Clinton and Giuliani Campaigning Already

Saturday afternoon I sat down on my living room sofa to spend an hour of free time watching television that did not consist of Thomas the Tank Engine or Bob the Builder. With my 2-year-old son occupied by his father, I gained control of the remote only to find Hillary Clinton on C-SPAN, stating how important it is for the world to “treat human life with respect.”

Funny how her definition of human life does not consist of the unborn. Her reference to human life was in regard to the troops in Iraq and not abortion.

Senator Clinton made her first visit to Iowa as a presidential contender. Saturday's visit was her first trip to the battleground state in three years.

"I'm running for president," she said. "and I'm in it to win."

Yes, we knew that ages ago. Even after she refused to admit it during her debate with Republican candidate John Spencer for the New York senate seat last November.

As I listened to her speak, I became engaged and almost persuaded to vote for the potential first female president of the United States. She's clever and she's powerful. Afterall, she managed to invoke silence on the women of The View.

Senator Clinton spoke about gender lines and how women are inferior in the business world and more often than not, make less money per year than male co-workers with the same or less education and credentials. I admired her support for women in the workforce and her position on gender equality.

But she ruined her chances of gaining my vote when she said she faced a “double standard” as a female candidate, yet hoped voters would look past “stories about my clothes and hair” to help her make history. Since when does the gender card allow her the presidency?

When Clinton spoke about her concern for the welfare of America's youth I realized she's a hypocrite. She bragged about the beginning of her law career and how she fought for the rights of foster children. Each time she opened her mouth I heard the words but they meant nothing. Like the old saying goes, "What you are shouts so loudly in my ears I cannot hear what you say."

Hillary Clinton doesn't care about me. We're not alike. I'm Catholic, I believe in God, I read the Bible, I go to church every Sunday, I don't believe in abortion, I support the war in Iraq and I don't wish to pardon illegal aliens in our country. The only thing we have in common is the fact that we're both women and mothers. It seems as though she cares more about making history as the first woman to become president than she does about turning this country around.

This senator who claims she prays every day and stresses the importance of going to church with her family, also believes it's a woman's right to abort a child.

It's no better on the "right" side of the fence either.

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani also hit the campaign trail this weekend, giving a keynote address at New Hampshire's Republican convention on Saturday. While Giuliani hasn't officially announced he is running for president, it's clear he's in competition with his New York counterpart.

"The people of New Hampshire have a big responsibility," he said. "The idea of having the first primary, it gives the country the benefit of your wisdom."

Just yesterday evening, our local news station reported that Giuliani is in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage rights and supporting illegal aliens, three issues that most conservatives would vote against in a GOP presidential primary.

"He hasn't run for anything since 9/11, But he is frozen in time standing with the president at Ground Zero after 9/11, and that's very helpful to him," said Republican strategist Rich Galen.

Unfortunately, the image of Giuliani standing with President Bush at Ground Zero is not enough to get my vote. I shouldn't have to reiterate I'm against abortion, time and time again.

So where do conservatives like me turn? Which candidate can best represent our important issues? Which candidate really cares about the American people? Which candidate is going to reveal his or her hidden agenda first?

There are only 350 days left before the first vote of the 2008 elections, my friends, and the going is getting tough already.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at January 29, 2007 12:41 AM
Comments
Comment #205556

I think you’re caricaturing these people’s positions. Clinton and Guiliani do not stand for making abortions easy, but certainly do stand for a woman’s right to make a decision when the pregnancy is life threatening.

Who’s life is more important here, the unborn baby or the mother’s? Who should make that decision, you, the Pope, the government? No thanks.

Isn’t it possible to be Catholic and a citizen of the United States that believes individuals should have the freedom to worship how they choose and make their own decisions? Is someone twisting your arm to get an abortion?

It seems to me there are a lot of radical muslims that think just like you do, that unless their government’s laws come directly from the Koran/Bible nothing will suffice. Do you even realize how unAmerican that is?

Anyway, vote for whoever you want. David Duke maybe will meet your qualifications. Bush did, too. What a great job he has done.

Oh, and by the way, the abortion issue is a manufactured issue that Republicans like to use as a “wedge” issue. There’s not much difference really between what most Republicans and Democrats want. Getting an abortion should not be easy. Getting an abortion should be allowed in life threatening circumstances, when someone is raped, or if the fetus shows signs of being seriously malformed. I personally think the supposed partisan divide on this issue is a completely manufactured one. You’re being manipulated.

Don’t agree? Think ALL abortion should be outlawed? Well, I hope you don’t use birth control, because the Catholic church considers that murder too.

Posted by: Max at January 29, 2007 1:25 AM
Comment #205558

Dana said: “Funny how her definition of human life does not consist of the unborn.”

You know, a fertile egg has only potential value, UNLESS you imbue it with a soul. Now, whether that fertile egg has a soul or not, is a matter of religious faith. In this country, founded on the liberty of each person to observe their differing faiths or, no faith at all, faith is a personal decision protected by our Constitution. Sperm has potential life as does unfertilized eggs, both of which nature discards in multitudes by natural or God’s design. Fertilized eggs within the womb also spontaneously abort naturally.

The decision of whether or not a fertilized egg has an anymore value than a naturally aborted one, is one of faith. And if we are to be nation where faith is kept free, then the decision over abortion also must be kept free.

A personal decision for the woman and her doctor. For those of faith to make that decision for those who don’t believe as they do, undermines freedom of religion which our forefathers so carefully asserted in our founding documents.

And if the state controls abortion decisions, only the wealthy capable of leaving the country will have access to them. Such elitism of freedom of choice, if you are wealthy you have it, if you are poor, you don’t, is not what our country was founded upon in terms of equal application of the law, which we are still struggling to perfect.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 1:50 AM
Comment #205559

And no Dana, you are not against Abortion as personal choice. You are against other people having abortions. Let’s be extremely clear about that. And readers, do not let these pro-lifers frame the issue this way. They want control over your life, your religious values, and the life and quality of life of your children.

