I wonder how much hate email John Hawkins will receive after writing this piece:
It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That’s because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.
Going to war is mean, so we shouldn’t do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, “no,” so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don’t they know we’re nice? If they did, they would like us! Bill has more toys, money than Harry, so take half of Bill’s money and give it to Harry.
The only exception to this rule is for people who aren’t liberals. They’re racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc., etc., etc. They might as well just say that conservatives have “cooties” for disagreeing with them, because there really isn’t any more thought or reasoning that goes into it than that.
Now, that’s not to say that conservatives never make emotion based arguments or that emotion based arguments are always wrong. But, when you try to deal with complex, real world issues, using little more than simplistic emotionalism that’s primarily designed to make the people advocating it feel good rather than to deal with problems, it can, and often has had disastrous consequences. Liberals never seem to learn from this.
Why don’t they learn anything from failed liberal policies? Because there is nothing underpinning them other than feelings and so even when they don’t work, their good intentions are treated, by other liberals at least, as more important than the results of their actions.
Heh. Make sure to read it all.
I’m always amazed at how the left loves to take credit for ‘how great America is.’ You argue with one about how bad liberal ideas are for this country, and they’ll turn right back around and tell you how it was supposedly ‘liberal ideas’ that made this country so great.
Strangely, though, when you play along with their game, and in turn note that some of those same policies - like the “Great Society” programs of the 60s that were supposed to help the poor, decrease illegitimacy rates and disease when in actuality they increased poverty and illegitimacy rates (John noted the stats in his article), and had a disastrous impact on the family - and then ask them to acknowledge that some of their policies have been failures, they won’t accept responsibility for the part they played in it and try to blame conservatives.
Simple translation: all the good things in this country that happened were the result of liberal policies ‘for the people.’ Anything bad that happens is the result of ‘conservative interference.’ Liberals would rather ‘feel good’ about what they do and drone on and on about how they did it out of the goodness of their hearts rather than acknowledge that their ideas were wrong. That’s not a great recipe for learning from your mistakes, but then again, when you can’t acknowledge you’ve made a mistake, it’s not hard to understand why you wouldn’t ‘learn’ from it.
He might get hate mail if his argument had any merit.
His depiction of liberal positions is grossly sophmoric parroting of one strawman after the other and he then ignores that the right’s position post 9/11 that has been emotionally based entirely on Fear.
But then what kind of logic can you expect from someone on the payroll of Duncan Hunter?
Comment by Other Ed @ 2/16/2007 - 11:44 am
Cute ad hominem attack, not much substance. Proving John’s point.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/16/2007 - 11:47 am
Well ST does have a point and a very accurate one at that. Government subsides do create dependence. What ST fails to mention is the obsence amount of corporate welfare many Fortune 500 companies(one of which I am employed by) thet receive. I have to strongly disagree however with ST’S crack about the great society program’s of the 60’s. What would ST’S alternative to young woman who get knocked up the guy is a rolling stone and she can’t terminate the pregency if ST and other right-wingers had their way. So the poor young lady with always be confined to the bottom of the economic ladder with the added stress of raising a child.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 11:56 am
Tommy,
First things first. The young lady should not be in bed with the young man before he marries her and commits to her support and the support of her children.
Second, the government should assist the woman in forcing the man to support his child.
Third, Abortion is not birth control and should never be mistaken as such.
Fourth, If the woman can not economically care for the child, the child should be put up for adoption. There are many childless couples who would and could care for such children except for government red tape and interferrance. IE. Racist Black Social workers objecting to placing a black child in a white home.
Fifth, the enabling by Liberals of irresponsible behavior. Tommy, you do that all the time.
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 12:02 pm
PCD you can not legislate morality or individuals personal choices don’t forget what the Constitution guarntees…. life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. BTW An Abortion is a HUMAN RIGHT and it be protected as such.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 12:19 pm
Yeah, the “HUMAN RIGHT” to kill another human. Great point, tommy.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/16/2007 - 12:30 pm
Well maybe it is my blue state liberal mentality that causes differences of opinion with some comments who post here but let me tell youse guys the way I see things. Does it make more sense that an adult such as myself can purchase firearms that can end the life of manty strangers and by the tool which will enable an individual to accomplish such a goal but yet a woman who wants to make a medical decision over her body and her choice whether to bring a life into this world is villified and the government under the 43 Admin is making that private decision harder to make? What say you ST. and no I am not being a smart ass on this one.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 12:47 pm
Hey, tommy in nyc, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States. I’ve read both documents many times and haven’t found the word “abortion” yet.
Comment by Tom TB @ 2/16/2007 - 12:48 pm
you think a child is a ‘medical decision’, tommy?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/16/2007 - 12:49 pm
I can’t believe the 2nd Amendment is being compared to abortion for clearly birth control reasons.
Comment by Ryan @ 2/16/2007 - 12:53 pm
A child is a human being ST a fetus is not and as an American who was raised a Catholic I do not recall anytime celebrating Jesus Christ’s conception. Sure as heck didn’t get any presents that day that’s for sure LOL.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 1:03 pm
tommy, how did you start out in life? As a fetus, right?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/16/2007 - 1:04 pm
I love how the Other Ed kicks out an accusation, but doesn’t stick around to defend that accusation. You know what Other Ed, if the Clintoon admin would of sounded the alarm abit more maybe just maybe 9/11 would never had happened. Instead of being smart he was all about keeping people happy, well that happiness ended on 9/11, now it is time for some adult solutions to the problems we face.
Then there is Tommy telling us the right to stop a human life in the womb is a human right. He then defends this idiotic argument with the fact that the Constitution Guarantees LIFE!!!! Somehow Tommy comes up with how “you can’t legislate morality” in added defense to this undefendable position. Oddly enough Tommy forgets that there are laws against drinking and driving, there are laws against drinking in public, ya just can’t walk down the center of the street with a beer Tommy. Laws against lying, laws against prostitution, laws against….. Tommy All Laws are intended to make a moral people.
PCD then correctly destroys Tommys argument which I applaude any young woman who would do the right thing and give up her child instead of killing it. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/16/2007 - 1:28 pm
Tommy, your ideas greatly offend me. You think a person has a right to irresponsibly procreate and then the government is supposed to support that irresponsibility by taxing responsible people. You have life backwards. You punish the responsible people in the world and reward the irresponsible.
You also dislike the 2nd Amendment because it allows people to be able to fend off the irresponsible. You don’t like being told no, just like any irresponsible and immature child.
