Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/31/2002 12:45:41 PM EDT
Thursday, January 31, 2002 WASHINGTON –– A developing fetus may be classified as an "unborn child" eligible for government health care, the Bush administration said Thursday, giving low-income women access to prenatal care and bolstering the arguments of abortion opponents. The plan will make a fetus eligible for health care under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Because CHIP is aimed at kids, it does not typically cover parents or pregnant women. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson cited well-established data on the importance of prenatal care in explaining the proposal. "Prenatal care for women and their babies is a crucial part of the medical care every person should have through the course of their life cycle," Thompson said in a statement. "Prenatal services can be a vital, lifelong determinant of health, and we should do everything we can to make this care available for all pregnant women." States, which administer CHIP, would have the option of including include fetuses in their programs. Doing so would make the mother eligible for prenatal and delivery care. Abortion rights supporters complain that there are other ways to include coverage for pregnant women in CHIP. They see Thursday's action as a backdoor attempt to establish the fetus as a person with legal standing, which could make it easier to criminalize abortion. "If they're interested in covering pregnant women, why don't they talk about pregnant women?" asked Laurie Rubiner of the National Partnership for Women and Families. [b]"I just have to believe their hidden agenda is to extend personhood to a fetus."[/b] This plan, she said, "sets legal precedent on its head." States may already cover pregnant women under the health program, though they have to get specific permission from HHS since CHIP was designed for children, not adults. Thompson regularly promotes these waivers. He has worked to speed the time it takes for them to be considered by federal officials, arguing that waivers are an excellent way of expanding health coverage to people without insurance. In his statement Thursday, he said automatically including the fetus is the quickest way to get prenatal services to the most women. The waiver process "would take longer than extending it this way," said HHS spokesman Campbell Gardett. Thompson said he also supports legislation pending in the Senate that would allow states to automatically add pregnant women to CHIP, much as poorer pregnant women are eligible for Medicaid. Administration officials said last summer that they were considering this policy change. At the time, the National Governors Association cautioned HHS that while some states would embrace the new option and some would immediately reject it, other states would face divisive battles over whether to go along. The new policy will not take effect until after it is published in the Federal Register and the department considers public comments. A wise man once said (forgive me, I usually recall those whom I quote) "the corruption of language is soon followed by the corruption of people." fetus n. Latin for child. So what this ignorant bloodthirsty nazi butcher said was; [b]I just have to believe their hidden agenda is to extend personhood to a child.[/b] "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." Thomas Jefferson
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 12:55:30 PM EDT
So a fetus is a child. Those who do not think so [devil] are akin to the chinese, where if a woman is having a baby without approval from the state it can be killed as long as it has not taken it's first breath. Isn't life wonderful! Joe F
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:00:33 PM EDT
How Killing Became a ‘Right’ by Joseph Sobran Nearly three decades ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is constitutionally protected. Ostensibly libertarian, the ruling was actually one of the most tyrannical acts in American history. What greater power can the state claim than the power to redefine human life itself – to withdraw protection from an entire category of human beings? And what greater power could the Federal Government usurp than the power of the individual states to protect innocent life from violent death? The pro-abortion movement has been consistent only in its inconsistency. It began by agreeing with its opponents that abortion was wrong, but arguing that abortion, when banned by law, "happens anyway" and could be better regulated – made "safe" – if legalized. Of course this could be said of any crime: murder, burglary, and incest, though banned by law, "happen anyway." Should they too be legalized? Later the pro-abortion propaganda apparat took a new position: that when life begins is a "religious" question, beyond the competence of the state to decide. Oddly enough, my Darwinian public-school biology teachers used to answer the question without consulting their Bibles: life began at conception. Frog life, bovine life, human life. But in those days nobody had any axes to grind, so nobody denied or evaded the obvious. "When does