They already have youth camps ready to indoctrinate your children if they can only get the federal apparatus to do it with. And they are building the infrastructure with charter schools and under the guise of school choice, using your tax dollars to fund religious Christian private school education for parents of poorly performing students. Nothing wrong or worrisome about religious schools, provided they are supported by members of that faith and not everyone else’s tax money.

We all pay for public education in this country, we should work on making those the best dollars spent. And if folks want their children to have religious education, by all private and personal means they should have that choice. But, they are now using your private and personal money to fund their schools, thank you very much GW Bush and the Republican Congress.

Be very careful folks! What is NOT an issue, is pro-lifers being forced to have abortions. That would be putting the shoe on the other foot, and they would scream and fight tooth and claw to defend their personal right to make that decision for themselves.

So why should pro-choice folks have less right and freedom of choice than pro-lifers. This is not about pro-lifer’s making personal decisions. It is about their desire to take the power over your, and my wife’s and daughter’s decisions. To make them for us. Do not give them that unequal power, because the population of the world has tripled in one lifetime, and is increasingly going to create a demand for forced abortion as now occurs in China.

Is that a slippery slope pro-lifer’s really want to go down, here in America? Sadly, the answer to that question for most of them is probably yes.

Be very careful of these folks - it is not their freedom of choice they are fighting for, it is taking other’s choice away for themselves to make, that they are fighting for. And they are doing it under the guise of their religious conviction that a fertilized egg is imbued with a soul. That friends is a matter of faith, not of fact. And our government has no place making decisions of faith for anyone, pro-life or pro-choice.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 1:56 AM
Comment #205575

District Attorneys say that the worst thing that could happen during a rape trial is to have a jury full of women. Regardless of how strong the evidence is, a female jurist is far more likely to acquit an alleged rapist than convict him.

Basically, the reason is this. In a rape trial, a man would judge the convict whether or not he did it. A woman jurist, however, would judge the VICTIM whether or not she brought the rape on to herself.

Hence, it has become standard practice for defense lawyers to force the victim to dress what they were wearing during the assault. This is especially true if the victim is smarter or more attractive than the female jurists.

Thus we explain the author’s behavior…

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at January 29, 2007 5:04 AM
Comment #205576

Dana,

You just got your wish, Mike Huckabee just entered the race for the presidency.

He has publicly stated his support for creationism and his opposition to abortion and to gay marriage.

He’s an ordained Baptist minister with strict views on moral issues, once saying, “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

So, It looks to me that you’ve got your candidate to vote for. Personally, I think his views are despicable and based in a fantasy that was invented to keep a society in line, but we all have our own crosses to bear, don’t we?

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2007 5:09 AM
Comment #205587
They already have youth camps ready to indoctrinate your children if they can only get the federal apparatus to do it with. And they are building the infrastructure with charter schools and under the guise of school choice, using your tax dollars to fund religious Christian private school education for parents of poorly performing students…Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 01:56 AM
Change “Christian” to “Muslim” and I would think you’re talking about Pakistani madrasses. I suppose that’s OK, since there is no Constitutional boundary between church and state and they’re our religious fanatics. Right?

As a complete aside, I’m shocked I agree with Rhinehold on something.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 29, 2007 9:30 AM
Comment #205590

“I think you’re caricaturing these people’s positions. Clinton and Guiliani do not stand for making abortions easy, but certainly do stand for a woman’s right to make a decision when the pregnancy is life threatening.”

Max, elective abortion is wrong. A woman who wishes to have an abortion because she didn’t want to have a baby is basically murdering a child.

The percentage of life threatening pregnancies has declined, my friend, so Liberals can’t use that as an excuse to keep it legal.

And no, I don’t use birth control. I’m Catholic. I use the method of abstinence, meaning I don’t have sex on the days I don’t wish to risk getting pregnant. It’s as easy as that.

Posted by: Dana at January 29, 2007 10:09 AM
Comment #205592

“Now, whether that fertile egg has a soul or not, is a matter of religious faith. In this country, founded on the liberty of each person to observe their differing faiths or, no faith at all, faith is a personal decision protected by our Constitution.”

So basically you’re telling me that as a religious person, my beliefs aren’t relevant when choosing a candidate?

You’re saying it’s okay to kill the unborn?

The Left is more concerned with animal rights than they are with civil rights, with human rights.

That’s what makes me laugh. We sit here and fight for gay rights, to allow gay marriage, but we can’t fight for the defenseless humans that are destroyed every day?

We mourn the thousands of deaths in Iraq that occur, but we don’t give a minute of our time to mourn the aborted?

That’s hypocritical and a double standard.

Posted by: Dana at January 29, 2007 10:13 AM
Comment #205594

Dana said: “So basically you’re telling me that as a religious person, my beliefs aren’t relevant when choosing a candidate?”

No, what I am telling you is precisely what I wrote to you above in those exact words and those exact terms. You may not credibly put your words in my mouth.

TO YOU Dana it obviously appears wrong, but not to the millions and millions and millions of Americans who continue to vote to give you the right to not abort, and protect their right to abort. That’s the difference, isn’t it?

Pro-Choice folks stand up for your right to choose. You intend to take their right to choose away.

The hypocrisy is all yours from that perspective.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #205595

So you abortionites are telling me nearly 50 million babies were aborted for the most part because of the mothers health or rape or incest? What a krock. Most were done for economic reasons or just because they wanted to. 75% of downs syndrome babies are aborted. If the peaceniks really want peace take a piece of the lives of people with downs syndrome. They are peaceful and very loving people. They could educate a large majority of the citizenry about getting along with people. Babies that are deformed are not candidates for abortion. That, along with killing downs syndrome babies is an act of genocide.

