Who for president

[jovial]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
I listen to the ultra conservatives like you on a daily basis. The Pro Lifers are like the Jesus freaks. They twist the wording around to their liking and make the person who is just trying to make a decision that is best for them out to be the villain. I like your spin on the Declaration. Don't think the founding fathers knew of the existence of abortion, different races, womens rights, or how religion would go to the fanatical right when they wrote them. You compare abortion to natural or causitive diseases? LOL. Yea, someone with cancer purposely caught that so they can get the government to help cure them. Smoking? Obesity? Heart Disease? Go right ahead and make it illegal to smoke, eat out at a fast food restaurants, or fail to exercise. Talk about Nazi Regime. You compare someone's rights in the US, given to them by the Declaration you refer to, as to those of the Nazi's? How dare you.
Pro Lifers keep spouting off about an unborn fetuses rights. Until they're born, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. Show me anywhere in the Declaration or the Constitution where it states at what stage in life a person has these rights. Where does it say that a fetus in the second trimester legally has all the rights and privileges defined in our country's laws. You can't because IT DOESN'T EXIST. The only place it exists is in your feable minds where you believe 'God' or 'Jesus' says so. Sorry dude, but the only place either of those two exist are in the minds of those who believe they exist. The religious fanatics are the ones who screwed up this world. If it weren't for religion, the majority of wars that have occured in the course of the history of the world would have never occurred. We wouldn't be fighting that ridiculous 'war' you so love so much to be in over in Iraq if it weren't for relgion. You want to believe there's some almighty power that's controlling YOUR life, go right ahead. But don't push your belief's or philosophies down my throat, and deny me MY rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence. It's called separation of church and state. You keep your religious beliefs out of my laws.
Lets look at this from a rational standpoint because we both know that there are hundreds of ridiculous laws currently active. To pick and choose which ones to follow is hypocritical. Laws cannot dictate morality and never will. Since you believe "until they're born, they have no rights" would you also agree then that 10 seconds prior to being born the person has no rights?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
I listen to the ultra conservatives like you on a daily basis. The Pro Lifers are like the Jesus freaks. They twist the wording around to their liking and make the person who is just trying to make a decision that is best for them out to be the villain. I like your spin on the Declaration. Don't think the founding fathers knew of the existence of abortion, different races, womens rights, or how religion would go to the fanatical right when they wrote them. You compare abortion to natural or causitive diseases? LOL. Yea, someone with cancer purposely caught that so they can get the government to help cure them. Smoking? Obesity? Heart Disease? Go right ahead and make it illegal to smoke, eat out at a fast food restaurants, or fail to exercise. Talk about Nazi Regime. You compare someone's rights in the US, given to them by the Declaration you refer to, as to those of the Nazi's? How dare you.
Pro Lifers keep spouting off about an unborn fetuses rights. Until they're born, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS. Show me anywhere in the Declaration or the Constitution where it states at what stage in life a person has these rights. Where does it say that a fetus in the second trimester legally has all the rights and privileges defined in our country's laws. You can't because IT DOESN'T EXIST. The only place it exists is in your feable minds where you believe 'God' or 'Jesus' says so. Sorry dude, but the only place either of those two exist are in the minds of those who believe they exist. The religious fanatics are the ones who screwed up this world. If it weren't for religion, the majority of wars that have occured in the course of the history of the world would have never occurred. We wouldn't be fighting that ridiculous 'war' you so love so much to be in over in Iraq if it weren't for relgion. You want to believe there's some almighty power that's controlling YOUR life, go right ahead. But don't push your belief's or philosophies down my throat, and deny me MY rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence. It's called separation of church and state. You keep your religious beliefs out of my laws.
Wow, where to begin:
*You can certainly be Pro-Life without being religious in any way. I asked you early on in this discussion to define when life begins. You have yet to do so, deciding instead to use the "cost" factor and false statements (such as your statement that a large number of abortions are due to assaults, inces t, etc.) You are the only one trying to bring religion into this. I'm arguing facts and asking scientific questions.
*I in no way have made you out to be a villian. Your own words are doing that.
*Our government is established to protect everyone and give everyone equal rights. Until such time as you can prove when life begins I stand by the argument that it is life and is protected. No twisting words there.
*The majority of wars throughout history including the one in Iraq are due to religion, huh? I've studied my fair share of wars, you are incorrect on both counts. That's common anti-religious propaganda.
*I've yet to attempt to push my beliefs on anyone.
*"It's called seperation fo church and state". Hehe, your turn; can you find that statement in the Declaration or Constitution? I'll give you a hint, the answer is "no". If you don't want "my religious beliefs" in "your laws" you better ask the Supreme Court to take down their 10 commandments...
*And finally, I would ask you re-read this thread. I am not trying to outlaw eating out, smoking, etc. I'm simply stating your argument that "we can't afford children so kill them" is obsurd. Go back and read what you've been typing; you'll see I haven't been taking what you said out of context.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
....
BTB9000, Ron Paul wants to cut all ties with world organizations. Even NATO. So how exacvtly would we be involved in world politics at all if we are not part of the UN or NATO. He is an isolationist, pure and simple. You can't spin it otherwise.
I quoted Ron Paul where he calls himself a "noninterventionalist". If that's not a synonym for "isolationist" I don't know what is.
I'm all for folks wanting to support him. That's great. You're not going to convince me he's something he is not, however. I think folks need to get to know him better. Someone said early on in this thread Paul wasn't for "cutting and running" in Iraq. The fact is, he himself has said he is for getting out immediately. He wants to remove our strongest military presence (our navy) from the Persian Gulf, Withdraw from our strongest alliance (NATO) and get out fo the UN (and thereby giving up our Permanent seat and VETO power on the Security Council).
Let's call it like it is my fellow Republicans... That's the epitome of isolationism.