life begin?" became a mystery only with the emergence of a political interest in killing the unborn. Still later, the pro-abortion – alias "pro-choice" crowd decided that abortion, far from being a necessary evil, was a positive good, which the state should not only tolerate but support, encourage, subsidize, maximize. Taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions. They should have no more "choice" than the child. How did the pro-abortion position evolve from the necessary evil position to the positive good position? Easy. The Court arbitrarily ruled that the U.S. Constitution shelters abortion. Did the Court cite any passage in the Constitution saying so? No. Did it find any evidence that the Framers hoped to protect abortion? No. Did it name any justice of the Court, even the most liberal, who had ever claimed constitutional protection for abortion before 1973? No. It merely discovered, all of a sudden, that the abortion laws of all 50 states had been violating the Constitution all along, even when nobody suspected it.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:01:14 PM EDT
(cont.) This fantastic ruling generated a new debate about the "original intent" of the Constitution. Liberals argued that "original intent" didn’t matter or was unknowable anyway. The Constitution didn’t have a single fixed meaning; it "evolved" over time. Any interpretation was bound to be more or less "subjective" – yet somehow the Court’s subjective rulings had the binding force of law. This amounted to saying that the Constitution means whatever today’s liberal interpreters choose to say it means. If that were so, there would be no point in having a written constitution, or for that matter any written law. We would be defenseless against legal sophistry, especially the sophistry of self-aggrandizing power. That’s the perfect prescription for tyranny, the opposite of the rule of law. Anti-abortion forces thought they had a winning issue when they raised the subject of the agony the aborted child may suffer, as rendered visible in films of aborted fetuses. The pro-abortion crowd replied – when they didn’t just ignore the question – that nobody really knew whether abortion caused pain. But when the issue of late-term (or "partial-birth") abortion emerged, it transpired that they didn’t care at all whether a fully developed baby suffered when its skull was crushed and evacuated. The Court agreed. It had originally made quibbling distinctions among first, second, and third trimesters of pregnancy, holding that a state might protect a child in the third trimester, when it had achieved "viability" and was capable of living outside the womb. But now the viability pretext was discarded. Killing the unborn was constitutionally protected at every stage between conception and live birth. Right from the start, the pro-abortion movement has been defined by shifting arguments, fallacies, evasions, lame excuses, and utter bad faith. The Court has not only acted as part of that movement, but has been its greatest asset, sparing it the need for persuasion by imposing its arbitrary will on the entire United States – and in the name of the Constitution it actually despises. January 30, 2002
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:05:04 PM EDT
They want it both ways. Kill a pregnant female while driving drunk or during a robbery and you will be charged with 2 counts of murder/manslaughter, whichever is appropriate. The same woman could have aborted the fetus without penalty. Go figure.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:18:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rustygun: They want it both ways. Kill a pregnant female while driving drunk or during a robbery and you will be charged with 2 counts of murder/manslaughter, whichever is appropriate. The same woman could have aborted the fetus without penalty. Go figure.
View Quote
damn beat me to it
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:21:07 PM EDT
Imagine... Actually considering an unborn child, a person. Planned Parenthood and NOW is going nuts. [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:31:30 PM EDT
Hmmm, I am really of two minds. A 5 or 6 month old fetus, is a baby. A woman *has* to have control over her body (Sorry guys, it is the libertarian in me). I am all for abortion, even retroactively. I guess the answer is, if you want an abortion, have one, if you don't want one, don't have one. Of course, there will be a plethora of people who feel tha tthey have a right to make that decision for another person, I just don't agree with that.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:45:34 PM EDT
One more step to banning abortion. A woman should have control of her body. Av.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:45:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 1:47:36 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Abortion rights supporters complain that there are other ways to include coverage for pregnant women in CHIP. They see Thursday's action as a backdoor attempt to establish the fetus as a person with legal standing, which could make it easier to criminalize abortion.