Rhinehold
Just out of curiosity what is your cross?

Posted by: tomh at January 29, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #205597

Tomh said: “So you abortionites are telling me nearly 50 million babies were aborted for the most part because of the mothers health or rape or incest? What a krock. Most were done for economic reasons or just because they wanted to.”

And if an oppressive majority were to come into power in this country, Tomh and decide Parents who raise their children as Protestants instead of Catholics are abominations of God’s will, and rule that they will take all Protestant children and raise them properly, would you have a problem, with that?

Who the hell are pro-lifers to dictate and force parents to be parents or not? That is a personal choice, it is called liberty to pursue one’s own destiny and happiness. Don’t try to use religious belief as pretext for taking control over the lives of other women’s bodies or free will to choose to be a parent or not. They do that in Rwanda and Middle East, but, our Constitution won’t let you do that here, thank Buddha.

Our Constitution protects individual citizen’s rights from majorities who would take them away. It is one of the many brilliant things about our American heritage and Constitution. Moral Majority’s are no better than Atheist majorities, neither has the right to decide parentage or other ethical or moral values for other fellow citizens - that is a natural or god given choice for each person to make protected by our Constitution which seeks to protect personal liberty from majorities.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 10:40 AM
Comment #205599
Just out of curiosity what is your cross?

My unwillingness to believe in imaginary people and subjegate my life to their imaginary will.

*shrug*

Just something I have to live with I guess.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2007 10:58 AM
Comment #205602

First, I think Abortion, however wrong it is, has been used to distract people from all kinds of other wrongs, and to justify further wrongs in the name of it’s end.

If we’re going to end it, I believe we must do two things: convince people on the most objective evidence that it’s wrong, and make the basis for it’s outlawing or reversion to a state issue, solid, constitutional, and just.

We also have to adjust society for the sake of those inevitable, undeniably human results of the end of abortion, to bring back orphanages, make them caring places, and make sure that adoption becomes a means of resolving their situation.

If we think we can recklessly move through the law to ban it, just wait to plan for the consequences, and maintain an uncaring system for those who are born because of it, we’ll end up making people long for the days when abortion was freely available.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 29, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #205606

Stephen D., from a purely practical perspective, given that the earth’s population has increased 300% in the span of a centenarian’s life, and your party’s insistence on allowing masses of immigrants to come into this country without deterrent borders, is it wise to even consider measures which will both limit personal choice and freedom over becoming a parent and exacerbate the overcrowding of the planet in one fell piece of legislation?

And if Medicare is a debacle, I can assure you bringing back orphanages for millions will become yet another government debacle. Who decides what religious training is given to the orphans. Are we prepared to oversee Muslim run orphanages without close scrutiny of what they are being taught and prepared for? Or will only Protestant orphanages be considered safe, some funded by good Christian Aryan nation or KKK groups whom the government forces to accept non-white babies under the equal protection laws?

Just curious.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 11:12 AM
Comment #205611

Rhinehold
If that is a cross to bear, so be it. I don’t see it as a cross. A cross is a burden that requires strength to proceed forward.

David Remer
I would never force another family to acceed to my wishes. Nor would I support the government to do so. That really is a no-brainer. But, where does that enter into the pix. You spoke of a family and their rights, etc. But who is speaking for the baby? Before 60 days are up the baby can have a heart beat, it can feel pain, it is on its way to begin its course in the world. Most abortions are done when the baby has progressed past 60 days, so that the viability of the baby becomes more and more real. A member of my family gave birth to twin girls that were 2-1/2 months premature. One lived and one died. There are many babies aborted at 4-5 months. There are some that are aborted beyond 6 months. Medicine has progressed forward where some of those babies could have lived. But in todays world where rights trump life it becomes a tragedy. The mental health of thousands of women becomes and issue after that have abortions. Breast cancer becomes a higher risk of women who have abortions. Does the abortionist provide this information to the candidate for abortion? Of course not. Before Roe v. Wade there were backstreet obortions. That was and is wrong. Those people need to receive the full penalty of the law. Furthermore the number per year never even approached a million. If those babies who were aborted could have given the opportunity to live, we would have a generation of millions of people in the work force, becoming future leaders in business and government, some of them teaching our grandchildren, becomein part of society in a productive manner, but instead we just asign a number to them while they are put in the dumster. What craven behavior.

Posted by: tomh at January 29, 2007 11:37 AM
Comment #205614

Btw, I know this is suppose to be an abortion thread but I just can’t seem to muster it atm.

But, I did see something that makes me wonder about ‘single payer’ healthcare.

Let’s suppose that there is a national healthcare plan in place. How long after enacting do we think that the following will be outlawed in order to ensure the system remains cost effective?

* Fast Food
* Children with long-term disabilities that will require extensive medical care
* Old people who have terminal illnesses but require enormous amounts of funds to stay alive longer
* Smoking
* Drinking alcohol
* Soda
…. etc

Doesn’t this lead into a greater intrusion into our lives than to simply providing the care?

I mean, if I know that *I* don’t have to pay for the medical consequences of eating McDonald’s three times a day, why should I bother? Or smoke for that matter, my future medical bills will be taken care of by others…

Just food for thought I suppose.

Posted by: Rhinehold at January 29, 2007 11:50 AM
Comment #205615

Tomh, the “baby” you refer to is your own biased inference. The fetus is the property of the mother and she decides whether that fetus should become a baby or not. That or, the state decides for her as pro-choice groups want.

