Ummmm there is no HUMAN life until the egg is ferilized by the spem... I bet even Todd Akins knows that.
|
Ummmm there is no HUMAN life until the egg is ferilized by the spem... I bet even Todd Akins knows that.
so much for libertarianism . A libertarian case to be made against forcing anyone to pay for someone else's medical care, or birth control.Free contraception is more in line with progressive liberalism.Quote:
Free contraceptives is a moral thing to do.
B/S Tom
The way the laws are written and where they vary is in the timing of an abortion. As in the using the saying "late term abortion" which is outlawed in many states that do allow abortion during the first trimester.Quote:
Originally Posted by Magpie95
There is a huge difference as to what is going on biologicaly at those 2 points of gestation.
Indeed . The truth is that it ceases being 'a mass of cells ' very early in the process .
Fetal development: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
In biological terms I think it can be summed up in this way.
Science would try and tell us that at the early stage of development the fetus is not conscious. In other words, it's brain hasn't develop to a stage whereby we can satisfy the scientific definition of consciousness.
Non-consciousness would also satisfy the requirement of not being able to feel pain.
Science also claims to be able to tell us what consciousness actually is. On this basis it wants to claim that a fetus is conscious after 'x' number of months. Before this 'X' number of months the fetus is a living organism that lacks humanness because it lacks consciousness.
As far as I am concerned I have real problems with a scientific definition of consciousness, let alone when this consciousness actually manifests itself in a living organism.
We don't know what consciousness actually is so how can we say at what stage consciousness occurs. It may well be there at even the earliest stage of development.
Tut
Been trying for a while, I just noticed they finally made him droppable.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
There's no potential if it's aborted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
All the more reason to err on the side of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hello again,
Mr. Conservative, Barry Goldwater said:
That's a long way from the busybody party they've turned into.Quote:
"I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others,"
"I don't have any respect for the Religious Right."
"Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's a$$"
"A woman has a right to an abortion."
Excon
And yet you have no problem imposing your will on us. You want to impose gay marriage, single payer healthcare, open borders, gun control. You're fine with scrapping the first amendment and forcing the church to violate their beliefs via executive fiat.
When you stop imposing your will on us we can talk. Until then your complaints don't move me in the least.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
When you stop saying that spreading FREEDOM to more and more people, is imposing my views on you, we can talk..
excon
It is really a question of how you define freedom Ex if you define it as freedom to carry weapons and intimidate and kill your fellows, this is not freedom but tyranny, if you define it as the ability to benefit yourself above the interests of others, this is not freedom but averice, if you define freedom as the right to watch your fellows die without lifting a hand to prevent it, this is caliousness, I define freeom as everone sharing equally in the wealth of the nation, it is a lofty objective not yet reached, but it can be achieved. Talk is cheap, aside from labour the only thing cheap in a capitalist society, everything else comes at a price''There are those here who say give me more irrespective of social injustice and I say this is not freedom, this is greed
And he went through a large bit of transformation as he got older. He favored a Constitutional ban on abortion until his final term in the Senate .
Goldwater was a conservative in 1964 when one of his major postions was for religious morality in society .Later when he abandoned those positions ,not so much . Liberals who love to quote Goldwater from his later years love to make it sound that those words were uttered when Goldwater was the leader of the conservative movement . Not so. He wrote those words in an editorial in 1994 . It is not the conservative movement that changed... it was Goldwater .
Dude, interesting how you can define all of those as "expanding freedom," even denying my constitutional rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
So, what you're saying is this: When you're young and have a heart, you're a liberal... When you grow up and get a brain, you become a conservative... But, when you acquire real WISDOM you become a liberal again..
Sounds right to me.
excon
Got to say guys all 34 pages make for interesting reading.
EXCON! I like your style. You're my kind of dude.Quote:
When you're young and have a heart, you're a liberal... When you grow up and get a brain, you become a conservative... But, when you acquire real WISDOM you become a liberal again.
I'm 85 and I guess I forgot to turn conservative when I reached retirement age because for the next 13 years I was on the front line for a woman's right to choose.
I used to drive by the local abortion clinic and toot my horn and wave a coathanger at the protesters. One day I stopped to listen. 5 old men were ganging up on a young girl attempting to enter the clinic. Slutt! Murderess! Baby Killer! Were some of the nicest I heard. I was outraged. I volunteered as a escort the next day. Three years later vI was put con staff as head of security, chief escort and clinic spokesman.
I loved it! I got to go heads up against the protester and keep them in line. And if they got too frisky I got to bust and take them to court.