View Quote
[b]The baby-killers just don't (won't) get it!![/b]
"[u]If they're interested in covering pregnant women,[/u] why don't they talk about pregnant women?" asked Laurie Rubiner of the National Partnership for Women and Families. [b]"I just have to believe their hidden agenda is to extend personhood to a fetus."[/b]
View Quote
[b]It's not about the WOMAN you sh!theads!! It's about the BABY!!! The only "hidden agenda" I see was successfully launched 30years ago when the self-centered, power-craved, lesbian, militant, man-hating, feminazi-baby-killers erased the notion that a developing fetus is more that just a "mass of goo" to be scraped and flushed from the body at whim like a dangerous tumor.[/b]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 1:50:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 1:52:39 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By Avalon01: One more step to banning abortion. A woman should have control of her body. Av.
View Quote
A woman's right to swing her fist ("control her body") ends at the tip of my nose. So what's your nose doing in... haha funny. Point is, she ain't alone anymore.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 2:05:34 PM EDT
Of course she is alone, scrape the ooze out of her at 3 months and the best neo-natoligist will not put that back togehter again. Her body, her choice. I will agree with your position as soon as we (read: men) can carry a fetus to term. Until then, it is her choice.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 2:25:00 PM EDT
A woman *has* to have control over her body (Sorry guys, it is the libertarian in me).
View Quote
Until then, it is her choice
View Quote
OK, what about the 50+% of births that are female? Do those women have "control" over their bodies? I think not. [IMG]http://www.3dpcgame.com/cwm/s/contrib/ruinkai/rolleyea.gif[/IMG]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 2:33:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 2:34:58 PM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By hielo: Of course she is alone, scrape the ooze out of her at 3 months and the best neo-natoligist will not put that back togehter again.
View Quote
WTF is your point? If the same procedures were done to YOU as were done to fetuses during an abortion, no "neo-natoligist" or any other specialist would be able to put YOU back together again either.
Her body, her choice.
View Quote
If she is alone and it's just her body, answer this: Who's heartbeat is going 160beats/min? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's blood type is flowing through the fetus? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's fingerprints are formed on the hands of the fetus? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's brain, liver, muscles and endocrine glands are all functioning in the uterus? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's feet are kicking the woman in the belly? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's hiccuping in the uterus? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's eyes are now opening to see in the uterus? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's ears are in the uterus hearing muffled noises from outside? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's body is ripped apart and flushed into a pail during an abortion? [s]the woman's[/s] Who's given anesthesia when the fetus is slowly torn apart piece by piece during an abortion? the woman is. Who senses most of the pain during an abortion? [s]the woman[/s] Who is killed during an abortion? [s]the woman[/s] All this happens before the 21st week of pregnancy - when abortion-on-demand is still legal.
I will agree with your position as soon as we (read: men) can carry a fetus to term. Until then, it is her choice.
View Quote
Again, WTF does that have to do with it? So, only men can get testicular cancer - does that give them the right to kill their own children? WTF does being able to get pregnant or not get pregnant have to do with determining whether a fetus is human or not? So using your logic, only slave-owners could have any say into the question of whether slaves should have any rights. You've found very ordinary ways of completely avoiding the issue. You've got to do better than this.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 2:34:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By platform389:
A woman *has* to have control over her body (Sorry guys, it is the libertarian in me).
View Quote
Until then, it is her choice
View Quote
OK, what about the 50+% of births that are female? Do those women have "control" over their bodies? I think not. [IMG]http://www.3dpcgame.com/cwm/s/contrib/ruinkai/rolleyea.gif[/IMG]
View Quote
Touche, platform.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 3:18:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 3:36:54 PM EDT by Am-O-Tramp]
I have read, correct me if I am wrong here, that the gamete, the specialized male and female cells with half the normal number of chromosomes, unite with the another cell of the opposite sex. From this starts the reproductive process witch forms a cell called the zygote. The zygote develops into a embryo, therefore all necessary DNA to produce life are present from the instant of conception. If left alone, a human being will develop. Life starts at conception! Can you imagine, in America today, a bill to protect babies, that is very ((([red]UN-Democratic?[/red]))) HeHeHE
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 3:43:30 PM EDT
Oh, right! You're just pandering to the gametes here. Next you're going after the zygote vote! I say they're not legally a person until they can live on their own, and can support themselves without mom and dad's help. Until then, [i]really late term [/i] abortion should be legal. Anyone with kids, especially teenagers will understand [b]exactly[/b] what I mean!
