I used out of that context that it is no more misleading then taking the term you used out of that same context.

The candidate you support for president is supportive of late term abortions. A hundred percent score given by NARL is pretty much a tell all. You would take issue with something Palin did and express horror at the pictures and videos of the results. Would you take issue with Obama in his failure to vote against partial birth abortions, instead simply voting present knowing that the majority was not there to pass a bill in opposition to them?

Again, it must be nice to live in a world where everything is so black and white. His stance on late term abortions is *only* in the case of danger to the mother. I think Arlos has even made an entire post with citations about this, which you've clearly ignored, but what's new. Please, let me know when Obama gets in there with a coat hanger and performs questionable abortions with his own two hands - then and only then will it be comparable to what your VP has done, because what she advocates and has done *is* black and white.

I believe Obama stated recently this year that partial birth abortions should be a state issue. He can make statements about whatever he wants, but his actions in his voting record are contrary. For instance with the Born Alive act, he was instrumental in adding an adendum to it that specifically protected the life and health of the mother, yet when it came time to vote on this amended bill he voted present. You don't get a one hundred percent grade from NARL by taking a only in the first trimester stance on abortion. Maybe you believe his position has changed in regards to abortion based on what he says, but what he's actually done doesn't reflect his more recent campaign statements.

No you can't compare the two exactly the latter is far worse, at least said animal has some chance of escaping with it's life.

I guess crippling and maiming an animal to live a tortured life is fine because at least they're alive, so that's better.

I am not fine with failing to kill an animal you are hunting because your chosen method lends it's self to that. When it comes to my view of which is worse, the killing of a baby or anything done to an animal, killing the baby is worse.

I guess you're the type of person who would sooner see a person live as a vegetable for the rest of their life against their wishes regardless of the mockery their life will be because hey, at least they're breathing. Sure it's supported by a machine, but it's breath.

A terminal situation suspended by the use of machines is a far cry different issue. Again I would not be supportive in anyone judging quality of life with respect to killing someone or allowing them to live.

:eyecrazy:
I'm critical of a system that by it's design promotes irresponsibility, I would not however go so far as to suggest that the solution is to completely remove people from this world at any stage. Justifying abortion with that argument is flat out frightening.

I guess I missed where I used it as a justification. I was simply stating that I find it peculiar that you want to overpopulate the world then bitch about the results of overpopulation. Here's something to think about - you're critical of a system that by design promotes irresponsibility, but what is more irresponsible than selfishly birthing a child into this world that will not be provided for? Again this goes back to your "it's okay if it's miserable, as long as it's alive" argument. Hey, so what if the rest of their lives are going to be terrible and they live with families who don't love them, or can't afford to feed them, or shelter them, and they won't get the opportunities they deserve - at least they're alive!

I would say there are things far worse than death, something you don't seem to realize, but death isn't even the word for a first term abortion. I've never met someone who's so against quality of life as you are.

So by opposing abortion I am against quality of life? Yet you aren't justifying abortion by citing poor quality of life? Please..

[Lueyen]

Lue, you didn't answer my questions but that's ok

You'll have to point out to me where you actually asked me a question in this thread, I didn't find it on a quick scan. What I did find is you making comments about my position, and comparing my orientation toward a zygote to the West Boro baptists orientation to US soldiers. Considering I'm arguing in the defense of said zygotes, and those Kansas freaks are in their arguments attacking US soldiers, you were not only wrong in your assertion but your assertion was the complete opposite of reality.

, per your post this must also be fact, while you didn't say it, I don't see how I could be left to conclude anything else:

well let me help you out there

You do not agree with cap. pun. - life and its continuance is critically important to you

I agree with capital punishment in some cases, this I've stated previously and was very detailed into the reasons why. The difference between capital punishment and abortion is that one is directly related to the actions of a person, the other is terminating the life of someone who is completely innocent.

You do not agree with euthanasia - life and its continuance is critically important to you

That would depend on what definition and application you used.