I was attacked 4 times, shot at twice, had two bomb scares and opened a phony Anthrax letter in our office. It was three days before HazMat got back with the report that it was flour. Three days of not knowing if you would live or die. It was a learning experience!
I've walked the walk and paid my dues for woman's rights. The clinic closed in 02 and I came on board here in 03. But bumping heads with a bunch of religious wackos will always remain the most fun job I ever had.
Excon, You haven't changed since the old days at AskMe.com. Don't ever change. I like you just the way you are. Cheers, Tom
Thank you, Tom, for all your contribution. It is refreshing to know people like you exist. What freedoms I have now, I know I owe to you and other brave folks like yourself. You are a true American patriot!
He's a little more crotchety.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
P.S. We all despise right-wing wackos. You won't find the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers using any of those despicable tactics.
Hello Tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
You and me...
excon
Yeah! That's what all you lifers say when you want to distance yourselves from the violenceQuote:
We all despise right-wing wackos. You won't find the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers using any of those despicable tactics.
Spawned by he Pro-Life Movement. But when the report of the doctor that was shot and killed I could hear them cheering outside the clinic.
So don 't attempt to tap-dance away from responsibility. Hey! It's your movement, you got to accept the bad with the good.
By the way, When that doctor was killed it was my doctor who flew up there every week and did procedures until the doctor was replaced. I know because I went along for security, Regards, Tom
Seems there are all kinds when you reach the end of the spectrum.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread434396/pg1
As opposed to the majority of mainstream Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence of the occupiers? Gimme a break.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
I don't have to tap dance, I condemn such bullsh*t in the strongest of terms. Feel free to find someone else to spread that drivel to, it won't fly with me.
Yes, there is a big difference with what is going on biologically through out my whole life. However, I am not inside someone's uterus eating what she eats.. breathing what she breathes, etc. I think pregnancy is a beautiful thing and I wouldn't wish the decision on anyone. However, you better believe my uterus and anything in it doesn't belong to law makers, you, or joe bob. Its mine and what happens to it is up to me to decide. The consequences of that decision one way or another is also mine. If I am religious its between me and god. Pro-lifers want to save life... but they aren't stepping up to help pay for your kid or offering to endure your labor pains for you. I guess the next thing is a law that would charge me with child endangerment if I drive too fast while pregnant. Perhaps, it's child abuse if I am one of those mothers who smoke? I can see the court cases now.Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
And that ties in with a woman's right to choose how? Gee! I must have missed that on the evening news. Those nasty Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence. (Your words. Don't suppose you'd care to back up your words with a few facts.Quote:
As opposed to the majority of mainstream Democrats who aligned themselves with the filth and violence of the occupiers?
It's not drivel. I lived it! I walked the walk while all people like you simply talked the talk. Every lifer I've talked to had the same line of crap. I hate violence! I denounce the killings and bombings! Yet when they occur I've heard you people say. " Well, there's one doctor that will never perform abortions any more" and smile when they said it.Quote:
Feel free to find someone else to spread that drivel to
No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it. And don't attempt to cloud up the issue by bringing politics into it. We're talking Women's Rights not the upcoming RNC in Tampa.
Hello again, wingers:
So, if you'd FORCE a rape victim to carry her baby to term, would you consider PAYING for her pregnancy? My guess is no. Would it make a difference if she's a crack addict on the street?
So, if the Constitution says the government cannot force you to quarter soldiers in your home, how can it force you to quarter an unwanted baby in your womb?
What is "forcible" rape as opposed to say, your regular kind of rape?
excon
Here is how I would define it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Forcible type would be an act where both parties are aware of the act as it is happening and one party objects. It encompasses a huge array of actions and not just the act of sex itself.
The other type would be where one party is unaware of the act as it occurs. Either because of consent issues as in being under age or reduced mental capacity to being passed out from drugs or drinking.
There is no difference in the seriousness of either crime they are at the same level its just a line for the purpose of definition.
Hello dad:Quote:
Originally Posted by califdadof3
Really?? I don't think you even believe that yourself... But, if there's no material/legal difference, why would a LAWMAKER be making the distinction??
In my view, it's because the right wing wants to FORCE women who can't PROVE they were FORCIBLY raped, to carry their baby to term.
excon
Nope, doesn't tie with a mythical war on women at all. It ties perfectly into the fact that conservatives as a whole condemn violence and intimidation while liberals align with it. As for facts, we've discussed ad nauseum here so feel to find all you want. You might start with the nice little summary someone put to this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedball1
I did not deny you lived it, I said we don't condone it. Pretty simple really.Quote:
It's not drivel. I lived it!