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 1:36 pm
Here again Tommy could quite possibly be wrong. You see the Romans when they would tax collect and do a census would do it when the religious laws would mandate all people being in or around Jerusalem. The High Holy day in the Jewish calendar is the feast of the Passover is in the spring where Christ was cruicified. The other High Holy Day is the Feast of Tabernacles, which commemorates the giving of the law and the wilderness journey, it is in September. This also started the Jewish religious calendar. Now if Christ was born while on the road there is a VERY good possibility that it was the Feast in September, which if you go back 9 months lands you in December Tommy. So yes it is a very good possibility that we do celebrate Christ’s conception. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/16/2007 - 1:36 pm
Well first off to ST obvisiously every human beings starts out in the womb as a fetus no argument there. But what you are telling me is that that fetus has more rights than the tax-paying adult carrying it? Since you are a woman I find that attitude very suprising. PCD I do not mean o offend anybody but I’ll tell you what offends me. What offends me is that it is easier and cheaper to buy a firearm in this nation then it is easier for a citizen to make a private decision on whether or not to reproduce and abortions will run you a couple of hundreds of dollars for the procedure. That sure buiys a lot of shotgun shells for sure. Well Lorica while there is truth about celebrating Jesus’s the time frame in which you described generally speaking when an infact is 3months old I never gave a relative or a friend that is a female a gift confradulating her over the fact that she got knocked up a year earlier.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 1:51 pm
tommy wrote, “life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ”
Notice the constitution didn’t say life, liberty and the ability to make others pay for your stupid mistakes.
Through our compassion we have voted in so many programs to help people that people can make the dumbest decisions. Many people live pay check to paycheck now and extend credit cards knowing they do not have to be responsible for their idiocy. Having a rainy day fund or saving 10% for retirement - almost unheard of versus 100 years ago where people KNEW they should try to guarantee their ability to survive.
tommy wrote, “ a fetus is not ”
A fetus is not guaranteed life? It isn’t alive? Is it an inatimate object. Non-organic or organic but not alive as in dead flowers? A piece of material? SO then tommy why do EU countries have limits imposed on the 12th, 14th or 18th week of pregnancy and abortion? Should they remove those limits? It isn’t alive until the day it’s breathing through it’s lungs outside the uterus? What say you?
PCD said it much better than me, “You punish the responsible people in the world and reward the irresponsible.”
Taking away from those who save and invest and produce to fund people who are lazy and make bad decisions is surely backwards. Less irresponsible behavior would occur if the people realized the consequences of their behavior and that is why liberalism hurts people and produces more poverty while tough love conservatism creates more prosperity and has less people in poverty. EVERYONE is for a safety net for non-able bodied people and the elderly but that safety net is diluted by the fact that we have 100’s of programs devoted to people at or 185% above the poverty line (like WIC) and the poverty line is between $15,000 to almost $40,000 depending on how many people in your family. 100’s of programs is not an exaggeration. We have over 180 programs just devoted to people who are illiterate. If a new congress person proposes a new illiteracy program, people who vote against it are tagged by leftists as being for illiteracy and against literacy or education.
We seriously have a disease in this country called liberalism in my opinion. Our federal and state spending has gone up every year and in every category for over 6 decades due to irresponsibility by people and our suffocating compassion and demagoguing by the drive-by legacy press and the leftist politicians.
Everything I have said is in argument agreeing with John Hawkins. Because if people are targeted as being anti-environment or anti-education or against social security or whatever based on their attempts at reform or applying perspective then that is governing/legislating based on emotion not facts and perspective.
It takes hard work to not just REACT and actually do the due diligence and research an issue. Dennis Prager devoted a show to this topic once and on every issue the liberal position was based on emotions not the facts and big picture perspective.
A commenter without perspective talked about conservatives governing/legislating based on FEAR with the WOT. I’d argue that if you RESEARCH and knew the facts that the SMALL things that the President is doing in this GWOT are based on facts and are such SMALL policies in this GWOT and conservatives all over who have researched the threats that EXIST want tougher action. On EVERY issue Bush has taken the middle policy or action between conservatives and liberals and since conservatism is more centrist that means Bush is LEFT of center. He has increased spending a great deal, not taken action as great as we want on illegal immigration and not executed the GWOT as vigorously as we would like to have seen. Even the tax cuts were slight, phased in, and given an expiration date.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/16/2007 - 2:06 pm
So in the end it comes down to cost of an abortion vs cost of a firearm. Got it.
What offends me is the fact that a 50+ inch true HD plasma TV costs many times more than both. And as part of the “pursuit of happiness” I believe the government needs to step in and provide federal dollars towards my pursuit of one.
Comment by Ryan @ 2/16/2007 - 2:09 pm
tommy wrote, “But what you are telling me is that that fetus has more rights than the tax-paying adult carrying it?”
Who was arguing that the fetus should be able to abort the adult? And how does tax paying come into the argument. Do tax paying Americans have more rights?
To be BLUNT tommy your analogies suck. It costs more to amputate your toe than a box of shotgun shells. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste and you’ve WASTED it.
The cheapest lasik surgery costs more than a knife that you can plunge into somebody’s eye. These are DUMB statements tommy. I’m sorry about the bluntness here but maybe you should stop while you are ahead or apologize for making such silly statements…. We’ll forgive you.
Life is precious. That is OUR position.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/16/2007 - 2:12 pm
Sister, Sister, Sister. First, I think it would be unfair to claim that “the left” (whoever they are) is trying to deny credit to the rest of the populace for making America great. Despite the popular conservative misconception that all liberals are de facto communists who hate private enterprise and hate America itself, mainstream American society has always been a partnership of liberals and conservatives alike. When I think of the signature events of the 20th Century, I think of WWI, the Great Depression and WWII, and how one measure of greatness was in overcoming those terrible tests. While it’s true that these challenges were fought and won under the leadership of Democratic presidents like Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, what idiot would claim that we could have prevailed without the contributions from every corner of society, including conservatives? Wasn’t Dwight Eisenhower a Republican? Hell yes, and a lot of Democrats revere him, especially in his role as Allied Commander.
I think that liberals do deserve a lot of credit for championing causes like ending child labor, the 8-hour work day, Social Security, Medicare, civil rights, etc. While perhaps it’s true that the initial approaches taken in welfare programs were counter-productive, this is a particularly difficult problem to solve, and we had to start somewhere. I think that the welfare reform that was undertaken during the Reagan and Clinton years has improved the success of those programs, though they are still far from perfect. Perhaps we (this society) can’t solve all of our problems overnight, but the point is to keep trying, be honest, and make changes as it becomes necessary. It’s not an option to turn our backs on society’s poor and dispossessed.
But it seems that if somone is trying to deny someone else credit here, it’s Hawkins. My goodness. It seems that liberals are nothing more than little children. That’s certainly a fair and well supported claim. To borrow a line from Lloyd Bentsen, “Well, Mr. Hawkins, I knew FDR. FDR was a friend of mine, and you’re no FDR!” Hawkins’ rant is a childish and mean-spirited one indeed.
Comment by Bob @ 2/16/2007 - 2:12 pm
Do tax paying Americans have more rights?