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 3:49:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 3:50:28 PM EDT by Mr-T]
Originally Posted By Am-O-Tramp: I have read, correct me if I am wrong here, that the gamete, the specialized male and female cells with half the normal number of chromosomes, unite with the another cell of the opposite sex. From this starts the reproductive process witch forms a cell called the zygote. The zygote develops into a embryo, therefore all necessary DNA to produce life are present from the instant of conception. If left alone, a human being will develop. Life starts at conception! Can you imagine, in America today, a bill to protect babies, that is very ((([red]UN-Democratic?[/red]))) HeHeHE
View Quote
Agreed. The woman has a right to choose... to not get pregnant. After that, I say both the man and the woman have a responsiblity to the child, born or not.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:04:14 PM EDT
[b]When does the heart begin to beat?[/b] At 18 days [when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period], and by 21 days it is pumping, through a closed circulatory system, blood whose type is different from that of the mother. That is before "3 months". [b]When is the brain functioning?[/b] Brain waves have been recorded at 40 days on the Electroencephalogram (EEG). Also before "3 months". [b]When does the developing baby first move?[/b] "In the sixth to seventh weeks. . . . If the area of the lips is gently stroked, the child responds by bending the upper body to one side and making a quick backward motion with his arms. This is called a ‘total pattern response’ because it involves most of the body, rather than a local part." At eight weeks, "if we tickle the baby’s nose, he will flex his head backwards away from the stimulus." Also before "3 months". [b]When are all his body systems present?[/b] By eight weeks. "8 weeks" is before "3 months". [b]How about nine weeks?[/b] At nine to ten weeks, he squints, swallows, moves his tongue, and if you stroke his palm, will make a tight fist. By nine weeks he will "bend his fingers round an object in the palm of his hand." Again, bofore "3 months". [b]When does he start to breathe?[/b] "By 11 to 12 weeks (3 months), he is breathing fluid steadily and continues so until birth. At birth, he will breathe air. He does not drown by breathing fluid within his mother, because he obtains his oxygen from his umbilical cord. This breathing develops the organs of respiration." [b]Can he cry?[/b] Although the watery environment in which he lives presents small opportunity for crying, which does require air, the unborn knows how to cry, and given a chance to do so, he will. A doctor ". . . injected an air bubble into the baby’s amniotic sac and then took x-rays. It so happened that the air bubble covered the baby’s face. The whole procedure had no doubt given the little fellow quite a bit of jostling about, and the moment that he had air to inhale and exhale they heard the clear sound of a protesting wail emitting from the uterus. Late that same night, the mother awakened her doctor with a telephone call, to report that when she lay down to sleep the air bubble got over the baby’s head again, and he was crying so loudly he was keeping both her and her husband awake. The doctor advised her to prop herself upright with pillows so that the air could not reach the baby’s head, which was by now in the lower part of the uterus." [b]Does the unborn baby dream?[/b] Using ultrasound techniques, it was first shown that REM (rapid eye movements) which are characteristic of active dream states have been demonstrated at 23 weeks. REM have since been recorded 17 weeks after conception. [b]Does he/she think?[/b] We now know that the unborn child is an aware, reacting human being who from the sixth month on (and perhaps earlier) leads an active emotional life. The fetus can, on a primitive level, even learn in utero.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:06:46 PM EDT
[b]Can he/she feel pain?[/b] Yes, by the 8th week and perhaps earlier. By this age the neuroanatomic structures are present. What is needed is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present by 8 weeks. Without doubt a abortion is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant. [b]What of The Silent Scream?[/b] A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600). [url=http://hometown.aol.com/dfjoseph/babyhand.html]Baby Samuel Reaching Out Of the Womb [/url]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:06:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr-T:
Originally Posted By Am-O-Tramp: I have read, correct me if I am wrong here, that the gamete, the specialized male and female cells with half the normal number of chromosomes, unite with the another cell of the opposite sex. From this starts the reproductive process witch forms a cell called the zygote. The zygote develops into a embryo, therefore all necessary DNA to produce life are present from the instant of conception. If left alone, a human being will develop. Life starts at conception! Can you imagine, in America today, a bill to protect babies, that is very ((([red]UN-Democratic?[/red]))) HeHeHE
View Quote
Agreed. The woman has a right to choose... to not get pregnant. After that, I say both the man and the woman have a responsiblity to the child, born or not.