 

[reefraff]

Hello, Ron Paul is a Libertarian who figured out long ago that he couldn't get elected as a Libertarian so he runs as a Republican.
http://www.lp.org/

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Wow, where to begin:
*You can certainly be Pro-Life without being religious in any way. I asked you early on in this discussion to define when life begins. You have yet to do so, deciding instead to use the "cost" factor and false statements (such as your statement that a large number of abortions are due to assaults, inces t, etc.) You are the only one trying to bring religion into this. I'm arguing facts and asking scientific questions.
*I in no way have made you out to be a villian. Your own words are doing that.
*Our government is established to protect everyone and give everyone equal rights. Until such time as you can prove when life begins I stand by the argument that it is life and is protected. No twisting words there.
*The majority of wars throughout history including the one in Iraq are due to religion, huh? I've studied my fair share of wars, you are incorrect on both counts. That's common anti-religious propaganda.
*I've yet to attempt to push my beliefs on anyone.
*"It's called seperation fo church and state". Hehe, your turn; can you find that statement in the Declaration or Constitution? I'll give you a hint, the answer is "no". If you don't want "my religious beliefs" in "your laws" you better ask the Supreme Court to take down their 10 commandments...
*And finally, I would ask you re-read this thread. I am not trying to outlaw eating out, smoking, etc. I'm simply stating your argument that "we can't afford children so kill them" is obsurd. Go back and read what you've been typing; you'll see I haven't been taking what you said out of context.