Hmmm…not a bad concept, kind of in line with the Athenian approach to democracy, only property owners had a vote. Hmmmm…..double hmmmm.
Comment by Severian @ 2/16/2007 - 2:13 pm
Tommy,
You keep demonstrating your immature, dysfunctional thinking. First off you are saying that a non-taxpaying woman has more right to everyone else’s money for being irresponsible than the responsible people that pay their taxes. (Kennedys and George Soros to name a few unresponsible people who hide their money off shore to keep it from the IRS.)
Again, tommy’s central theme, a baby has no rights until it can vote democrat. That responsible people have to support the irresponsible. That government is in place to punish the successful and reward the irresponsible and lazy. Is that It? Oh, yes, if you have something, tommy thinks that it is ok to take it from them because you won’t provide for yourself when it takes away from your sexlife and bong time.
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 2:13 pm
Yeppers. How about only literate people who have a basic ability to comprehend what they read can vote !!
Then we’d get less emotion based voting - people using the race card to win or the “they are going to take away your social security card” to win would start losing….
Comment by Baklava @ 2/16/2007 - 2:20 pm
Bak, it isn’t the SS Card, but welfare that the left and the losers are hysterical about losing. Without a welfare dependent populace, the Democrats don’t have a mob to vote for them or to storm GOP district offices with.
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 2:24 pm
You know Baklava just made my argument for me with his statement ” Life is precious. That is our argument a human being walking,talking and knocking boots is a person. A fetus is not a person.period. Yet in the world according to Baklava the woman carrying the fetus has less say over her own body than what the government (if youse guys had your way) says??????!!!!!WTF!!!!!
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 2:28 pm
Tommy,
shortsighted and emotional. You can’t face the fact that you want to force the irresponsible to be supported by the responsible. You wish to reward fallure and irresponsiblity. Maybe that explains why you root for the enemies of America and wish to see the terrorists win by pulling out our forces from the war on terror and surrendering to the terrorists just so long as you can smoke your bong.
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 2:32 pm
tommy wrote, “A fetus is not a person”
That’s where we differ with you tommy. A fetus is alive. It is not just “material” or “matter”.
Comment by Baklava @ 2/16/2007 - 2:34 pm
PCD I served honorably in the U.S.NAVE during Desert Storm so obviously I am not rooting for enemies of America to accomplish their goals. You know that’s the 2nd time you are trying to slam me just because we have different viewpoints. I also don’t use a bong. Damn youse right wingers need to gain a better grip on reality.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 2:49 pm
With this sort of logic we should take the right of the vote away from welfare recipients. LOL
Then Tommy she should have the good sense to know that if she has sex there is a good chance she will be come pregnent. If she wants a say over her body it is before she gives it to a man so they can procreate. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 2/16/2007 - 2:53 pm
tommy, Benedict Arnold was a veteran that served honorably in the Revolution before he tried to turn West Point over to the British.
Just tell me how defunding the armed forces is supporting them?
Edited. –ST
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 3:07 pm
Well PCD sending young men and women into Sadr city to be greeted with IED’S isn’t my idea of supporting the troops. Maybe if the 43 Admin would’ve conducted the operation of this conflict compentantly we wouldn’t be in this position but oh I forgot if you know in lock step agreement with the neo-cons than you want the terrorists to win. Right? Spare me the BS it’s Friday.
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 3:29 pm
Tommy,
You are so full of BS you can’t think, that is if the pot hasn’t totally destroyed your brain.
Sadr city needs to be cleaned out. If you surrendercrats would get out of the way, it would be cleaned out and Iran would have it’s nose oout of Iraq, but you want the Islamofascists to win in order to defeat Bush. To you a stable Iraq where the US won is a total defeat to you nanny-state loving, america haters.
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 3:33 pm
Well PCD sending young men and women into Sadr city to be greeted with IED’S isn’t my idea of supporting the troops.
Where should troops be sent? Okinawa? Anywhere where there isn’t danger?
Comment by Ryan @ 2/16/2007 - 3:41 pm
The Democrats want the military to wear yellow streaks down their backs just like the Democrats in Congress do.
Comment by PCD @ 2/16/2007 - 3:48 pm
You are a truly sorry S.O.B. PCD since March 03 the 43 Admin has had a blank check to conduct military operations in the ME. Since obviosly it hasn’t gone very successfully it is all of a sudden the “surrendercrats”fault. Who are you kidding man? Don’t you get dizzy tossing around all that spin?
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 3:48 pm
Tommy you said “..the woman carrying the fetus has less say over her own body than what the government…” Well, I disagree with that, if you take that to the logical starting point, the woman could have said no to the very act that caused conception. That would be all the say in the world!! All she has to do is say no until she is ready for the consequences of her actions (please don’t let my lack of mentioning the male participant of the action mean that I let him off the hook, he is equally responsible).
But if she fails in her “say” why should the government and those who pay taxes and are anti-abortion have to pay for her failure in having her “say”?
Comment by American Vet @ 2/16/2007 - 3:49 pm
Cripes.. if we follow Tommy’s logic the U.S. would have gotten out every war it has been involved in.
Comment by Ryan @ 2/16/2007 - 3:59 pm
Look this discussion isn’t going anywhere first off and secondly I got a train to catch so I just want to wish ST a happpy holiday weekend. Talk to youse again Tuesday
Comment by tommy in nyc @ 2/16/2007 - 4:07 pm
This truly sickens me. The attitudes some people have on human life.
I have 2 children, 2 and 4, and to think people would
murderabort them because it is inconvienent timing, ect, is truly sickening.It is easier for people to justify the murder of children by saying they are a lump of flesh (nevermind that lump has arms, legs, eyes, mouths, can be seen suckling its thumbs, ect) or that they are a fetus.
I consider it murder, plain and simple. A child is in its development stage, but its easier to say hey its a lump of flesh or a fetus…it should be our RIGHT to kill it.
A right to kill an unborn child because of convienence most times. Because you had unprotected sex, or because you got drunk and couldn’t keep your pants on, ect.
Don’t spout the welfare of the mother might be in jeapardy arguement, that is a low percentage rate and if it is the case then it should be considered on a case by case basis.
Rape & incest, same thing, should be considered on a case by case basis.
Got drunk..have an abortion.
Don’t like condoms…have an abortion.
Like sleeping around…have an abortion.
I got an idea, have a hysterectomy if you are those three above.
Tell me this, if we don’t consider a unborn baby life, why are there laws that punish criminals who kill the unborn child of a mother in an attack?
Why is it mothers get pre-natal care for the well being of their unborn baby?
This topic really does make me incredibly angry, because of the ignorance and assinine ability of those persons who would take away life.
It is life, the baby has arms, legs, you can see and hear the heartbeat…and yet people want to regulate this as a right to be able to be disposed of, like clipping a toenail.
