K
Kain99
Guest
Baby Killers! 
House Passes Partial Birth Abortion
- Thread starter demsformd
- Start date
Frank
Chairman of the Board
The data I read is that this downward trend actually began in the middle of Geirge H. W. Bush's administration and correlates statistically more closely with the aging of the baby boomers, and less with any pro-life national figure who made little policy restricting abortions. It has to do with the age and demographics of those who have them, and less to do with what someone believes.
Pete
Repete
I see no corelation at all with who is in the White House and how many abortions are performed. One is a life issue and one in purely political. The fact that someone got pregnant and chose to abort during a Democratic or a Republican administration is coincidental.
If you must draw a relationship how about this one.
The increased rate during Republican Administrations can be related to people being happier, happy="gettin busy" more, "gettin busy" more = pregnancies, more pregnancies=more abortions.
Toxick
Splat
But you've already said that abortion is murder. I happen to agree with you on that. Where I disagree with you is when you say that the murder of the unborn is okay - a matter of personal choice - because not everybody agrees that it's murder.
You said my analogy concerning theft is too radical - I think it's not radical enough. I think murder is several degrees of magnitude more heinous than stealing.
I would like to see the numbers you're citing here - and I would hope that you're not using a *data point* as proof or evidence.
Certainly you can't say the nation's moral climate was more conservative under Clinton.
I agree - to a point. This logic is why I think the 21 year old drinking age is an abomination, as are drug/prostitution/gambling laws.
I've never been a follower of the "They're going to do it anyway"
philosophy.
To me, murder is murder.
Like I said at the beginning, my arguments against abortion almost exclusivly revolve around the controversy of defining when life begins. And I can begrudgingly see the point of people who don't see abortion as anything more morally bankrupt than cleaning a refrigerator.
But, I'm afraid I have no way to argue against someone who tells me they believe abortion is murder - and supports it anyway.
Very nice, Toxick!
Dems?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Nice job Toxick...
...that is reading for comprehension.
One of the huge problems about the issue of abortion is that it is such a horrible subject, very emotional, very profound and this puts people very far apart as a matter of course in terms of opinions. We are talking life and death, the limits of an individuals power in a society of laws.
The biggest problem with abortion however, specifically Roe v. Wade, is that it is HORRIBLE law, easily the worst decision since Dredd Scott. This is bad because it is a threat to each and every one of us if the law can be distorted to say ANYTHING, especially when erstwhile supporters don't even know what they are supporting. It's the right to abortion, right? Nope.
Chief Justice Rodger Taney settled Scotts claim of freedom before the Civil War in the most convenient way possible: Only US citizens can appeal to the court. You, Dredd, are a slave, therefore not a citizen, therefore you can't appeal to the court in order to gain your freedom from slavery. Catch-22.
So, the decision says nothing about the constitutionality about slavery per se, merely that a slave, a non citizen, can't ask about it.
Roe is the same pretzel. While most people think it is a decision that says you have a Constitutional right to abortion, it says nothing of the kind. (Thank you Bruzilla! I learend this from you!)
It merely is an argument to privacy that, gee whiz, if you happen to get an abortion, well, it is none of the states business. A link of interest:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
There's all kinds more out there, pro and con, to read but this one may be the most concise and easiest to catch the gist of just how bad Roe is and just how easy the same kind of thinking can be used to devestate the rights of all people on any issue.
Roe supporters stand and fall on the fetus being nothing, a scab, a pimple, an extra peice of tissue to be done with as the "owner" pleases. Ain't nobody's business.
Roe opponents recoil at this position because it is simply horrible in what it is and what it implies. Our society allows THIS?
This is the core argument. All the rest is smoke screen and diversion.
...that is reading for comprehension.
One of the huge problems about the issue of abortion is that it is such a horrible subject, very emotional, very profound and this puts people very far apart as a matter of course in terms of opinions. We are talking life and death, the limits of an individuals power in a society of laws.
The biggest problem with abortion however, specifically Roe v. Wade, is that it is HORRIBLE law, easily the worst decision since Dredd Scott. This is bad because it is a threat to each and every one of us if the law can be distorted to say ANYTHING, especially when erstwhile supporters don't even know what they are supporting. It's the right to abortion, right? Nope.
Chief Justice Rodger Taney settled Scotts claim of freedom before the Civil War in the most convenient way possible: Only US citizens can appeal to the court. You, Dredd, are a slave, therefore not a citizen, therefore you can't appeal to the court in order to gain your freedom from slavery. Catch-22.
So, the decision says nothing about the constitutionality about slavery per se, merely that a slave, a non citizen, can't ask about it.
Roe is the same pretzel. While most people think it is a decision that says you have a Constitutional right to abortion, it says nothing of the kind. (Thank you Bruzilla! I learend this from you!)
It merely is an argument to privacy that, gee whiz, if you happen to get an abortion, well, it is none of the states business. A link of interest:
http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html
There's all kinds more out there, pro and con, to read but this one may be the most concise and easiest to catch the gist of just how bad Roe is and just how easy the same kind of thinking can be used to devestate the rights of all people on any issue.