View Quote
One problem here is that some forms of birth control don't prevent conception, but interfere with the implantation of the zygote or whatever it is at that stage into the uterine wall. What then? Are then some contraceptive choices unacceptable?
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:09:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:10:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:17:17 PM EDT
Well, just for the sake of Paul's insomnia, let's assume for a moment someone had no clue what the philosophical, moral, ethical and, of course [i]scriptural[/i] basis for opposing abortion was. Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body. Remember, this person you're trying to convince isn't stupid, just firm in their belief that her body is hers, and not yours, god's, or the governments. Hey Paul! Got coffee?
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:18:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:22:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:22:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Well, just for the sake of Paul's insomnia, let's assume for a moment someone had no clue what the philosophical, moral, ethical and, of course [i]scriptural[/i] basis for opposing abortion was. Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body. Remember, this person you're trying to convince isn't stupid, just firm in their belief that her body is hers, and not yours, god's, or the governments. Hey Paul! Got coffee?
View Quote
By this I take it you believe that an unborn child, 5 minutes before being born, that is in perfect health and poses no risk to the health or "well being" of the mother, is not a human being???
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 4:27:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:00:21 PM EDT
Now this is a very clever slight of hand on Bush's part: by declaring a fetus a person for the purpose of giving the mother [b]GOVERNMENT SPONSORED[/b] medical care, the feminazis cannot argue against it without contradicting their leftist universal medical care and self-appointed pro-women stance. Touche, you hairy legged dildo jockeys.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:19:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By platform389:
A woman *has* to have control over her body (Sorry guys, it is the libertarian in me).
View Quote
Until then, it is her choice
View Quote
OK, what about the 50+% of births that are female? Do those women have "control" over their bodies? I think not. [IMG]http://www.3dpcgame.com/cwm/s/contrib/ruinkai/rolleyea.gif[/IMG]
View Quote
Not until they leave their momma's body. Until then, she gets the personal responsibility for both.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:22:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr-T:
Originally Posted By Am-O-Tramp: I have read, correct me if I am wrong here, that the gamete, the specialized male and female cells with half the normal number of chromosomes, unite with the another cell of the opposite sex. From this starts the reproductive process witch forms a cell called the zygote. The zygote develops into a embryo, therefore all necessary DNA to produce life are present from the instant of conception. If left alone, a human being will develop. Life starts at conception! Can you imagine, in America today, a bill to protect babies, that is very ((([red]UN-Democratic?[/red]))) HeHeHE
View Quote
Agreed. The woman has a right to choose... to not get pregnant. After that, I say both the man and the woman have a responsiblity to the child, born or not.
View Quote
How many children have you adopted? Could jerking off be considered abortion also? Do we hold funerals for Tampons?
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:25:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc: [b]What of The Silent Scream?[/b] A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title (available from American Portrait Films, P.O. Box 19266, Cleveland, OH 44119, 216-531-8600).