A lot of the facts you present Tomh are pro-choice lawyer cherry picked and deceptive. The early fetus has a heartbeat, yes, but, can it fall in love? The early fetus has a rudimentary neural network, but, does it have any experiential reference or cognitive abilities to discern pain from pleasure? It has reflexes, by the 3 months, but, our cognitive experience of pain is not what fetus’ even have the capacity yet to discern.

I have had a lot of dental work, the needles rummaging around in my gums is not a pleasant experience for me. But, it is also not cataclysmic event that will prevent me from asking for it again when needed.

I have absolutely no problem with the state requiring women choosing abortion be counseled by a factual and unemotional presentation of the empirical facts surrounding an abortion. Nor do I think a majority of pro-choice advocates have a problem with that. It is a serious decision and should be recognized by the woman.

But, the alternative of not allowing her that choice, is the government gets into the business of baby production and forcing individual parenting choices. This is in fact what China’s government does in reverse, prohibiting parents from having babies through force of law and punishment. Under our Constitution, that is not permissable, thankfully either for, or against parental choice. Our Constitution protects each person’s right to choose to be a parent or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 11:54 AM
Comment #205619

Rhinehold, that is a flawed premise.

First, a universal health care system will of necessity focus on health maintenance. Ultimately, for example, drug users may be eligible for detox once under the plan. After that, no second chances.

Similarly for alcoholism. What I am excited about is covered smoking cessation clinics. Again, your only covered for checking in one time for 5 days. After that, if you pick up the habit again, you are on your own, save for emergency life saving procedures.

At some point, we will have to take personal life choices into consideration. If a smoker has been covered for smoking cessation detox and counseling, and resumes smoking, when they develop chronic life threatening emphysema and CPD, they will have to be eliminated from protracted life support eligibility, and offered a hospice instead.

These are all reasonable and humane management decisions that will have to be incorporated into the system to keep it economically viable.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 12:13 PM
Comment #205631

Dana, you practice birth control through abstinence? You “don’t have sex on the days you don’t wish to be pregnant” (!!!!!??????).

I hate to be the one to have to acquaint you with some basic biology (I know you “don’t confuse me with the facts” crowd are very suspicious of words like “biology”, but hear me out): if you have sex on any day of the month, your “wish” not to become pregnant is not going to prevent impregnation. There are millions of past and present teenage girls who can attest to this.

Posted by: charles Ross at January 29, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #205634

David Remer

Can a 1 year old child fall in love?

Pain is pain. Doctors have found that the reaction to inducing pain is the response expected. They do not know the difference in pain and pleasure, but there response is different when pain or pleasure in induced.

Why do we have to kill the baby?

I will repeat; mothers who have had abortions have consistently met with mental health issues and are more likely to get breast cancer. Planned Parrenthood does not inform the mother of these risks. If PP really had the mother’s and the baby’s care at heart they would advise them of the key risks involved.

It’s the mother’s body and she can do with it whatever she wants is nonsense. Ya, I know the argument is used, but it is an immoral argument.

When the procedure of partial birth abortion is used, quite often the baby would survive if a c-section were done. But, instead the baby’s brains are sucked out of its head and thrown into the dumpster separated from the body. That is homicide however way you want to spin it.

Posted by: tomh at January 29, 2007 1:35 PM
Comment #205635
Max, elective abortion is wrong. A woman who wishes to have an abortion because she didn’t want to have a baby is basically murdering a child.

You’re free to have that opinion. I think most people want abortion to be elective in cases of rape, incest, or when the baby is seriously damaged. Not ALL, but most.

The percentage of life threatening pregnancies has declined, my friend, so Liberals can’t use that as an excuse to keep it legal.

It really doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Many Democrats have proposed just making it legal in some circumstances, not all. This is how this issue has been clouded by Republicans.

And no, I don’t use birth control. I’m Catholic. I use the method of abstinence, meaning I don’t have sex on the days I don’t wish to risk getting pregnant. It’s as easy as that.

In many places in Africa there are laws in place to prevent people from using birth control. As a result, many people die of aids, because they are not using condoms. Personally, I worry about their lives, and think this legislation kills people. So… I guess we all have our points of view.

If the rythm method works for you, that’s great, but I don’t think there would be many people who would want to force anyone of any religion to use it. For instance, Jewish people may want to use condoms. Would you force them to use the rythm method? For a long time in this country we have had the freedom to worship as we please.

All this I guess is beside the point. You believe all abortion is murder, I get that. However, I don’t think many people (even conservatives) really share your perspective. You are right that Hilary and OBama are as about as conservative on this issue as any Republican frontrunners, so I guess you, like the people who want gay marriage, will just have to wait and keep your fingers crossed for a popular candidate that agrees with you.

However, your argument that abortion is wrong because your Pope says so is a little weak to anyone that’s not a Catholic, making it hard for you to get support.

Posted by: Max at January 29, 2007 1:40 PM
Comment #205642
are more likely to get breast cancer

Got a link for this little gem?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 29, 2007 2:04 PM
Comment #205643

Tomh, thank you for this pro-life propaganda: “I will repeat; mothers who have had abortions have consistently met with mental health issues and are more likely to get breast cancer.”

Bullcrap. Some women who have had abortions have indeed experienced depression and other mental health issues, but, the incidence of mental health issues in women who have never had an abortion is also demonstrable. Pure propaganda.

I know a woman who had two abortions and she never had a problem at all, and is now a very happy mother to a 15 year old daughter who thinks she is the best of the best as mothers go. She is also knocking down around $80 Grand a year in salary supplying a happy and rewarding life for her and her daughter, thanks to the abortions which allowed her to finish college. She came from a lower middle class family.

Such anecdotal evidence does not prove causality, Tomh. Mine or yours.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 2:06 PM
Comment #205649

David Remer

My neice has had 3 abortions. She is in her 30’s. No indication of breast cancer yet. Yes, there are some who will not get breast cancer. Abortion only increases the risk of getting breast cancer.

womanmarine

The Associan of American Physicans and Surgeons
Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

I got these from a local womens health care center.