Emotional? Yes, I suppose in this instance I would be considered as, being a father, but tell me this, if you allowed these people who are so willing to snuff out the life of a baby, if you allowed them to see a 4D ultrasound (they are very clear and great), if they got to see the arms, even the eyes, their little hearts beating…would they be so quick to murder babies?
It is sickening when people place more value on pets than they do on the welfare of a child. Save a tree, kill an unborn child.
Tell me, when you hear the heartbeat, do you still consider it a fetus?
I don’t care if you believe in God or not, it is not religous reasons I believe in so strongly, it seeing and hearing LIFE that is growing in the womb that people so callously wish to think is their f*ckin RIGHT to do with as they wish.
Yes, now you can go on an on about the rights of the mother. So tell me, who sticks up for the rights of the child to live? It should be the mother, but if we let it be considered a right, or a form of birth control, all we do allow murder to be used as birth control.
If you get pregnant (aside from rape or incest), you should have a responsibility to that child. You should not be allowed to procreate (create babies) if all you plan to do is kill them because its an inconvienence, or will intefere in your way of life, or keep you from partying, or will give you stretch marks, or the other multitude of EXCUSES used ot kill an unborn child.
As I said, rape and incest are a different story and a different discussion on that part, but in all the rest, the mother should be responsible for the unborn baby.
You know, that silly thing the left seems to want to do away with…personal responsibility.
And you can rant and rave at me all you wish, but I am very firm in my thoughts on this. I have seen my daughter, and I have seen my son in the womb. I have felt them kick, I have heard their heartbeats….they aren’t fetuses, they weren’t lumps of flesh; they were my children growing and developing till they could emerge from the womb and survive.
Comment by sanity @ 2/16/2007 - 4:12 pm
Abortion is not a human right as only the mother can make the decision as whether to have an abortion and not the father. A father can not force a mother to have an abortion and can not prevent that mother from having one.
A ‘right’ can not extend to only one person and not another, like extending the ‘right’ to an abortion to the mother but not the father. That makes abortion a privilege and not a right.
Comment by Ray @ 2/16/2007 - 4:42 pm
You may not use a firearm to ‘end the live of many strangers’ as that is considered murder there are laws pertaining to this. There are legal limits on when someone is allowed to take another’s life. The only time legally you can EVER use a firearm to take another’s life is when the use of that firearm will result in your protection from the threating actions of another person. That’s called self-defense.
Comment by Ray @ 2/16/2007 - 4:54 pm
A fetus has all the genetic information (DNA) that you would find in an adult. Since DNA is widely used to positively identify an adult person, and an examination of DNA can also show whether that DNA is from a human or another life form, it would be easy to prove that a fetus is a human person by examination of their DNA.
Comment by Ray @ 2/16/2007 - 5:06 pm
Tommy,
Are you ever going to actually say something that makes sense? How do you define life? Does something have to be able to kick, think, cry, wiggle it’s toes? Did you know that “fetus” is Latin? Did you know that it means “baby”? Probably not, since, after reading a few of your posts, I can see that you are quite uneducated. A baby in the womb is no less alive than you or me. Are you aware that single celled organisms such as parameciums are considered to be alive? What do you believe the reason to be, that liberals such as yourself do not consider “fetuses” to be alive? Are you aware that premature babies, aka “fetuses” are considered to be alive until either their heart stops or there is no more brain function? I know two people that were born prematurely, one 2 and a half months early, the other 3 months early. According to your “argument” they weren’t alive till they were born. What’s the big difference between being inside the mothers uterus, and being outside? Answer: about 6 inches, depending on the mothers depth. If you want to be “scientific” about things, then you’re still wrong. According to new scientific studies/discoveries, baby’s are alive at the beginning of the 2nd trimester. Of course, I don’t agree with their assessment, but I also am not sure of what criteria they’re using to make this judgment. Who knows, maybe in a year or so, they’ll decide that baby’s are alive from conception on forward, just like I’ve always said. Science is a constantly changing environment after all.
Any questions that you need answered? I’m sure there will be.
awaiting your reply
Comment by reading nonsense hurts my brain @ 2/16/2007 - 5:16 pm
“A fetus has all the genetic information (DNA) that you would find in an adult. Since DNA is widely used to positively identify an adult person, and an examination of DNA can also show whether that DNA is from a human or another life form, it would be easy to prove that a fetus is a human person by examination of their DNA.”
–Ray
I was really trying to stay out of this abortion debate. I really was. But I just have to throw in my 2 cents and then find a safe and quiet place to hide. Simply being a human cell does not make a human being. You can isolate many cells from the human body—such as fibroblasts or cancer cells—and grow them in a petri dish in a nutrient solution. They can be propagated forever this way. Each cell has a complete set of chromosomes and therefore the full complement of human DNA. The cells are very much alive, but none of these cells can be grown into a human being. By the same token, the full set of human DNA can exist in dead tissue, like dried blood, bone fragments, teeth, etc. You can get the same DNA profile from these non-living materials that you would from a live person. So human DNA alone does not equal a human being, nor the potential to develop into a human being.
Comment by Bob @ 2/16/2007 - 5:23 pm
The only people “greeting” young men and women with IED’s are the terrorists who wish to gain control of the civilian population through threats and intimidation. If the troops were not there, those same terrorists would continue to attack the population with even greater force without fear of reprisals.
It is foolish to assert that troops may only be assigned to areas that are free of violence. The military is trained to respond to threats and are there to protect the civilian population, something they do very well.
Would you suggest that it is foolish to have firefighters enter a burning building even though the threat to their lives is greater then allowing that building to continue burning until all available fuel is exhausted and the fire extinguishes itself? Firefighters are train to handle this type of danger and they do it well even though firefighters have been injured and killed while performing their duties..
Would you also assert that it is foolish for Police to face an armed and dangerous individual? After all, it would be much safer if the Police just allowed that individual to continue unobstructed.
Be realistic, we don’t send the military into safe areas, we send them into dangerous areas as they are trained to respond to that danger. Having served in the military myself, I understand that.
Comment by Ray @ 2/16/2007 - 5:49 pm
John Hawkins is correct when he states that “liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.”
For example: tommy in nyc has been using nothing but emotionalism in his arguments and has yet to show any real ability to use reason and logic in his statements. All the talk of ‘rights’ and how ’silly’ something is compared to another shows this type of emotionalism. But he is right about one thing, it is his “blue state liberal mentality” which is to blame.
Comment by Ray @ 2/16/2007 - 6:02 pm
A fetus is not simply a collection of human cells since, if allowed to grow and mature naturally, a human adult will invariably be produced. The same can not be said of an individual cell or group of cells taken from a human body.
