Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[tjheroscape]

Originally Posted by ollie

"fetus=life" is not a sufficiently developed argument to have resolved the issue.

I could google some fancy words that say the same thing but that is really what it comes down to dosen't it. Really. All the long arguments from both sides come down to this one basic question. Where does life begin.

fetus <> life just makes people feel better about the descision they make.

[Nukatha]

Originally Posted by Aldin

FYI

From three years ago: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...UCLA-6664.aspx

From two years ago: http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-re...as-november-a/

Pretty charts: http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

~Aldin, who doesn't read the NYT anyway...

Thank you Aldin for that data.

Could someone quote this, and possibly my previous post as well so IMax sees that I'm not the idoitic racist bigot that he thinks I am. Heck, he can twist my words enough and probably has a mindset that I am a complete moron. I'm surprised he hasn't tried to advocate a title for me stating such. At any rate I'd like to find out what he has to say about the fairness doctrine.

-Nukatha, a racist bigot that clings to his guns and religion.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by tjheroscape

I could google some fancy words that say the same thing but that is really what it comes down to dosen't it. Really. All the long arguments from both sides come down to this one basic question. Where does life begin.

It's not about long words (though I'd argue that appropriate words are more, well, appropriate), and I'd also say that it doesn't boil down to "Where does life begin?" either. It's about two sets of contradictory "rights", those of the pregnant woman and those of the fetus. In my opinion a grouping of four, say, cells has no rights whatsoever. That being so, the everything-after-conception point of view that you hold simply does not seem reasonable to me.

It's not about making people feel better, it's not about expediency, it's not about killing babies for fun and profit. It is about a sensible balance in law to provide a safe medical and emotional framework within which women can make the tough decisions that they have every right to make.

[Raudulfr Shieldcrusher]

Originally Posted by ollie

It's not about long words (though I'd argue that appropriate words are more, well, appropriate), and I'd also say that it doesn't boil down to "Where does life begin?" either. It's about two sets of contradictory "rights", those of the pregnant woman and those of the fetus. In my opinion a grouping of four, say, cells has no rights whatsoever. That being so, the everything-after-conception point of view that you hold simply does not seem reasonable to me.

It's not about making people feel better, it's not about expediency, it's not about killing babies for fun and profit. It is about a sensible balance in law to provide a safe medical and emotional framework within which women can make the tough decisions that they have every right to make.

Well, said and spot on.

[Nukatha]

Assuming it wasn't rape, the decision had already been made by both persons involved.

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by tjheroscape

Wow what a rant.

Oh, I apologize. Do I need to use smaller words for you?

I don't know that I stated an opinion on those topics. You are assuming I am a far right person. This topic should be able to be discussed without siding with Obama or McCain. The word "support" in my post was not for a canadate but for the idea that a woman should be allowed to make the choice. That is what I do not support.

Nobody said you had a side. I was merely pointing out that your little sound bite was overly simplified, by presenting an equally ridiculous oversimplification of my own. Obviously the point was lost on you.

Why can't it be that simple? It all boils down to either a baby lives or dies.

No, it doesn't. Some people don't believe life begins until the baby is born. Some don't believe it begins until the baby has a heartbeat. And some don't really care when it begins, and think the mother can kill the baby regardless of when life begins, as long as it hasn't 'cleared the breach.'

And furthermore, virtually nobody is in the 'pro-abortion' camp. People don't really like the idea of killing babies. Simply saying, 'how does a Christian support killing babies' isn't just too simple, it's silly. Nobody supports killing babies.

fetus = life
embryo = life
baby = life
any other definition is for convience and peace of mind.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Hah! Apparently Obi Wan was Sith then - making an absolute statement about the Sith and absolutes...

~Aldin, who truly despised that particular line in the midst of Lucas' monumental task of wreaking destruction on one of the more cherished memories of my childhood

PS I'm craving part 3 of Stockpile... so... what the heck are you doing here having fun when you could be slavishly serving my every petty need and desire over on your blog?

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by tjheroscape

I could google some fancy words ...

I think I see the problem now. You're opposed to intelligent debate because you have to use the internet to find words to express your opinions. Others of us have no such handicap, and you are thus attempting to bring the argument down to your level. I like to call it Homer Simpson Syndrome.

"Ooh! Big Words! Ooh!" <fart> <burp>

Don't feel bad - most of us have had to deal with people who mock us for being smarter than they are for our whole lives. We're used to it.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

As far as the 'what about health risks' or 'what about rape' arguments - they are tangential at best. When we discuss abortion, we are discussing abortion as after-the-fact birth control. We are not discussing it as a medical procedure. These arguments are simply distractions.

Just to go along with this, the mountain of statistics here indicate that rape and incest is extremely rare as for the "why's" of abortion (less than half a percent). Medical concerns are less than 10%, usually a lot less, even if assuming that the "other" column generally really means medical concerns. The overwhelming majority of abortions are just as Imax says, after-the-fact birth control.

[Roland]

You know they have this amazing thing called the morning after pill, and condoms, and birth control pills, and rings, and methods to decrease the risk...

The options are available, they may not be 100% but you shouldnt be counting on them in the first place. If you have sex, you should be ready for the chance of a child being conceived. If you don't have sex you don't have to worry about it. Pretty easy huh?

[Nukatha]

^Exactly.

My question is why would a mother want to kill her son/daughter that the parents were really gung-ho about having one night?

If you can't live with the potential complications, abstinence is for you.

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Roland

You know they have this amazing thing called the morning after pill, and condoms, and birth control pills, and rings, and methods to decrease the risk...

The options are available, they may not be 100% but you shouldnt be counting on them in the first place. If you have sex, you should be ready for the chance of a child being conceived. If you don't have sex you don't have to worry about it. Pretty easy huh?

I completely agree, but people are dumb.