View Quote
Got to love those moves on a 12 week fetus! It has no legs at 12 weeks old, eyes are formed but not yet connected to the brain, but it dodges (quite cunningly) out of the way of a suction tube (Got to wonder how it knows to dodge anything), jeez, my 1 year old wouldn't dodge a hot plate, and for the first month of his life, he couldn't roll off his back. Nice propoganda, but that is all it is.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:27:11 PM EDT
The woman has a right to choose... to not get pregnant. After that, I say both the man and the woman have a responsiblity to the child, born or not. One problem here is that some forms of birth control don't prevent conception, but interfere with the implantation of the zygote or whatever it is at that stage into the uterine wall. What then? Are then some contraceptive choices unacceptable?
View Quote
Ouch! Shoudl we give all menstrual flow a "proper" burial as it might have really contained a zygote that was miscarried?
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:29:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Well, just for the sake of Paul's insomnia, let's assume for a moment someone had no clue what the philosophical, moral, ethical and, of course [i]scriptural[/i] basis for opposing abortion was. Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body. Remember, this person you're trying to convince isn't stupid, just firm in their belief that her body is hers, and not yours, god's, or the governments. Hey Paul! Got coffee?
View Quote
Excellent question Dscott, I forecast a lack of willing takers out there. How do I know? I have faith .
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:43:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By hielo:
Originally Posted By DScott: Well, just for the sake of Paul's insomnia, let's assume for a moment someone had no clue what the philosophical, moral, ethical and, of course [i]scriptural[/i] basis for opposing abortion was. Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body. Remember, this person you're trying to convince isn't stupid, just firm in their belief that her body is hers, and not yours, god's, or the governments. Hey Paul! Got coffee?
View Quote
Excellent question Dscott, I forecast a lack of willing takers out there. How do I know? I have faith .
View Quote
Patience hielo. Soon... DScott... soon... [b]"I'll be back"[/b]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:43:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Belloc:
Originally Posted By DScott: Well, just for the sake of Paul's insomnia, let's assume for a moment someone had no clue what the philosophical, moral, ethical and, of course [i]scriptural[/i] basis for opposing abortion was. Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body. Remember, this person you're trying to convince isn't stupid, just firm in their belief that her body is hers, and not yours, god's, or the governments. Hey Paul! Got coffee?
View Quote
By this I take it you believe that an unborn child, 5 minutes before being born, that is in perfect health and poses no risk to the health or "well being" of the mother, is not a human being???
View Quote
C'mon! I asked for convincing arguement, not questions. Let me restate the question: "Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body."
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:45:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Javak: Now this is a very clever slight of hand on Bush's part: by declaring a fetus a person for the purpose of giving the mother [b]GOVERNMENT SPONSORED[/b] medical care, the feminazis cannot argue against it without contradicting their leftist universal medical care and self-appointed pro-women stance. Touche, you hairy legged dildo jockeys.
View Quote
Not that clever, and certainly not so clever as to slip past the other side. Why don't they just bring this issue out in the open and argue the question: Is the unborn legally a "person"? Decide it with all force of government and the law.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:47:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By big_guy:
Originally Posted By DScott: I say they're not legally a person until they can live on their own, and can support themselves without mom and dad's help. Until then, [i]really late term [/i] abortion should be legal.
View Quote
How many 5 year olds do you know that can support themselves without their mom and dads help. Does that mean the mother should have the right to kill them too. The arguement that the women should have controll over her body is not relevent. If she had controll over her body she would not have gotten pregnant.
View Quote
Yes, I was thinking along the lines of, oh, like 18 or so. Don't your kids just do the stupidist things sometimes, things that make you just want to [i]kill[/] them?
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:50:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:55:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:55:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By hielo:
Originally Posted By DScott: Well, just for the sake of Paul's insomnia, let's assume for a moment someone had no clue what the philosophical, moral, ethical and, of course [i]scriptural[/i] basis for opposing abortion was. Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body. Remember, this person you're trying to convince isn't stupid, just firm in their belief that her body is hers, and not yours, god's, or the governments. Hey Paul! Got coffee?