For example: It is impossible to take a cell from my body and implant it into the womb of a woman and expect another human do be produced. That would not happen. The woman’s immune system would attack and destroy that the cell as a foreign invader. This doesn’t happen with a fetus. Even if you could stop her immune system from attacking the cell, it would never grow into another human being or even into whatever organ you extracted the cell from.
It is possible to create a fetus outside of the human body, as with in-vitro fertilization, and implant it into the womb which would have the possibility of producing a human adult when mature, but that is not the same as extracting cells from the body and implanting them as you are creating a cell with different DNA from both the father and mother using in-vitro fertilization. You are, in fact, creating an embryo.
As you can see from the above examples, a fetus, or an embryo for that matter, is much more than a cell or group of cells that is found in the adult body. It is a complete individual that has not yet fully matured.
Comment by Ray @ 2/16/2007 - 6:23 pm
I would argue that Tommy and Bob are complete individuals that have not yet fully matured.
Comment by reading nonsense hurts my brain @ 2/16/2007 - 7:48 pm
What boggles the mind is that the “feeling” party feels nothing on abortion….even late term abortion.
Where’s the it’s all for the children democrats…or is it only rhetoric when it helps “their” cause?
Comment by sanity @ 2/16/2007 - 8:07 pm
If we’re going to get into potentialities, Ray, then it’s hard to agree on a strict set of definitions. My own view is that a cell is what it is in the present time. If it has not matured into a fully-fledged human being (a fetus, a baby, or whatever), then in my view it’s just a cell. Cells don’t possess a nervous system, a brain, or any of that. That’s my own personal view. I don’t try to impose it on others.
But my earlier comment was just responding to the idea that human DNA—in and of itself—would somehow confer person-hood on a cell.
“reading nonsense,” you really should leave attempts at comedy to the professionals. You clearly have no knack for it.
Comment by Bob @ 2/16/2007 - 8:14 pm
Lets clarify your thoughts a bit more bob.
What do you consider a baby? A fully fledged human being?
You said:
Cells don’t possess a nervous system, a brain, or any of that.
SO if an unborn baby has a nervous system, or a brain, or “any of that” (maybe a heart beat?) but still is in the womb, do you consider that a human being?
What do you consider “alive”?
Comment by sanity @ 2/16/2007 - 8:31 pm
heh, never thought I did. But your arguments are complete nonsense. You obviously have no knowledge of baby’s that are still in the uterus.
As far as the liberals and their “feelings” go. The only reason that there is an argument as to whether or not a baby is alive from conception, from birth, or from in between is because there are people that don’t want to take responsibility for having sex. They have a tendency to bring up the case of women that are raped, and how they shouldn’t have to live with a constant reminder of person who raped them in the form of a living breathing child. This is a pathetic argument without meaning, just like the rest of their arguments. It’s a, “what about her feelings?” thing. In this case, it’s found that even women who were raped and have an abortion go through depression. There is no good argument in favor of “Pro-Choice”. At least, to this date I have read none. They don’t hold up to scrutiny, ever.
Comment by reading nonsense hurts my brain @ 2/16/2007 - 10:26 pm
Don’t you know silly Sanity… it’s a few cells right up until it pops out. Then it has a heart and brain and nervous system.
And… some leftists have called the baby a “parasite” (ST shared that one with us).
Comment by Baklava @ 2/17/2007 - 1:29 am
My turn.
Bob needs to look at the potential of that single cell. If the single cell is the fertilized ovum, it is automatically on its way to a nice condo in a retirement village in Florida. But that is neither here nor there. It is simply a human being by virtue of the fact that it came to be through the activity designed by God (or nature for you heathens) for the purpose of procreation. It’s value is not in the number of limbs it has, the number of cells it has, or whether it is self-aware, but it’s value is that it is human life. It is a person because it was invited into this world through the action meant to do just that. But Bob and Tommy in NYC should withhold their opinion on the subject until they can come up with some scientific evidence to support their opinion. Try to find some embryology textbook that says a fetus ISN’T a human being. We’ll wait here. Also, Tommy should be aware that a fetus doesn’t have “more” rights than the mother, just equal rights. Like the right to life. Quite frankly, I can’t think of an pro-abortion argument that isn’t a cheap rationalization. Lefty celebs enjoy listing these lame reasons for having shame about America or the Bush Admin. If there’s any reason for which I feel shame for my country, it’s that there are so many people in it who are so obsessed with pleasuring their nether regions that they will vocalize such pathetic arguments to rationalize the sacrifice of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind to do so.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 2/17/2007 - 2:03 am
Don’t you know silly Sanity… it’s a few cells right up until it pops out. Then it has a heart and brain and nervous system.
Yeah, except on the media where when its in the womb its a fetus, but a killer stabs the mother, cuts her open and steals her baby..well, it was suddenly a baby then.
And… some leftists have called the baby a “parasite” (ST shared that one with us).
But Nooooo they would never apply the same reasoning for those who are career welfare recipients now would they…
Never hear welfare recipients (chronic or career) are parasites on the system…but they assign such labels to babies.
I guess if babies are parasites, some parasites even when they are born still stay as parasites….I think we call them senators and congressmen.
[chuckles]
Comment by sanity @ 2/17/2007 - 3:03 am
John omitted one important factor from his analysis: liberals’ self-anointment as morally infallible. Being the possessor of absolute moral rectitude means never having to say you’re sorry.
Comment by Francis W. Porretto @ 2/17/2007 - 6:23 am
The problem in trying to disuss abortion rights is that different people see things so differently. I can respect the fact that some people truly believe that a fertilized egg or early-stage embryo is already a human being because it would be destined to grow into one. I can respect their view that abortion (or even contraception) is wrong because it interferes with God’s will. People who belive in this way are completely free to put those views into practice. Nobody is being forced to have abortions or use contraceptives if they don’t want to.
But I’m not a religious person, and my views are different. To me, it’s not logical to invoke the supposed will of a God that I don’t believe in. To me, a single cell or a human embryo is not a person. It’s an unconscious clump of cells. The fact that it might eventually become a human being is irrelevant, like saying that a sperm cell might become a human being. Such potentialities are not my concern. The Supreme Court put a lot of thought into deciding where to draw the line in allowing abortions. The decision to make this line the point at which a fetus could survive outside of the womb was a thoughtful and logical choice. I support that view.
You can disagree with me. I respect your right to hold different views than me. But you have no basis to tell me that I’m wrong. My views are just different than yours. Please try to respect my views, the way I respect yours.
Comment by Bob @ 2/17/2007 - 1:09 pm
You can disagree with me. I respect your right to hold different views than me. But you have no basis to tell me that I’m wrong. My views are just different than yours. Please try to respect my views, the way I respect yours.
Ah, moral relativism at it’s finest. And totally unsurprising. Not that I’ve seen much evidence that you respect anyone else’s views.