Your opinion is greater than the opinion of the one being affected on issues of life and death (e.g. don't connect me to a respirator, but YOU would do it anyway) - life and its continuance is critically important to you

Nope.

You feel it is ok for science to create man completely outside of normal means but you are NOT ok when man wants to take it apart. - IVF, or other forms of medical or science assisted pregnacies

Artificial insemination is not completely outside of normal means, as a woman still carries the child, sperm are still used to fertilize an egg, mankind is aiding the natural process, because we can aid the natural process does not give us leave to destroy it. Now apply that to cloning and I would take issue with both, although where cloning is concerned I would take issue because I don't think society is ready for it, even if medical science is fully capable of doing it.

You do not agree with any form of stem cell research or bioresearch that may require embryos, be it aborted or not regardless of the potential this could bring to science.

No, I'm not in favor of using aborted babies for science experiments. This should really be a mute point by now though, as the same research can be done with stem cells obtained from an umbilical cord. From a clinical standpoint, where as adult stem cell research has yielded positive real world application, this is not true for research with non-adult stem cells. The so called potential is at this point only projection and not necessarily reality, so I question how much effort should be placed in relative comparison between the two, as adult stem cell research seems to be a more fruitful pursuit, but like I stated with an alternative source I take no issue with the research it's self.

You must not be ok with IVF or other forms of scientific fertilization because statistically more fail than succeed and even when they do succeed often times several fertilized eggs are ABORTED.

If by Aborted you mean something along the lines of a miss-carriage then the only issue I take is that we need to improve upon the methods to prevent the relative failure. Biological rejection as this is what I understand the "abortions" here to be is a different matter. There are issues I take with it much like cloning in that science is ahead of societies ability to rectify the issues that can arise.

I have yet to read any post by any person of this board to say they are ok with late term abortions. All of this thread and any other thread we've had on the topic there has been a consistant mantra, first term, never late term unless life threatening to the mother.

Ask yourself what is the distinction between trimesters? Why is it that someone would support abortion during the first trimester but not later up to birth? It is because at the later stages of a babies development it becomes recognizable as human. Embryo and Zygote describe the development of life at the earliest stages, where there are no readily visible clues that the baby is human, so is it a human life? Consider the definition of a cell:

4: a small usually microscopic mass of protoplasm bounded externally by a semipermeable membrane, usually including one or more nuclei and various other organelles with their products, capable alone or interacting with other cells of performing all the fundamental functions of life, and forming the smallest structural unit of living matter capable of functioning independently.

The real question that we face is when does life begin? By the scientific definition of a cell, the formation of a single cell which will through the development process result in a growing person denotes life. Abortion at any stage is the termination of that life. People instinctively recognize it as life, choosing to call it at the earliest stages "baby" unless the discussion mandates using scientific terms to specify stage of development or of course as I have repeatedly stated to rationalize what they instinctively know to be the termination of life, ie killing.

[ClakarEQ]

Well at least I'm clear that you're conditionally pro-life and in truth life is only important to you when you think it's important. I'm unclear where you stand in the case of incest and rape though. How about designer babies? I mean you're ok with IVF, what's a little tweak to DNA right?

As for IVF, again often times you've got say 5 eggs, they ALL get injected with a sperm cell, so you have "life" according to you (as I understand it). Rarely to all 5 "land" so I don't see how someone "pro-life" in the context of what you are saying, can be ok with IVF knowing ahead of the procedure, you will in fact abort or miscarriage some if not all of them, and sometimes the abortion happens weeks later, not day 2. You also have MAN MADE complications along with often times premature birth babies. You have man made birth defects and other deficiencies, again that do NOT happen statistically when IVF isn't done.

So to be clear, IVF, something you are ok with, means you are also ok with a greater risk to the mother, a greater risk of birth defects, a greater risk of miscarriage, potential abortion of cells that didn't "land", greater risk of premature birth, lower birth weight. And yet you are not ok with a LIVING persons right to choose.

I don't see how putting the two combined cells back into the mother is the same, you could put them into a pig if ethics didn't get in the way, they'd grow there too. You could keep them outside a person altogether, I'm 100% confident a birth could happen this way, again though, there is always ethics.