Max

The issue of rape, incest and other reasons clouded the issue after a liberal Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade ruling. The liberal approach to abortion on demand became the rallying cry of the left/liberal agenda. For instance, at one time when a woman was raped, she was taken to the hospital and evidence was obtained and the woman was cleaned. It was rare for a rape victim to get pregnant. Does incest warrant killing a baby? Does a malformed baby warrant death? I stand by what I stated earlier that it is homicidal and genicidal. Homicides and genocides are illegal, immoral and benefit no one positively.

Posted by: tomh at January 29, 2007 3:06 PM
Comment #205650

Tomh:

Bullcrap. It is childlessness that is one of any number of SUSPECTED POSSIBLE causes of breast cancer, not abortion. And none of them are proven yet.

Right, it couldn’t be childlessness because men are childless and they get breast cancer. Funny that men don’t get abortions and still get breast cancer.

at one time when a woman was raped, she was taken to the hospital and evidence was obtained and the woman was cleaned. It was rare for a rape victim to get pregnant.

Cleaned?????

Do you get any of your information that isn’t filtered through anti-abortion groups?

Never having discussed abortion with my two breast-cancer surgeons, they would take serious issue with the crap you are posting here about breast cancer.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 29, 2007 3:19 PM
Comment #205652

From the American Cancer Society, you might want to educate yourself:

Several studies show that induced abortions do not increase the risk of breast cancer. Also, there is no evidence to show a direct link between miscarriages and breast cancer.

ACS: What Causes Breast Cancer?

Posted by: womanmarine at January 29, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #205655

People always talk about a woman’s right to “choose”. She got pregnant. She made her choice. There are consequences to sex, not just recreation. So many irresponsible people out there.

Rape is horrible, but killing innocent life is worse. I just can’t get the people that want to save life everywhere, except when it comes to children. How morbid is that?

Posted by: Susan35 at January 29, 2007 3:40 PM
Comment #205656

CRAP=Cancer’s Real And Preventable

There are many sources of info. One place I personally have no confidence in is ACS. Death by cancer to them is a cure.

Do I filter info through anti-abortion groups? I get some info from abortion groups and some from anti-abortion groups. PPF gives a lot of info. To support ones own position does not require oneself to get only one side of the issue. I read and study and research both sides of any issue that I confront. The question you asked about filtering I take about as serious as if I would ask you if you filtered everything through the NYT. It is rhetorical at best.

Posted by: tomh at January 29, 2007 3:43 PM
Comment #205657

Tomh:

You don’t know what the hell you are talking about when it comes to breast cancer. Death by cancer is considered a cure by the ACS? What a bunch of bogus spin.

Your lack of knowledge makes the rest of your opinions highly suspect.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 29, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #205661

So we should all treat all life with great respect, just like the Bush administration, under whose policies 4 million more people are now suffering from “food insufficiency”, as Bush so nicely puts the term “hungry”???

Posted by: Lynne at January 29, 2007 4:11 PM
Comment #205664

Susan35, by your argument, not electing a hysterectomy at 13 is choosing to kill so many undeveloped babies as eggs within the womb through menstruation. Who we should we bad mouth about all that wasted so called “life”, God or evolution?

Do you not see how extremist such arguments are in pressing to take control of other women’s lives, choices, and freedoms? Pro-choice folks aren’t trying to force women via government to birth every 9 months as a way of protecting the life of as many eggs as possible. That would be pretty unAmerican wouldn’t it?

There is life in each of those eggs. They only need a catalyst to start to grow. Yet no one complains that women allow those little potential lives to pass down the toilet each month.

This kind of emotional imagery and tasteless argument all for the demand to control other people’s lives, values, and religious beliefs does not help our nation, nor our future. It divides us prevents us from turning our attention and efforts to the children already here, many in desperate need of so much.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2007 4:28 PM
Comment #205667

To get back to original post, who you vote for as president will have NOTHING to do with R v Wade. Bush is a Christian, he is pro life, he has been president for 7 years, you can go out and get an abortion today. Ultimately, this decision will carried out by the voting public. At present there is enough support for a pro choice environment to exist, over time as scientific advancements allow, we may be able to better determine the exact start of a viable life. At that time, the public support for a pro choice environment may decline or grow.


As an aside, I have personally had abortion affect my life, when I was 21 my girlfriend became pregnant. We talked about things and she decided to abort. I was less enthusiastic but agreed. I can say that I was prepared for fatherhood then (Im twice that age now and it’s a struggle at this point) however I often think of that child and there is a profound sense of loss that I feel. I don’t think you can “educate” that feeking into someone by showing them a video at the clinic and having a 10 minute talk.

I don’t have an answer for political problem of abortion, I can see that for pro life people, they are trying to stop what they see as murder, if someone were trying to murder me, I appreciate their assistance. For the pro choice people, they have the right to their own self determination, who should be able to force their beliefs on another? So, I am meekly pro choice knowing that I will never make the wrong choice again. Abstinence education is important, teach your kids that they don’t HAVE to have sex. Be realistic and prepared if they do.


BTW: Charles Ross, I believe Dana said she does not have sex on the days that she does not want the risk of pregnancy, you are correct that any day can work, but you can use the odds to your ends.

JTL

Posted by: JayTea at January 29, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #205670

So killing innocent life is fine? To me, there is no difference in killing a child at 3 months in the womb or 3 years after birth. It’s life. The term doesn’t make it any less significant. It’s so aweful that people mask this with calling it choice as though it’s like throwing out a used paper towel.

Let’s save the life of a murderer and rapist, but kill something innocent. That’s a great plan. Says a lot for society.