Comment by Severian @ 2/17/2007 - 1:52 pm
You still have not answered the question I put forth Bob.
While I understand your view of hte start of hte process of fertilization, you still have yet to address my questions that refer to later development and to find out where you stand on what you consider “alive”?
Link
Comment by sanity @ 2/17/2007 - 1:54 pm
Ya, it seems to me that Bob’s not the type of person to ever question his own beliefs on any given topic. You can ask him though provoking questions all you want, and he’ll just ignore them, because he’s already made his decision.
Comment by reading nonsense hurts my brain @ 2/17/2007 - 3:56 pm
Ya, it seems to me that Bob’s not the type of person to ever question his own beliefs on any given topic.
Boy, you hit the nail on the head with that comment. No matter how compelling the evidence contrary to the typical liberals belief, it rolls off their backs like water off a ducks.
Comment by Severian @ 2/17/2007 - 6:05 pm
I get tired of trying to be respectful to people who never seem to respect my right to have my own views about subjects like this one. Like I said, nobody’s forcing you to live your life according to my views on this subject. This is one of those fortunate situations where the law allows different people the choice to decide for themselves. But I suppose that’s never good enough for people who always have to tell other people how to live their lives.
I don’t believe that sperm cells, egg cells, early-stage embryos or early-stage fetuses are human beings. They are alive, certainly. So are ants and snails and the fetuses of any other mammal. If left to develop, they will eventually become full-fledged human beings. I’m satisfied with the Supreme Court’s decision to define the start of a person’s life as a human being to be when the individual is able to survive outside the mother’s womb. I realize that many people will not agree with this definition, and that’s fine with me. Like I said, people with different views are not being forced to accept the Supreme Court’s decision for the purposes of their own lives.
I hope that explains my views a little better.
Severian, is there something wrong with you that you’re incapable of having a civil and respectful discussion with people you disagree with? If you want to have a respectful discussion, instead of taking cheap shots at things that other people say, why not tell us your own views on the subject so we can discuss it?
Comment by Bob @ 2/17/2007 - 8:31 pm
Yes and No Bob.
Believe me, I am not railing on you or picking on you. I honestly want to know when you consider a baby, a baby?
Your talking early stages…ok, I understand your thoughts and won’t press that point.
But, later development where you see arms, activity, when you hear a heartbeat…do you not consider this a baby yet or do you only condier a baby…a baby only when it is delivered?
You mentioned:
I don’t believe that sperm cells, egg cells, early-stage embryos or early-stage fetuses are human beings. They are alive, certainly. So are ants and snails and the fetuses of any other mammal. If left to develop, they will eventually become full-fledged human beings.
So you do consider a baby alive or to have life when an abortion happens then? You just don’t consider it actually a human being yet, alive, but not human is what I garner from your explanation?
Do you consider partial birth abortion, when they actually partially deliver the baby and then collapse its head still not a baby, or do you still consider that a fetus?
Again Bob, we may not agree, but I do want to honestly know your stance of when and where you consider a baby a baby and when you consider a baby alive. I am not attacking you, just trying to get a full understanding of where you believe a babies life begins.
I am a guy, but it rips me apart to see what is done because people don’t seem to understand where and when life begins.
Comment by sanity @ 2/17/2007 - 9:50 pm
I get tired of trying to be respectful to people who never seem to respect my right to have my own views about subjects like this one.
Well, given your startling lack of success in your attempts to be respectful, no wonder you’re tired, failure is tiring and depressing. But I doubt you are tired, you haven’t made any attempt at all from what I can see. Ever since you came on this discussion section it’s been one insult or another from you, you disparage people and say their beliefs and facts are worthless. You’ve not actually engaged in an honest debate since you’ve been here.
You seem now to mis-state things again, a cell doesn’t have nerves of course, nerves are made up of cells, not the inverse, but if differentiation is your idea of when a fetus becomes human, do you even have any idea of when a fetus becomes differentiated enough to have nerve tissue?
Comment by Severian @ 2/18/2007 - 9:12 am
Guys, in case you haven’t noticed, he doesn’t actually know anything on the topic. He just has an opinion. I understand being respectful of others beliefs, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful anymore than he is, but it really gets on my nerves when people have an opinion on something that they know nothing about. If you don’t know, you should keep your mouth shut.
“Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”
Comment by reading nonsense hurts my brain @ 2/18/2007 - 12:37 pm
Severian, I started out this abortion discussion trying to be respectful about other peoples’ beliefs, not trying to claim the province of righteousness strictly for my own views. I sincerely appreciate that other people will disagree with me, but the abortion debate doesn’t require that we all have to reach the same conclusion. Why should I insist that other people be forced to accept my atheist views? But rather than give me an ounce of credit for trying to be fair and respectful, you immediately dismissed it as “moral relativism,” and threw in a gratuitous cheap shot about “Not that I’ve seen much evidence that you respect anyone else’s views.” Well my, my, look who’s talking. And look who’s casting the first aspersions in this discussion. Now your most recent statement is “Ever since you came on this discussion section it’s been one insult or another from you, you disparage people and say their beliefs and facts are worthless.” Severian, I won’t mince words: you’re a complete hypocrite. If you’re actually interested in a respectful discussion, why not try avoiding the snotty commentary right off the bat and see if things go any differently. And why don’t you share your own views about abortion? You’re not religious, right? It might be interesting to know more about how you decide such an issue as a non-religious conservative.
And “reading nonsense,” I’ve actually tried to discuss the issues here, not just offering insults like you. What should we gather about how much you know, considering that you haven’t yet made a single intelligent comment?
OK, sanity. I’ll try to be more specific. I definitely believe that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc., are alive. By definition, they’re human, but I don’t believe that they’re persons until they’ve reached the Supreme Court definition. However, this transition from embryo to person obviously doesn’t happen at a specific moment, and setting that boundary is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. I think that there is a moral gray area about where to set “personhood” in later-stage fetal development, and for that reason, I’m uncomfortable with late-term abortions. My ideal for dealing with unwanted pregnancies, if they are to be terminated, would be to try to do it as early in pregnancy as possible. I’d like to see the use of anti-implantation treatments like “morning after” pills and very early stage abortion treatments like RU486 as much as possible, and if surgical abortions are to be done, to try to do them in the first few weeks. The concern would be to avoid entering any moral gray areas. Those are my views, but I still prefer to stick with the parameters that the Supreme Court has set, to allow people to make that choice according to their own views. Some flexibility is important.