And we live with the fact that our only grandchild was aborted. My daughter regrets it every day. I've given support to women traumatized by their 'choice' and give financially to our local, non-violent crisis pregnancy center that deals with the fallout from having an abortion and supports women through their pregnancy. Don't preach to me about walking the walk.Quote:
I walked the walk while all people like you simply talked the talk.
Have I said that? What prominent conservative politicians, evangelical leaders or women's advocates say that? Hmmm??Quote:
Every lifer I've talked to had the same line of crap. I hate violence! I denounce the killings and bombings! Yet when they occur I've heard you people say. " Well, there's one doctor that will never perform abortions any more" and smile when they said it.
Sorry Goober, that's a straw man and typical hypocrisy on your side of the aisle as already demonstrated. In your delusional world we MUST take responsibility for acts we consistently deplore and have NOTHING to do with but you get a pass for aligning yourselves with your own kooks? No way, dude. You can fling your crap all you want but it's not going to stick.Quote:
No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it.
As if you can separate the two. Bwa ha ha ha!!Quote:
And don't attempt to cloud up the issue by bringing politics into it. We're talking Women's Rights not the upcoming RNC in Tampa.
I can't answer for what a lawmaker says. I only was trying to define where a line may be drawn as far as descriptive definition. As you well know the law is defined by its terms and usage of definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Its like the broadened term of abortion. Many people that may be on the fence about it may not take offence to the morning after pill or first term abortions but also may be repelled by those involving infantacide.
It's a persons right to choose where the line is drawn and that is why it is such a hot button topic. It deserves debate in an open fashion.
In my world any rape is forcible The second she says "NO" and the man continues it becomes forcible. Now if you want to look at the fine points, but wait! There are no fine points to rape. Or would you like to go back to the old days where, " the woman was asking for it?" Let's take a look at "forcible Rape."
Forcible rape has been in the lexicon for some time since it has routinely been used by those opposed to abortion. In 2011, Mr. Akin and Paul Ryan were among 227 co-sponsors of H.R. 3, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act." As introduced, that act said abortions could be funded by the federal government if the pregnancy was the result of "forcible rape." [B](The word "forcible" was removed from the legislation before it passed the House and the legislation was not considered in the Senate.[/B}) The addition of "forcible" adds emphasis to the fact that force is part of the rape I That is why it comes up in discussions about abortions. Regards, Tom
Can rape ever be not forcible? Seems like the two terms are mutually exclusive. Rape IS force.
If she has allowed some physical intimacy and he decides to head to the goal but then she blocks him and says no, yet he struggles past her objections and continues on for a touchdown, is that rape (since she "set him up" and allowed him to travel x number of yards)?
Was it a trap play or back field in motion ?
Is a touchdown valid no matter how it was gained, what fouls were committed, and who on the other team got hurt along the way?
Sex after withdrawal of consent is rape. Happy?
I'll say it again, a woman's vagina is hers. What goes on in it, who goes in it, what have you. She can be the biggest tease ever. If she doesn't want to go all the way, then she doesn't. End of story. Same thing with any sexual act. Perhaps she let's you fondle her buttocks, doesn't necessarily mean she is asking for anal. Most teenage girls are teases at some point. Experimenting until they are ready for intercourse. They don't deserve rape. No means no at any point. If a lady likes to take guys to the edge and then leave them hanging, then she is just mean. She deserves to not be called for a second date, not forced sex. No one "has it coming."
Rape can also occur by mutual consent when one of the parties is outside the legal limits of consent either by knowing or unknowing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
That is why there are laws in place to protect those that can't protect themselves.
Why the "happy"? Patronizing? So far in all the political discussions, it has not been mentioned about a woman going along with intimacy but then suddenly changing her mind and wanting out and saying no, but then her objections are not taken seriously ("she really wants it and is just being coy"), and she later claims she was raped.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So enviromentalists need to own eco-terrorism .And the Anti-war movement needs to own the violence of the Weather underground?. and anyone anti-corporation needs to own the violence of the anarchists at the WTO gatherings... and I suppose that every abolitionist in the 19th century owned John Brown's decade of terrorism in Kansas. Yeah makes complete sense.Quote:
No Tinkerbell, If you call yourself a Pro-Lifer you MUST accept the violence and take the responsibility that go with it.
Yeah Tom that's it, go civil war, just take your gun and commit mayhem
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 PM. |