I can see the argument for legitimate health reasons… yet the opposition is appalled by the very thought of anything suggesting saving an unborn life. It’s absurd.

It’s about choice? Who’s asking the child?

Posted by: Susan35 at January 29, 2007 5:01 PM
Comment #205672

Abortion is sad, but is criminalizing it the solution?
No one likes abortion, but is incarcerating a woman for having an abortion the right thing to do?
Regardless if whether it is wrong or not, will criminalizing it make things any better ?

It seems that some people put more energy into condemning and demonizing those that disagree with them, than trying to find and fund ways to ensure that no woman ever feels the need to have an abortion. Perhaps that energy would be much more beneficial if it was directed at finding ways to create a society where abortion is unthinkable, rather than sitting in judgement of women faced with the burden nature has placed on them; one they often have to face alone.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 29, 2007 5:07 PM
Comment #205676
For instance, at one time when a woman was raped, she was taken to the hospital and evidence was obtained and the woman was cleaned.

I don’t think this practice ever stopped, but it’s very hard for some to come forward, go to the police, and say they were raped. Think of the example of a teenager daughter who was raped by her father (though really any example would be hard to face).

Anyway, to some degree I say you’ve already won. The Supreme court is stacked with judges who are smart enough to realize that abortion is perfectly legal and there’s no scientific or law-based justification to stop it while being rightwing enough to throw every legal roadblock they can at potential mothers. It’s going to get a lot harder, not easier, to get abortions in the coming years.

Posted by: Max at January 29, 2007 5:27 PM
Comment #205683
Since when does the gender card allow her the presidency?

It doesn’t. Anymore than the race card allows Obama the Presidency.

It seems as though she cares more about making history as the first woman to become president than she does about turning this country around.

She does! And the unfortunate thing is a whole heap of folks will chose to ignore that and vote for her just because she’s a Democrat.

So where do conservatives like me turn? Which candidate can best represent our important issues? Which candidate really cares about the American people? Which candidate is going to reveal his or her hidden agenda first?

Ya ain’t gonna find one in either the Republican or Democrat parties. Right now there’s none of the candidates except maybe Mitt Romeny that even interest me. And Romeny is very shaky.
The best thing you can do Dana is leave the Republican party. They have represented Conservatives sense the 50’s.
Come to the light side Dana. Become an Independent Conservative.

Posted by: Ron Brown at January 29, 2007 6:49 PM
Comment #205693

Dana
You are a Catholic. How do you square that with voting for a president who is in favor of capital punishment? The church’s position is quite clear on this. Respect for all life. There are as many people who are considered liberal because they act on the beliefs of their religion and who are people of faith as there are conservative who claim to be religious.

Posted by: 037 at January 29, 2007 7:37 PM
Comment #205695

On another subject, my parent were married by our Bishop. This same Bishop gave them dispensation on the use of birth control after their sixth child. I won’t even get into the priest who are allowed to be married in Africa. So much for Church rules.

Posted by: 037 at January 29, 2007 7:45 PM
Comment #205699

A question to prick your consciences.

How many abortions occured from 1AD to Roe v. Wade?

Hardly a fraction to the nearly 50 milion since Roe v. Wade. All of a sudden in the last 40 years we have become so wise and intelligent that we can kill babies and pat ourselves on the back and say what a good job was done. Just because the Supreme Court rules that abortion is legal does not make it right in the eyes of our Creator. It does not make it right in any sense or form. There are some of you who believe it is right. You can choose the way you want, but everything we choose is not always right. People like to use the exception to the rule to excuse everyone because there is a different circumstance to consider. The bottom line is killing babies is wrong.

Posted by: tomh at January 29, 2007 8:02 PM
Comment #205706

tomh
“Just because the Supreme Court rules that abortion is legal does not make it right in the eyes of our Creator.”

No killing is only OK in the Bible if you happen to be oh..uncircumcized or an enemy. Then you can kill even infants (Samuel 15:2-4)

Posted by: 037 at January 29, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #205708

Dana
The church also condemns capital punishment. Will you refuse to support any candidate that favors it?

I spend time in the Philippines. The Church is very powerful politicaly. Abortion is against the law in the Contitution. As a result every market has a vender that supplies some poison concoction or another. They work by nearly killing the mother until she aborts and sometimes she dies as well. Back street buthchers are rampant. What they have done is prevent safe abortions. If your goal is to send American women back to the coathanger you will not succeed. Frankly if you have not adopted an unwanted child,in my estimation,you have NO moral authority to speak against abortion. If you have then God bless you.

Posted by: BillS at January 29, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #205715

Tancredo for president!

BTW I love the word “choice” concerning abortion. How may abortions are on women coerced into an abortion by their boyfriend or father? No concern about their “choice”. How about giving a pregnant teen the wise council of her parents or clergy before proceeding with her “choice”? No we don’t want to even consider that “choice”. Why does a woman have the “choice” to have a partial birth abortion but if that same stab in the back of the babys head to abort it is done after puliing the baby a few more inches out that “choice” would be murder? Maybe we should make it easier on the docs and let them completely deliver the child prior to “aborting” it. What the hell lets let a woman have that “choice” to terminate that child as long as the child is dependent on the mother for support. After all she brought it into the world why should she have to support it when she never really wanted it anyway? Give her a choice.