You didn't read my last statement. When life begins is irrelevent. What's relevent is allowing an individual to do with their body what they choose. You're stuck on protecting the life of an entity that has no real concepts of living. Yes a fetus past the first trimester has life, but does that fetus have any reality of what life is? To me, living is when you can make conscience decisions and thought processes. I will agree wholeheartedly that an abortion shouldn't take place after the second trimester. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the laws on abortion state. The reason for this is because a baby at six months normally weighs less than 2 pounds. If a woman were to go into labor anytime prior than six months, it would be virtually impossible for that baby to survive. You want to keep an abortion from happening the moment the child is conceived. You're trying to protect something that has no thought processes other than possibly knowing voluntary movement. So your stating the government should protect an entity simply because it moves? If that's the case, why stop at humans? Why not protect the lives of all lifeforms?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
You didn't read my last statement. When life begins is irrelevent. What's relevent is allowing an individual to do with their body what they choose. You're stuck on protecting the life of an entity that has no real concepts of living. Yes a fetus past the first trimester has life, but does that fetus have any reality of what life is? To me, living is when you can make conscience decisions and thought processes. I will agree wholeheartedly that an abortion shouldn't take place after the second trimester. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the laws on abortion state. The reason for this is because a baby at six months normally weighs less than 2 pounds. If a woman were to go into labor anytime prior than six months, it would be virtually impossible for that baby to survive. You want to keep an abortion from happening the moment the child is conceived. You're trying to protect something that has no thought processes other than possibly knowing voluntary movement. So your stating the government should protect an entity simply because it moves? If that's the case, why stop at humans? Why not protect the lives of all lifeforms?
You seem to be changing your argument a bit.
That said, why should you believe a fetus should be protected at all? Surely an 8th month old fetus has no "thought processes" either. In fact, a 3 month old baby probably doesn't have any perceivable thought processes.
It's a slippery slope. If we start trying to define what "legitimate life" is we risk cheapening life in general.
I posted on this already, but I'll do it again. We regulate what a person does with their body all the time. We have laws regarding drug usage, underage ---, seatbelt and helmet laws, etc. I can do whatever I want with my first, for instance, up until the point I punch the guy next to me. At the point where I use my body to harm another I violate their rights and forfeit my own.
That's why defining when life begins is critical.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
When life begins is irrelevent. What's relevent is allowing an individual to do with their body what they choose. You're stuck on protecting the life of an entity that has no real concepts of living. Yes a fetus past the first trimester has life, but does that fetus have any reality of what life is? To me, living is when you can make conscience decisions and thought processes.
So do you support killing off all the mentally handicapped? What about someone who goes into a coma? They can't make conscious decisions. I don't think a one-year old child really can make decisions. Are you saying none of these are examples of a living person?

 

[rudedog40]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
You seem to be changing your argument a bit.
That said, why should you believe a fetus should be protected at all? Surely an 8th month old fetus has no "thought processes" either. In fact, a 3 month old baby probably doesn't have any perceivable thought processes.
It's a slippery slope. If we start trying to define what "legitimate life" is we risk cheapening life in general.
I posted on this already, but I'll do it again. We regulate what a person does with their body all the time. We have laws regarding drug usage, underage ---, seatbelt and helmet laws, etc. I can do whatever I want with my first, for instance, up until the point I punch the guy next to me. At the point where I use my body to harm another I violate their rights and forfeit my own.
That's why defining when life begins is critical.
I've never changed my argument one bit - a woman has a right to do whatever she wants with her body, and the government has no right to tell her otherwise. The regulations you stated above are also violating a person's private beliefs. What's the difference between these controlling laws and your comaprison to the Nazi Regime? Seems to me the Federal Goverment are the Nazis when they create laws to 'protect' me, because of course I'm too stupid to know how to protect myself.
Your punching fist argument is lame at best. You punching someone is violating another individual's space. That affects that other individual's well being, not just your own. You're trying to make a statement that a fetus prior to the second trimester is being emotionally harmed when you abort it, similar to you harming someone when you punch them with your fist. Sorry, but science has proven a fetuses brain neurons don't even being to develop until the 10th week. It's not even technically called a fetus until the 10th week. Over 90% of all abortions are performed before this stage. So if you want to define when life begins, call it around the 10th week. So for you, anything after the first trimester is considered murder.
Second trimester abortions do occur, but a majority of those are due to the health of either the mother or the baby. Is it morally justified? Maybe not to you, but you don't have a clue as to what the circumstances are in regards to the mother or baby. Most women whose pregnancy go beyond the first trimester, rarely abort them out of convenience or financial reasons. By that time, their hormones begin to settle back down, and they've formed a bond with their baby. The emotional roller coaster has come to an end, and they realize what they are carrying in their bodies.