Comment by Bob @ 2/18/2007 - 1:01 pm
Bob,
You default to the Supreme Court, but they are not using science to arrive at their decision, only personal feelings, or rather, that personal feelings should be the deciding factor. This is pretty selfish considering we’re talking about human life. It’s perfectly convenient, though, for those who so cherish the self-gratification of sex, that they are willing to throw in with this position in order to abdicate repsonsibility and discipline. And all this could be avoided if the debate over when one becomes a “person” was ever even considered. This should have been the first order of business. From the slavery days, we dealt with the personhood of blacks. The Germans learned about the personhood of Jews. Now, apparently, some in this country and elsewhere in the world need to learn about the personhood of the embryo and zygote. (BTW, the sperm and ovum are not “persons” because they ARE parts of their host people. Those parts do not have separate DNA.) The bottom line is that this debate is a false one due to a culture that has come to cherish sexuality above all else that some have chosen to deprive one of it’s “personhood” due to it’s size and stage of development. All to get laid. What could be more shameful? What could be a more heinous attitude toward the most vulnerable and innocent of our kind?
Comment by Marshall Art @ 2/18/2007 - 3:23 pm
One more thing, Bob.
As I’ve stated in the past, there is no such thing as an “unwanted pregnancy” when two people engage in the very activity designed by nature (for you heathens) to bring about a new “person”. Just by engaging in intercourse, the debate of personhood should be a moot issue.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 2/18/2007 - 3:26 pm
Marshall Art, I have no doubt that you’re sincere in your beliefs. But there are many different ways to view these complicated issues. There are different weights that we can give to the scientific, social, moral, ethical sides of the abortion debate. You take a very moralistic view, it seems to me, that seeks to belittle and condemn people for being “heathens” who “cherish sexuality above all else.” Well, pardon me, Marshall Art, but mind your own goddam business. You certainly don’t know me well enough to presume to judge my sexual ethics. It’s fine if you want to view zygotes and embryos as persons, but there are perfectly legitimate beliefs that don’t agree with you. We don’t all have to be arrogant, intolerant, moral absolutists like you.
The Supreme Court is a deliberative body that uses everything but gut feelings to reach their decisions. They used legal and medical science in a very thoughtful and responsible way to reach their abortion ruling, and I’m sure that each one of them agonized over their decision. Just because you disagree with their decision, or with people who have different views about abortion than you, does not give you the right to demean and condemn those people.
Comment by Bob @ 2/18/2007 - 4:11 pm
“Just because you disagree with
their decision, or with people who have different views about abortion than you,
does not give you the right to demean and condemn those people.”
That’s a very scary statement, Bob. Are you saying that people shouldn’t have the right to ‘demean and condemn’ people they don’t agree with?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 2/18/2007 - 4:15 pm
I probably could have worded that better, Sister. Of course he has the free speech right to say whatever he wants. What I mean is more in the sense of moral authority. Marshall Art tries to claim the absolute moral authority to condemn people as heathens because they view the abortion issue differently than he does. I don’t recognize his moral authority to make such judgments about other people. Marshall Art has his own opinion, but it’s just that: his opinion. It carries no more weight than anyone else’s opinion, and in his case, probably less.
And please spare me the “scary” comment. You know perfectly well that I have no wish or power to keep people from voicing their opinions.
Comment by Bob @ 2/18/2007 - 4:33 pm
Oh gee, Bob. I didn’t realize you were so sensitive. Here. I’ve just opened up a big can of LIGHTEN UP!!! You’re the one who said you don’t believe in God. By definition, that makes you a heathen. When I used the term, I would normally have said “designed by God or nature for you heathens”. You’re free to take offense if you like, but please, first grant me the opportunity to first be offensive.
Also, I don’t buy the notion that those on the Court who sided with the decision spent a whole lot of time debating the truth of what constitutes a person. That decision coincided with a change in the moral direction of this culture following the first salvos against the mention of God or prayer in the public square. (What a remarkable coincidence!) What people do in their bedrooms, heathen or otherwise, is of little concern to me in my day to day life. We can debate the effects of sex between unmarried adults on the culture some other time. But for now, if those people produce a PERSON and abort it (and I use “it” in the same way as him/her), they’ve murdered, plain and simple. Because all you talk of “different weights that we can give to the scientific, social, moral, ethical sides of the abortion debate” is subjective crapola than puts the parents of the soon to be dead child well above the child for subjective reasons, not scientific reasons. So I once again challenge you to find some science that backs your position or contradicts mine. Good luck with that.
Comment by Marshall Art @ 2/18/2007 - 6:06 pm
“So I once again challenge you to find some science that backs your position or contradicts mine.”
–M.A.
According to any reasonable scientific or logical analysis, it’s easy to maintain that a clump of cells is not a human being. Is a removed appendix a human being? No. Is a circumcized foreskin a human being? No. Are those lumps of human tissue entitled to any rights under the constitution? No. This is a perfectly legitimate way of analyzing the situation, Marshall Art. It may work for you to say that because a human embryo will eventually become a human being, that it should be considered a human being now. But that’s your view, and it probably derives largely from a religious point of view. I’m fine to let you define the issue for yourself. But I wish you would show me the same respect and let me call it how I see it. Like I said, there is no requirement that we all have to see this issue the same. You can yell “murder” all you want, but a majority of Americans will properly see such statements as the extremist and intolerant rhetoric that it is.
Comment by Bob @ 2/18/2007 - 6:20 pm
You’re a typical liberal Bob. As soon as your beliefs get questioned, you get flustered and are unable to defend them, so you try and take the argument sideways, suddenly it’s how poor little you is being treated. It’s a transparent scam Bob to try and deflect attention away from the weakness of your arguments. Once again, the amazing hubris of you claiming to speak for “a majority of Americans” when you can’t even properly speak for or defend yourself.
Comment by Severian @ 2/18/2007 - 6:24 pm
Hiding behind your cheap insults again, Severian? Wouldn’t it be a refreshing change to engage in the actual topic of discussion and try to kick your addiction to insults and invective? Why do you refuse to tell us your own views on abortion? Do you have any? Why not offer something positive for a change?
Comment by Bob @ 2/18/2007 - 7:02 pm
Why not offer something positive for a change?
Interesting comment coming from someone who supports a party and a philosophy that hasn’t offered anything positive on a single national issue in more than a decade.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 2/18/2007 - 11:05 pm
Sorry Bob,
I’m with GWR on this one. When will the dems offer something positive for a change. It seems to me, that you do have some honorable and reasonable men/women in your party.
For one reason or another, it seems like the nutjobs in your party get all the airtime in the msm. If the democratic party would let the good people in thier party to the forefront, I might actually consider voting for a democrat.
Comment by G-Monster @ 2/18/2007 - 11:44 pm
Ok Bob, I can understand to a degree your thoughts on the earliest stages preganacy.
But I am curious, please tell me, where do believe a baby becomes a baby? Do you believe it only becomes a baby when it is finally delivered?