Posted by: Carnak at January 29, 2007 9:16 PM
Comment #205717

JayTee. Dana wrote:

“And no, I don’t use birth control. I’m Catholic. I use the method of abstinence. I don’t have sex on the days I don’t wish to RISK getting pregnant. It’s as easy as that.”

by her words she seems to be saying that there is no risk of pregnancy when she has sex on certain days of the month.
All I said to that is that she is wrong.
Conservatives have this “it’s as easy as that” attitude toward just about all problems in life except when the problems directly affect them. So …
Rush Limbaugh no longer insults and degenerates drug addicts because he is one himself.
Dick Cheney is not out in front promoting laws against homosexuality because his daughter is a lesbian,
Jim and Sarah Brady have strong feelings about gun control (pro) because Jim Brady was a victim of gun violence,
William Bennett in his inane book “The Book of Virtue” seems to omit gambling as one of the vices. Maybe because of his addiction to gambling. (Maybe i read it wrong, maybe it’s the “Bookie of Virtue”)
and finally, Nancy Reagan coming out in favor of stem cell research because her husband was a victim of an illness that could be helped by research into fetal stem cells.
Would you say, Dana, that Nancy is in favor of murder because she is for the destruction of embryos to further stem cell research?

Conservatives are great when it comes to slogans like “it’s as easy as that”, or “just say no” or “abstinence only” but when the circumstances hit you (pregnant at 40 as an example), wouldn’t you want to have a choice?


Posted by: charles Ross at January 29, 2007 9:22 PM
Comment #205736

Stop repeat offenders.
Stop Rewarding them by repeatedly re-electing them.

Posted by: d.a.n at January 29, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #205752

Abortion is just a morbid concept in every way. It amazes me the amount of people that are for it.

Posted by: Matt at January 30, 2007 1:32 AM
Comment #205753

tomh asked: “How many abortions occured from 1AD to Roe v. Wade?”

The answer is: YOU have absolutely no way of knowing tomh. Rape was prevalent throughout that time, a fringe benefit to conquerors. I suspect raped women with husbands whom they depended upon for livlihood aborted rather often over that time. Makes sense. But, you nor I have any records to say one way or another.

Therefore, your statement is ludicrous as it provides no evidence whatsoever other than your convenient conjecture, and therefore, your argument based on it, is without merit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2007 1:35 AM
Comment #205754

Susan35 said: “To me, there is no difference in killing a child at 3 months in the womb or 3 years after birth. It’s life.”

That’s fine. You have every right to hold that opinion for yourself, just as every pro-choice woman has every right to their opinion. And neither you nor they have ANY right to force your opinion or actions on the other through the force of government. Roe V. Wade DOES NOT force you to have an abortion. But if it DID, you would understand how pro-choice supporters feel about outlawing abortions and putting them in jail.

Walk in their shoes, and ask how you would feel. If we anti-population growth folks petitioned government to force you to have only ONE child, and jail you, and abort your 2nd child, would you believe that was a just use of government?

Neither is preventing adults from making their own personal decisions about when to become a parent if at all, a just use of government. Those aborted fetuses are not yours to decide for. The arrogance to presume some property right over another person’s fetus through government is absurd and against the spirit of our Constitution.

They are not the property of the government to take control over. Take care of your own personal decisions. Let other’s take care of theirs. If you believe there is a soul in those aborted fetuses, pray for them. I am sure, the act of being aborted is not going to prevent them from entering heaven, so their souls have not been harmed. And the fetus of others is not yours to make decisions for.

If your side wins, you open the door for government to decide when we are overpopulated, and to deny licenses to give birth or throw you in jail for getting pregnant and even forcing abortion upon you.

The same legal argument that would allow ban on abortions can also allow licensing and punishment for pregnancy. The benefit of society and the defenseless. For in an overpopulated nation, all but a few are defenseless against scarcity and want. They must be protected from unwanted births.

Its the same legal argument Susan35. And that scenario may be in our future. If global climate change does in fact raise our ocean level 10 feet in 50 years, America’s population density per acre will increase dramatically. Add immigration to the mix since Mexico is a Peninsula, and severe overcrowding becomes an even greater threat.

China answered the threat as I have just described. Effectively I might add. Best to not go down that slippery slope opening the door for government to decide who should and who should not give birth. It cuts both ways under different circumstances. Our Constitution sought to protect us as individuals with rights as individuals from the oppression of a majority.

It was a brilliant idea to protect individual liberty from the force of the majority. It is one of the many things that attracts people from places where their freedom of choice is NOT protected from the majority, like China.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2007 1:54 AM
Comment #205756

Matt said: “Abortion is just a morbid concept in every way. It amazes me the amount of people that are for it.”

That was a simple statement. Most pro-choice supporters are not pro-abortion. They don’t advocate that we control population growth through government forced abortions. That would be pro-abortion.

They are Pro-Choice, meaning our personal lives and decisions should not be made by the government. Which is exactly what becomes a reality with the reversal of Roe v Wade. Government decides who must become a mother against their will.

The issue is not as simple as your comment presents.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2007 2:09 AM
Comment #205757

I just want to reiterate that no one is “for” abortion, and the differences between the Republican and Democrat positions on abortion is neglible. Dana’s problem is that not enough people agree with her that there should be no abortions in any circumstances.

Posted by: Max at January 30, 2007 2:10 AM
Comment #205769

“The issue is not as simple as your comment presents.”

Sure it is. Killing babies is morbid no matter how you try to justify it. Can one really sit there and not think that terminating an innocent child’s life, no matter what side of the argument you are on, is a healthy idea?

I saw the comment of masking it by calling it choice. It really is a morbid though proces that they are treated like property… a choice to determine what value you get to place on a child. Kinda funny, since that seems to be the argument for pro-“choice” people, that women aren’t property.

Posted by: Matt at January 30, 2007 9:10 AM
Comment #205771

Matt, thank you for sharing your simplistic view, yet again. I suggest read my comments above regarding the Constitutional issues involved. Perhaps after absorbing some of that complexity, if you can, you present a more convincing rational argument.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2007 9:27 AM
Comment #205819

The fact is abortion is not “killing babies”. Ending funding for pre-natal and post-natal care for indigent parents is. Eliminating WIC is. The anti-choice crowd seems to believe in defending life only until birth.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 30, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #205827

Dave1-20-2009

How does pre/post natal care and WIC come into play with abortion? I have never heard of a single case of somebody being turned awaw from natal care and WIC. You apparently are trying to spin and inject into the abortin debate n0n-relevant data.