 

[reefreak29]

i think my views on abortion have changed somewhat, i used to believe that all abortion was murder and should not be performed but theres really nothing anyone can do about it so now i still believe its murder but if a woman chooses to do so then she does not deserve a child and im glad she aborted it so she can feel the emotional devastation of murdering a helpless human being

 

[reefraff]

Why is it that a woman has the absolute right to do what she wants with her body but a person doesn't? Thats what I find so annoying about the feminazi types and I am actually on their side as far as the abortion debate goes. They ignore the fact that the government bans or restricts many medical procedures. They even argue against parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion. Thats where I draw the line. A minor can't get a tat or peircing in most states without parental consent. I don't think it is asking too much to at least show a parent the courtesy of telling them their child is going to have an abortion.
On the other side of the coin in most cases a woman seeking an abortion should feel guilty as hell and I am sure most do. What they don't need is a bunch of self rightous morons standing in front of Planned parenthood yelling and screaming at them. Do these people really think the trash who consider abortion just another form of birth control think twice about what they are doing? They need to think about the feelings of the majority of women who have reached a pretty tough decision and feel bad enough already. Do they really think they are helping their cause verbally attacking these women?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by rudedog40
.... You're trying to make a statement that a fetus prior to the second trimester is being emotionally harmed when you abort it, similar to you harming someone when you punch them with your fist. ....
No... far from it. How the heck did you get that? I'm saying, and have been saying, abortion causes PHYSICAL harm by KILLING the unborn. Pretty sure that is violating "another's space" as you said to the Nth degree.
*Your argument has changed from monetary cost on society to the tired "woman's choice" argument.
*No one, woman or otherwise, has a right to do something with their body that adversly affects another person.
*Study the Nazi government for a better idea of why we aren't living under their laws now...
*You throw out some more assumptions about abortions. Any figures to back those assumptions up? As I posted previously, your past assumptions and statistics have been misleading and out-right incorrect. The studies I found once again contradict your assumptions.
I'm getting confused... On the one hand you are saying it's a woman's choice to do whatever she wants with her body, then on the other hand you are trying to make some differentiation between first and second trimester abortions. Why does that matter to you? If the "woman's body" argument is valid abortions should be legal up until the moment of birth.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Darknes
Show me where it says they don't have these rights.
It doesn't. It says every "person" has rights. It is up to society to define whether minorities, women, elderly, mentally retarded, and unborn children are considered people.
It actually says " All persons born or naturalized....."

 

[jovial]

What Ive never understood about the the pro-choice arguement is their willingness to protect the right to kill someone who cannot speak for themselves by reducing a human life to an object. Isnt this the type of person that needs a voice the most? But what does a "fetus" become? It becomes a human being. So by supporting abortion you are supporting the process that stops human life after it has already started. Murder is easier to accept if you reduce a human life to nothing more than a fetus.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
It actually says " All persons born or naturalized....."

You are taking that out of context. It is saying anyone born or naturalized in the United States is considered a citizen.
Amendment 14 clearly states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Now, whether an unborn child is considered a person is up to the Supreme Court and the general public.

 

[darthtang aw]

Rudedog, what is the difference between killing a puppy and aborting a baby?
Puppies have the same amount of rights as the baby...while it is in the stomach, yet I bet you would look at me as evil if I went around killing puppies, or my dog continually got pregnant and I killed those puppies because I refused to pay for my dog to get spade.
So what is the difference?

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Darknes
...whether minorities...are considered people.
The 14th admendment was added to give minorities ( slaves ) these same rights as other citizens.....and clearly states " born "
so is your understanding of the Constitution that all citizines have rights when " concieved " except the minorities ?
Im not argueing weather abortion is right or wrong....Just I responded because of your statement to rudedog about the constitution...because I understand that because of the 14th admendment...it sould be legal and that a new admendment would need to be ratifided befor it can be outlawed....not just a court to say so...your right that enough of the people would have to do/want this though....