Roe supporters stand and fall on the fetus being nothing, a scab, a pimple, an extra peice of tissue to be done with as the "owner" pleases. Ain't nobody's business.
Roe opponents recoil at this position because it is simply horrible in what it is and what it implies. Our society allows THIS?
This is the core argument. All the rest is smoke screen and diversion.
With each passing year and subsequent study on pregnancy, science discredits those who contend that the content of a woman’s uterus is a mere clump of cells, an appendix of the mother, something with no potential for life without a nine-month commitment from a woman.
Babies born in the second trimester, when abortion is considered legally acceptable because the fetus supposedly isn’t viable, now routinely survive and thrive. Even in 2003, it’s becoming embarrassing to demand abortion whenever, wherever and however.
In Washington last week, Democrats joined Republicans in Congress to pass a ban on partial-birth abortions. The more Congress learned about how doctors deliver second- and third-trimester fetuses - who often are viable on their own - halfway out of the mother only to stab them in the base of the skull with surgical scissors, the less sincerely Congress could defend canards like “a woman’s right” and “medical privacy.” Partial-birth abortion is no different than infanticide, and Congress tacitly admits this.
With every passing day between 1973 and 2003, science has helped blur the difference between abortion and infanticide. Thanks to an expanding field of research on prenatal care, society is coming to regard the pre-born baby as a real baby.
Science is changing the abortion debate
Babies born in the second trimester, when abortion is considered legally acceptable because the fetus supposedly isn’t viable, now routinely survive and thrive. Even in 2003, it’s becoming embarrassing to demand abortion whenever, wherever and however.
In Washington last week, Democrats joined Republicans in Congress to pass a ban on partial-birth abortions. The more Congress learned about how doctors deliver second- and third-trimester fetuses - who often are viable on their own - halfway out of the mother only to stab them in the base of the skull with surgical scissors, the less sincerely Congress could defend canards like “a woman’s right” and “medical privacy.” Partial-birth abortion is no different than infanticide, and Congress tacitly admits this.
With every passing day between 1973 and 2003, science has helped blur the difference between abortion and infanticide. Thanks to an expanding field of research on prenatal care, society is coming to regard the pre-born baby as a real baby.
Science is changing the abortion debate
I made my choice to decide that abortion is murder in my opinion. That is my morality and it is the morality of many Christian people like me. I am proud to say that I taught my child this and when my oldest daughter came home pregnant from junior year in college, she decided that she was going to have her child even though aborting my oldest grandchild would have been easier. That is the morality of my family but it does not have to be the morality of all. A forced morality (like a forced patriotism) is a false one that is more superficial than anything. Abortion is not only about life and death or religion but also about the control that government has in our lives. Should elitest moralists force their beliefs on the masses? I would hope that we would all agree that that is not the case. People must make their own decisions and when a child is not defined to be a citizen or even a person according to some people's skewed morals, they must make the decision that they see fit. Sadly sometimes scarred women make the wrong decision and we should stop that but ladies and gentlemen, a complete ban will not accomplish that. Instead, teach your children what the right choice is and make sure that they have values and morals that build life up rather than tear it down.
I don't know, Dems - should they? Government regulated smoking bans, seatbelt laws, gun laws, environmental extremes, PETA, forced association laws, no school choice...you tell me.
Surely not! I believe it is wrong to kill, rape, steal, maim or injure another person, but that's just my moral belief. Neither I nor any government has any business imposing such antiquated concepts on others.
I also think it's wrong to lie, especially under oath, but there appears to be a difference of opinion on that in Washington.
(For what it's worth, I think it is ok to insult people, whine, degrade others, and hold others up to constant ridicule and humiliation. It's generally bad taste and speaks poorly of character, and I might think you're an ******* if you do it, but it's ok. Oh wait. Unless you're part of a particular race other than white, religion other than Christian, or not a conservative but a liberal or Democrat - then it is SO WRONG as to be unspeakably horrible. But everyone else is a-ok)
.
Smoking bans - From what I understand, you are still able to smoke up as much as you want in the privacy of your own house. It is when you go into public and start smoking up around children and those that hate smoke and endanger the health of millions that it becomes a problem. Once again, personal decision but keep it to yourself or sit in the smoking section...It's not that hard unless you are so addicted to cigarettes that you must be smoking one constantly in which case you are putting yourself at great health risks.
Seatbelt laws - Even Pat Buchannan says that these were good for the safety of us. Still, I agree with you vra, this should not be a matter of government regulation. We cannot force to people to be safe, they should choose to do it and have some fricken common sense.
Gun laws - Agreed here too. The gun laws of America are entirely too cubersome and many should start being enforced rather than just having them on the books. This is a case where the elitest moralists should not forcing their ideas on others.
As for environmental extremes I have no clue what you are talking about and as for PETA I cannot recall how much influence they have in DC.
Could you also clarify the forced association statement?