View Quote
Excellent question Dscott, I forecast a lack of willing takers out there. How do I know? I have faith .
View Quote
Patience hielo. Soon... DScott... soon... [b]"I'll be back"[/b]
View Quote
That's cool, The_Mac Daddy... Paul's got all night! [;)]
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 5:59:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/31/2002 6:07:52 PM EDT by Belloc]
Originally Posted By hielo: jeez, my 1 year old wouldn't dodge a hot plate, and for the first month of his life, he couldn't roll off his back. Nice propoganda, but that is all it is.
View Quote
Oh, really? Put your 1 year olds hand on a hot plate and if he does not pull it away I will send you $100. Or to better represent the conditions in the womb, put your 1 year old (or a newborn if you have one) in a pool. (I am sure at least some here have seen on TLC how newborns behave in water) and then put his hand on a hotplate. See if he keeps it there.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:01:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Hey, I have a 15-pound lump of steel in my garage. Who wants to pay me $700 for an "unborn AR-15"? No takers?
View Quote
what would you call a 80% receiver?
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:01:51 PM EDT
It seems to me that asking when does a fetus become a baby is a lot like asking when does middle age begin. It is pretty clear to me that just after conception, you haven't got a baby (just a handful of cells that could become one). It is also clear to me that just prior to birth you've do have a baby that is just biding its time. Just like I can't say with any certainty when middle age begins, I can't say with any certainty when the cells become a baby. I think Roe v. Wade was rightly decided. People have the right to have medical matters kept private (other rights retained by the people) and that the 14th amendment means the states can't infringe it either. Of course, if you believe that a human being is instantly created at the moment of conception then you will not buy the part about abortion being a medical matter. I think the logic of Roe v. Wade needs to be applied more widely. Far too often the Supreme court only protects the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and often narrowly. In Roe they took the rare step of recognizing that there is a whole gamut of rights that come under the heading of being left alone by the government. The insane war on drugs should be ended by a Roe-ish decision. Likewise, compulsory vaccination, compulsory seatbelt use, compulsory helmet use, compulsory saving (social security). The court should protect all our rights so thoroughly.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:01:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Oh ye of too much faith! Nobody has absolute control over their body. Therein lies the fallacy. The common belief is that a woman has absolute control over her body. Biologically, this is not true. Establishing that conception is a biological process, that is not subject to the force of will or belief, and that conception is the result of a voluntary action by two willing participants, one is REALLY compelled to wonder why more emphasis is not given to the original choice. In the natural frame of reference, if society as a whole suddenly forgot all medical knowledge, what would we still have? We would still have the sex act, the process of conception, and childbirth, wouldn't we? Abortion is a product of more advanced medical knowledge, and abortion as we know it presently is a product of technology. Thus, abortion is not a natural right, as life is a right, but rather a concept that has been spun into a right by people who do not care for the consequences of sex. Is a right that depends so heavily on technology, REALLY a right at all?
View Quote
Actually, the "technology" for abortion has existed for almost as long as the technology for sex. IIRC, the ancient Egyptians, the Chinese, and other rather old and well established cultures had the "technology" for abortion... as well as forms of birth control. Seems this has been a problem for about *forever*.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:06:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: C'mon! I asked for convincing arguement, not questions. Let me restate the question: "Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body."
View Quote
If a person actually thinks that an unborn child, 5 seconds from being born, is not a human being, (as you do) than no evidence will convince him otherwise. That was my point.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:08:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott: Well, just for the sake of Paul's insomnia, let's assume for a moment someone had no clue what the philosophical, moral, ethical and, of course [i]scriptural[/i] basis for opposing abortion was. Prove to this hypothetical agnostic humanistic progressive individual that it's NOT OK for a woman to have absolute control over her body. Remember, this person you're trying to convince isn't stupid, just firm in their belief that her body is hers, and not yours, god's, or the governments. Hey Paul! Got coffee?