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
The 14th admendment was added to give minorities ( slaves ) these same rights as other citizens.....and clearly states " born "
so is your understanding of the Constitution that all citizines have rights when " concieved " except the minorities ?
Im not argueing weather abortion is right or wrong....Just I responded because of your statement to rudedog about the constitution...because I understand that because of the 14th admendment...it sould be legal and that a new admendment would need to be ratifided befor it can be outlawed....not just a court to say so...your right that enough of the people would have to do/want this though....
No, you misunderstood me. I said " It is up to society to define whether minorities, women, elderly, mentally retarded, and unborn children are considered people."
What I meant is that the Constitution never stated that minorities, women, etc. have rights. These were added later on as an Amendment. I was trying to make an example.
And for your basis that the 14th amendment says only someone "born" is a citizen, you are taking that out of context. Are we allowed to kill someone that isn't a citizen? If someone from France was visiting the US and I shot them, would I get in trouble? Of course.
I quoted earlier that the 14th amendment also says: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
If the Supreme Court determines that an unborn child is a person, than clearly abortion should be illegal.

 

[rudedog40]

All the facts I'm stating are coming from the same web sites you get your information from. Unfortunately, neither you or I and substantiate either, because most of these sites are either Pro Life or Pro Choice driven, and they can skew the numbers in their favor any way they want.
As far as my wavering as to when an abortion can occur, I agree with how the current abortion laws are defined. If a woman did want to have an abortion after the second trimester, she couldn't find a doctor to legally perform it. I backed down to the first trimester simply to make the point that a conceived embryo has no conscious state until at least 10 weeks (ergo the 1st trimester).
Why do I say life doesn't truly begin until this time? Let's take this scenario. A loved one of yours is involved in a tragic accident. You get to the hospital, and the doctor tells you that he/she is completely brain dead. Scientifcally, the life the person had as you knew it was gone. With no brain activity, there is no recollection of who they are, what they did, or even how to keep their critical organs from functioning. This individual has no DNR recommendation. They are leaving it up you, the family members, to decide whether to let machines keep the major organs going, or ceasing medical assitance to keep them alive. Do you 'pull the plug', Yes or No?
If you say Yes, then you are essentially doing the same thing as an abortion. You are ceasing the life of an individual who can no longer make the decision to live or die. This brain dead indivual is the same as a fetus that's younger than 10 weeks old.
To be honest, this discussion is starting to become pointless. No matter what I say to you, or you to me, neither of us is going to change our minds on how we feel about this issue. What it boils down to, is do you let the government tell you what you can or can't do with your own body. Whether it's morally right or not is irrelavent. If you tighten the current laws on abortion, then you might as well do the same with the other laws you stated. If a woman can't have the choice to terminate a pregnancy on her own free will, then the individuals who are harming their bodies with smoking or drinking excessively, and the overeaters who live off of fatty foods from fast food restaurants, can no longer do those as well. You can try justifying the differentiation of abortion to the issues above because you are affecting another life, but bottom line, it's a life whether it's one or two. So close down the tobacco farms, bring back prohibition, and shut down every Wendy's, KFC, and McDonalds. If you allow them to stay operational, but don't allow abortions, then you are just letting another type of murderer go free.

 

[1journeyman]

Not everyone who eats fatty food, smokes or drives wrecklessy dies. Every fetus that is aborted dies. There lies the difference. People can choose to live wrecklessly and possibly face the consequences. A fetus cannot. Surely you acknowledge there is a difference.
I intentionally try to not get my facts from polictal webpages. I get them from private studies for just that reason. Your first few posts when you were arguing cost you specifically said first trimester. Now your argument has switched to "woman's choice" and you're arguing legal abortions in the second trimester. Why stop there? Brain activity? You previously argued it was ok to abort a mentally challenged fetus. They, of course, do have brain activity.
To answer your question; If It were up to me and a I had to authorize to pull the plug I wouldn't. Life is too precious and too mysterious to me to pretend I know when it begins and when it ends.
You keep trying to tie morality into this. I hope you can see it's not about that for me. It's about the fundamental question of life.
I believe at some point a fetus becomes a human being. Until we know exactly when that is i'm not willing to say "kill them anyway".

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Darknes
...
If the Supreme Court determines that an unborn child is a person, than clearly abortion should be illegal.
So...on the otherhand....If the Supreme Court determines that an unborn child is not a person, then clearly abortion should be legal?
I dont think you would agree with that. I doubt you would change your mind and argue for it.....would you ??
That is why IMO, it can not be up to the court as you say....it must be left to an admendment as I said earlier...