I guess my biggest difference, is that even though humans are self aware, I don't put ourselves on a pedestal such that we remove ourselves from natural selection or evolution even though we have the means. We have the means to do all sorts of things, yet we don't.

At the end of the day, this nation will NEVER see abortion illegal. The moment it is attempted, you will see what happens, far far greater numbers are pro-choice, it would be like firearm prohibition.

Didn't mean to bump this again, I think we're clear where we stand.

[brinstar]

lueyen doesn't win arguments, but his opponents usually give up because arguing with him is so damn tedious

[Harrison]

I can't be bothered to type up posts like that, honestly. I stop giving a fuck after a paragraph or two.

In person however, you can't really get me to stop.

[Kaemon]

The other side of that argument is we'll start making them smarter, with blue eyes, brown hair, long legs, big dick, big boobs, no negative genes (like the "booze" gene), you know, 100% grade A+++ designer babies.

I knew it, he likes chicks with dicks!!!

[Martrae]

lueyen doesn't win arguments, but his opponents usually give up because arguing with him is so damn tedious

I feel like that about a lot of arguments around here.

[Gypsiyee]

lueyen doesn't win arguments, but his opponents usually give up because arguing with him is so damn tedious

ding ding ding

[numatu]

Capital punishment has been shown throughout history to fail as a deterrent. There are also so many cases where DNA has proven convicted murderers innocent. Surely innocents have been executed in the past, and that is wholly unacceptable. It's impossible to know for certain that every convicted person is truly guilty.

I would say a life sentence in prison where it's actually hard work, unlike now, is a much more effective deterrent. No TV, no cigarettes, no lifting weights, no drugs. Hard labor in a remote part of the country with electric cattle invisible fencing for the rest of their lives. I think that's a much better alternative to dealing with convicted murders and child molesters than the system we have now. But implementing that sort of system to curb corruption among guards would require real effort and a fundamental overhaul of how prisons are managed.

A quick death lasts a few seconds; facing a lifetime of grueling labor in a remote wasteland with no luxuries is a much more frightening thought. There's a reason why prisoners have their shoelaces taken away immediately upon entering.


I'd also like to re-pose the hypothetical about technological advances affecting pro-choice views based on viability outside the womb; only one person answered earlier in the thread.

[Eziekial]

Wow. I guess you guys prefer a Taxxlike "STFUYSMF!"

I, for one, enjoy Lue's posts because a) usually we have similar views on topics and his posts are far more articulate than mine and b) he clearly states his case which a lot of you try to nitpick about rather than take him on the merits.

I find it comical that people look to "win" debates here. Why not just exercise your brain a bit, open it up to a new viewpoint or two and enjoy yourself. Christ, how the fuck do you people function off this board? I seriously doubt any of you are the "activists" you try to paint yourselves as so why not give it a little break and have a wee bit of tolerance.

Ok. OFF my soapbox. Resume your normal rant filled program.

[brinstar]

for the record, taxx didn't coin STFUYSMF, though he did get a lot of miles out of it

my problem with lueyen's posts usually isn't his views (nevermind that i usually disagree with them) or the amount of thought and effort he puts into presenting them, but the actual syntax of his posts. i would argue that their quality and length, which you mistake for "articulate," is actually "ponderous and thick" -- in other words, he tries so hard to sound serious and educated that he sacrifices all flow and readability. a thinker he may be, but a communicator he is not.

and as for tolerance-- that is precisely this reason why i usually don't respond

[Gypsiyee]

to expand on that, it's not that I don't enjoy dialogue and learning more through others - it's just that I don't enjoy reading repetition or feeling like I'm repeating myself over and over again. At some point you've said all there is to be said and there's simply no reason to say it again.

I can reword a post 50 times, but it doesn't exactly make it a different post. No matter how many times you pound the square peg into the round hole, it's still a square peg into a round hole.

[Gypsiyee]

as for the original topic at hand, here you go, Harrison: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... obama.html