View Quote
OK Mr. DScott, I'll AGREE with you that woman should have absolute control over her body. No person should be able to tell a woman what she can do with her body. what she eats, how she wears her hair, where and when she takes a dump are all within a woman's span of absolute control. Yet this argument isn't about absolute control. It is about responsibility in society. you see, the minute she opens her legs and sperm meets egg, she is no longer in absolute control of her body. She has [b]chosen[/b] to give up that absolute control, to share her body with another person. To the extent that this act of giving up control involves another person, then [b]absolute[/b] goes out the window. I, a man, have absolute control over my body. I may [b]choose[/b] to drink alcohol, or not. If I do drink, I may choose to drive or not. If I drive drunk and hit someone, hurting or killing them, I can no longer claim the right of absolute control over my body. I have involved another person. I now have a responsibility to that person for my behavior, and the State of Florida will insure that I am held accountable for that responsibility. For a woman it is no different. The act of procreation involves another person, by default. If a woman chooses to have sex, fine. If she chooses to do so without taking proper birth control measures, her [b]choice[/b] has now taken on an element of risk. If she continues to engage in this risky bahavior, she may end up pregnant. We have moved from absolute control over her body to responsibility for her actions. The easy access to abortion has allowed women to escape being responsible for their own choices and actions. So, it's not about choice, it's about responsibility. Say that the fellow I hit while driving drunk survives to sue me. He will take everything I own. My life will be riuned. My health and welfare will certainly suffer. So, if I am in absolute control of my body, who is this man, and a court, to tell me I have to give him everyting I own to pay for my misdeed? I [b]must[/b] be given the [b]choice[/b] to permanently remove this person from my life, even to the point of killing him, if need be, to benefit my health and welfare. Sounds like a good idea to me. Does it sound good to you, too? BTW, have you ever noticed that the abortion advocates call themselves "pro-choice", yet never talk about the choices? They do everything they can to promote abortion while denying the promotion of any other "choices". They will fight all the way to the Supreme Court to defend the their right to have (and staff) "clinics" inside schools, and will fight even harder to prevent a crisis-pregnancy center from opening down the street. Adoption a choice? "Only if you want your life ruined young lady." Abortion is easier, they say. (cont.)
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:09:17 PM EDT
(cont.) Want to know why they fight so hard? Forget for a moment the political, social and religious aspects of the argument. Get out your calculator and follow me for a minute: 1.5 million abortions a year. Hospitals charge about $1000 and the Planned Parenthood clinic in your daughters junior high school will charge $400 or so. So let's call the average abortion $700, OK? Now multiply it out... abortion is a 1 [b]billion[/b] dollar a year business! Are you gonna let someone mess with [b]your[/b] 1 billion dollar a year business? Not me! Over the last 30 years the abortion industry has raked in over $30 billion dollars! Wow, they must [b]really[/b] care about all those poor pregnant girls who just got pregnant "by mistake". And gee, just think, with all that money floating around some must find it's way into a political party's war chest. So, if I am a politician, I can tap into that money simply by supporting this cause. Where there is money, there is power. Make no mistake about it, this "argument" is over nothing more than money and political and economic power. So, let's keep the argument in perspective.
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:11:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By big_guy:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Hey, I have a 15-pound lump of steel in my garage. Who wants to pay me $700 for an "unborn AR-15"? No takers?
View Quote
what would you call a 80% receiver?
View Quote
A paperweight. Certainly, not a "firearm".
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:13:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/31/2002 6:14:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScott:
Originally Posted By big_guy:
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Hey, I have a 15-pound lump of steel in my garage. Who wants to pay me $700 for an "unborn AR-15"? No takers?
View Quote
what would you call a 80% receiver?
View Quote
A paperweight. Certainly, not a "firearm".
View Quote
What about a 80% developed child?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top