You acknowledge that it lives, while inside the womb, but there are stages where you can no longer consider this a simple lump of flesh as so many wish to regulate that to (mainly through the whole pregnancy until brith). When a baby in the womb has a heart beat, would you still consider this a lump flesh? Or moving its arms, or kicking…is it still a lump of flesh..or is it acting out, thinking, kicking, reacting to stimuli?
At what stage in the pregnancy do you consider a baby to be a baby? is it only when the baby is born?
OK, sanity. I’ll try to be more specific. I definitely believe that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc., are alive. By definition, they’re human, but I don’t believe that they’re persons until they’ve reached the Supreme Court definition.
Ok, unfortunately the supreme court is not the end all for medical science, and though I would hope that came into play when roe vs wade was being deliberated on, I really don’t think it was in my opinion.
Roe vs wade was decided January 22, 1973. That was 34 years ago!!!
I believe that the medical information that the supreme courts were given was old, and medical science has advanced quite a bit in determining many things…I also believe that roe vs wade should be revisited on the medical basis in itself. Should it be overturned, that isn’t my decision, but I think before we lock it down into “the supreme court decided end of story”, we are also talking medical science - and we are also talking about medical science the law was decided on that is 34 years old.
In some ways I believe many do not want this revisted for one major reason….If medical science proves a baby is a baby in the womb, that can feel stimuli and can can react to its surrounding…..then what is the obvious outcome of the decision? That for many years people have been murdering unborn babies because of a bad decision based on old medical science.
What will happen when or if it ever comes to that? How many people comforted themsleves in saying it was just a lump of flesh….and then to have something like this tell them…no, it was a baby you killed?
I want things like that to stop, not only because of my incredible desire to protect children, especially those that should be protected but aren’t, but because of the natural outcome of such things where these mothers who abort their unborn babies are mentally scarred and physically scarred for the rest of their lives. Some cannot have children no longer because of having an abortion…the mental and physical problems that occur just in that is something why this needs to be revisited also.
It really is something that is downplayed. We hear so much of “it’s a woman body, her right to do what she wants with it”, but you never hear of the other side, the stories of women who are emotionally and physically scarred by this when they have it done. Yes, an ugly truth that never gets any real media or reporting time….because it doesn’t help them promote their cause.
I think that there is a moral gray area about where to set “personhood” in later-stage fetal development, and for that reason, I’m uncomfortable with late-term abortions.
I am glad you actually feel unfortable bob. I am not saying that in a mean way, but I am honest to God glad you feel something in that makes you feel unconfortable, because so many still consider that a lump of flesh and feel nothing because that is all they get inudated with…it’s just a lump of flesh, just get rid of it.
Bob, I want you to read this HERE on the procedure of late term abortions.
I also want you to read this story HERE:
I can tell you this, I had the SAME THING, exact same thing happen to me and my wife. We went in and they saw a small anomaly in the ultrasound and tried to tell us it was a common symptom of downs syndrom and wanted us to consider aborting.
We decided against it, not only because of our belief but because down syndrom babies can live perfectly normal happy lives. Just because of a defect or a problem doesn’t mean we kill a baby off till we get the perfect little baby everyone wants.
I am very furious because as it turned out it was a small vien in my sons testicles that was pulling his penis off to the right, and he had hypospadia (a split down the middle of his penis), both of which were easily corrected with some minor surgery. But their specialists suggested aborting my son.
Here is my son HERE, this is the person, my baby boy, whom they recommended to abort.
If they can’t get shit right today, who is to say what they looked at and determined roe vs wade on medically 34 years ago wasn’t alot worse?
Lastly Bob, I want you to look at these photos Warning very graphic:
photographs of aborted babies, most killed in the second and third trimesters.
I want you to fully understand what the cost of abortion is.
Comment by sanity @ 2/18/2007 - 11:45 pm
Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Chuck Schumer and John Murtha are all very obnoxious and are not the dems that I consider reasonable/honorable, nor could I ever in good conscience vote for these people.
These are 10 dems out of like 400 that sit in congress today. I rarely here anything about anyone else in congress. These 10 are always so busy hogging the cameras. I’d like to hear from others on both sides of the aisle.
Thier views and opinions on all types of things, including thier honest voting record on subjects that might be of concern to the general public.
Comment by G-Monster @ 2/18/2007 - 11:55 pm
Sanity, I’m very glad that you made the right decision with your son, and that he turned out fine. He’s an adorable kid, by the way. And thank you for sharing these very personal details of your life. I know that the stakes are high, and I know how sincere people with pro-life views are in their desire to protect. I sincerely respect those views.
I think it is a key question to decide at what point full-fledged personhood should be accepted for developing fetuses. But I think that we’d be kidding ourselves to say that any scientific, logical or moral process could precisely set that point in a way that everyone would agree on. I think it’s a moral gray area not because science is somehow lacking, but because even defining the terms for such a decision is an arbitrary process. The conceptual target for this decision is inherently fuzzy. But the legal situation requires that a point be set, and that’s what the Supreme Court tried to do. I accept that decision knowing that it is arbitrary, and I think there’s no way around it.
People with absolute views have the comfort of never having to compromise. It really does make the decision easier. I can imagine how unsatisfying it must be to hold absolute views and have to face someone else who talks about “gray areas.” And of course, the reason that abortion will always be such a hot-button issue is the completely irreconcilable nature of this disagreement. I suppose all I can offer is the reassurance that pro-choice people are not just intellectually lazy, callous, promiscuous people. I would caution anyone against presuming to claim absolute moral authority over an issue like this. And I think that all sides of this issue need to try to respect those on the other side, or at least respect their right to make such a decision for themselves.
Comment by Bob @ 2/19/2007 - 1:11 am
And by the way, Severian, why do we keep not hearing your views about this subject? I mean, enough about me, for chrissakes. I’m practically spilling my guts here. Why don’t you present your views and I can sit back and take pot shots at them from the sidelines. Come on, be a sport.
Comment by Bob @ 2/19/2007 - 1:15 am
“According to any reasonable scientific or logical analysis…” Both are already on my side, or rather, the children’s side. What you have is subjective interpretation based on personal agenda. Science already says that the product of intercourse is another human being. Objective logic can say nothing else. This isn’t hubris. This isn’t Christian fundamentalism. This is fact. Unvarnished and unasailable fact. What you’ve got is the notion that because these people are microscopic, too early in their development to feel or think, that somehow they have no value, or far less value than the parent who’s about to put them to death. By that standard, the older one gets, the greater his value. Is that where you’re going? Or perhaps the larger and more developed one is? The sorriest part is the reason behind it all. Is gettin’ jiggy all that important that lives have to be sacrificed? Don’t give me the 1% or less that abort due to rape or incest. Health of the mother? What health condition requires killing the child if the mother’s life isn’t also in danger? No, muh man. Roe v Wade is a foul stain on American law and a shameful moment in our history. There is nothing noble or honorable in supporting it. Period.