As for school choice, you do have school choice. If your child's school is failing, it is legal for you to move him or her into one that is not. But the federal government should not be putting its funds into a school system that it cannot regulate and one that only teaches a small fraction of the population. We should be putting all of our funds into the system that educates the vast majority of our students and not just some....Wait, on another thought, let us start providing vouchers. It could be like a federal contract that could allow us to start affirmative action programs in private schools and make Catholic schools start teaching birth control. That sounds alot better to me actually.
And I am sick of seeing the whole well I think murder, this and that are all morally unacceptable. I do too people and so do 99.99% of the population...that is not the case with abortion where this nation is split right down the middle if not in favor of those that do not have a moral problem with abortion. Hell, 51% of Catholics support abortion rights. We Christian defenders of life would be forcing our ideas on a large segment of the population that does not want that. Like I said, change the outlook of abortion by telling your children. I cannot think of how many times pro-lifers had children that had abortions or they forced to have an abortion. I am telling you stop crusading against this and look in your own backyard because you may be on the verge of losing your daughter.
I see vouchers as pretty much the same thing as school choice, but with one clarification - if you are POOR, private school is not a choice you can make as freely as someone else.
I really think it is strange that Democrats are largely against vouchers - it is basically money for poorer people to send their kids to better schools. I don't buy the argument about whether the government can "regulate" it - the choice of GOING to private school is made by the parent, and they ought to be intelligent enough to know if they are sending their child to a better school - or a worse one.
Moreover - if the private school can do its job cheaper than the public school - everybody wins. The vouchers are always LESS than the cost the state pays for each pupil it educates. Pretty simple math, actually.
I really think it is strange that Democrats are largely against vouchers - it is basically money for poorer people to send their kids to better schools. I don't buy the argument about whether the government can "regulate" it - the choice of GOING to private school is made by the parent, and they ought to be intelligent enough to know if they are sending their child to a better school - or a worse one.
Moreover - if the private school can do its job cheaper than the public school - everybody wins. The vouchers are always LESS than the cost the state pays for each pupil it educates. Pretty simple math, actually.
Toxick
Splat
Come on. Outlawing murder is not forced morality. If you view abortion as murder, then enforcing the law against murder is just par for the course.
Forced morality would be better exemplified by citing those things, such as drug/alcohol/gambling/prostitution laws. None of those things affect the lives or well beings of anyone else (unless of course, someone who's high or drunk gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle). These things are nothing more than the extension of the nation's puritan origins, and the continuing NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mentality. Yet they're still illegal, and I don't hear much of an outcry.
Abortion - the ultimate infringment on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in my view - is tolerated for the sake of convenience, or for the well-being of murderers.
Should they?
No.
Do they?
All the friggin' time. Oppressive gun laws, ridiculous speeding regulations, fascist anti-smoking laws, and of course my favorite victimless crime list, cited above.
I do not see anti-abortionists (or pro-lifers, or anti-choicers, or whatever label you want to slap on these people) as elitist moralists. Some of them are, I'll grant you. You will find those people in any hot-button issue.
Militant Veganism, for instance.
No, of course not. The same way that laws against murder do not stop murder. Laws against robbery do not stop stealing. Laws against drugs do not stop drug use. The 21 drinking age does not stop minors from drinking.
These things are still illegal, and (in some cases) rightfully so.
Believe me, I understand how contradictory my view on abortion is but I still firmly believe that it is correct to allow people to make their own decision regarding a fetus that cannot live outside of the womb of the mother.
The pro-lifers are elitest moralists. Those who are so vehement about this issue get in front of people and tell them that women belong in the kitchen, children should get smacked everyday, and that the babykillers ouught to be killed themselves. The so-called life movement is the most hateful one that I can think of...if you disagree with me, go to the pro-life marches in DC - now that is a rough group of people.
The pro-lifers are elitest moralists. Those who are so vehement about this issue get in front of people and tell them that women belong in the kitchen, children should get smacked everyday, and that the babykillers ouught to be killed themselves. The so-called life movement is the most hateful one that I can think of...if you disagree with me, go to the pro-life marches in DC - now that is a rough group of people.
Toxick
Splat
Well, since you're going to paint the entire group with the same brush as the extreme fringe then I will too.
From now on, I shall view all vegetarians with the same disdain as with militant vegans. I shall equate all animal lovers with PETA terrorists. I shall see all homosexuals as the wildly flamboyant in-your-face flaming queens who dominate the gay pride parades.
And of course, I must view all Catholics as pedophiles.
That's why they're called extremists.
And I'd be hard pressed to believe they were any more hateful than the anti-war protesters from a couple of months back.
What exactly is a "moral elitist", anyway? Is that like when you think your morals are superior to people who, say, plunge scissors in infants' heads and suck their brains out?
Look, partial birth is completely gruesome and there should be a ban to all elective partial birth abortions when the health of the mother or life of the mother is not at stake. This law has a fundamental soundness to it, there just had to be a little extra to it I think.
Moral elitest, in my opinion, feels that their values should be imposed on everyone. Examples of these: Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, the Taliban, and the 40% of Americans that believe that life begins at conception and that everyone should adhere to that.