Posted by: tomh at January 30, 2007 2:32 PM
Comment #205840

right back at ya’ tom. There is no debate here, only advocates. You are against abortion and want to force that position on everyone else. The anti-choice argument subsists on using emotionally based rhetoric empty of any reality based data or thought. Meanwhile, the hypocracy of the right wing is irrelevent only to the right wing. What is there to “debate”?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 30, 2007 3:29 PM
Comment #205854

50,000,000 babies that died!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You should never play leapfrog with an Unicorn.

If you had a child, and someone killed that child, you would want to force your will on everyone to get justice done.

Otherwise your last post was more fat than meat.

If you want to call my argument “emotionally based rhetoric empty of any reality based data or thought” you are truly blind to fact and emotion.

But, then the left has always looked at babies as something other that human life.

Posted by: tomh at January 30, 2007 4:30 PM
Comment #205858

fetus does not equal baby.
no matter what you say.
no matter what you want me to believe.
no matter what you think you believe.
fetus does not equal baby.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 30, 2007 4:46 PM
Comment #205860

head up butt does not equal ostrich

Posted by: tomh at January 30, 2007 5:19 PM
Comment #205865
If you had a child, and someone killed that child, you would want to force your will on everyone to get justice done.

Just because you WANT it doesn’t make it right. You couldn’t have a more emotionally tinged reason. If this happened to you I’m very sorry, but you can’t take it out on everyone.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 30, 2007 5:43 PM
Comment #205889

OK, Dave-1…then what is a fetus if it’s not a developing human being? Is it a developing frog? Is it a developing snake? Is it a developing dog? What human fetus has ever turned into something other than a human baby???

fetus does not equal baby. no matter what you say. no matter what you want me to believe. no matter what you think you believe. fetus does not equal baby.
Posted by: Lynne at January 30, 2007 8:30 PM
Comment #205893

I think everyone should be reminded that there have been ZERO, I repeat ZERO babies killed due to legal abortions.

Also, there is no relation between abortions and breast cancer, anyone who says otherwise is lying.

Although Embryos have the potential to develop into human beings, that does not give them any more rights than sperm or ova; none of these living cells qualify to be human beings because they do not have full brain function or even potential for brain function. That is why Terri Schiavo’s body was not kept supplied with assistance to function; her brain was mush.

You can have the opinion that gametes, embryos and fetuses equal human beings. You can go mourn the deaths of millions ova and sperm everyday due to menstruation and ejaculation; just don’t make me or anyone else abide by your opinion and I won’t make you abide to mine. It’s called freedom and its how this country was set up two and a quarter centuries ago.

If anyone really wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies, a proper sex education should be provided at public schools. My school in Massachusetts does it, why can’t schools across the nation do it?

Posted by: Warren P at January 30, 2007 8:39 PM
Comment #205905

tom,
As I said, there is no debate here. Anti-choice people often have a dogmatic view and will say just about anything to validate it. They don’t listen & consider, instead they stomp their feet and call those who disagree names. That is not debate.


lynne,

Those are completely invalid questions and have nothing to do with the issue at hand.


Warren,

My condolences on the recent tragedy at Lincoln-Sudbury.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 30, 2007 9:34 PM
Comment #205922

Warren P

You are way off base. Terry S. was moving her eyes and tracking people in the room. A mush brain would not let that occur.

Your claim that no babies have died due to legal abortions. If you can count try adding 1 + 2 = 3, 3 + 1 = 4, and so on until you reach 50 million. You may attach any name you want to but they are babies. They feel pain very early on. They have a heart beat at 6 weeks. There are so many references to point to the baby. There is very good chance of looking you in the face if delivery is made at 6 or 7 months. You do not hear of doctors calling on the baby by any other name than a baby. In conversing with the mother while she is carrying the child, the doctors refer to the baby as such. Partial birth abortion is taking a baby that would probably live if a C section were performed, and removeing the baby from the birth canal all except its head and then stabbing the child at the base of the skull and then sucking its brains out. That is murder. There is an old saying that goes like this; Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Killing babies is not freedom. Its is infanticide and genocide.

From what you wrote it appears that you believe that abortions are done in the first 30 days generaly. Most abortions are done far later than 30 days.

There are a number of studies to show that abortions contribute to mental health issues. And there are studies showing that breast cancer risk is greater with women who have had an abortion. That means there is a connection between abortions and breast cancer.

Sex education is done in my school district. We have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the state.

Why do you think mankind has progressed to a point that we can kill babies and call it good?
Before Roe v. Wade there were not 50 million babies killed through abortion in 2 thousand years.

Posted by: tomh at January 30, 2007 11:15 PM
Comment #205930

tomh do you have any way to prove the 50 million figure in 30 years but less than 50 million the previous 1970 years?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2007 11:47 PM
Comment #205935
Terry S. was moving her eyes and tracking people in the room. A mush brain would not let that occur.

Terri Schiavo’s eye movements were random, and only coincidentally occasionally corresponded to other movements that happened in the room. While it looked on some video that she was following objects with her eyes, that video was cherry-picked to show only the infrequent moments of meaningless coincidence.

Here’s a comparison of a catscan of Terri’s brain compared to the catscan of a normal brain; there is significant and major damage to her brain.

Once again, tomh, what you want to be true and what is demonstrably true through evidence are two very different things.

And there are studies showing that breast cancer risk is greater with women who have had an abortion. That means there is a connection between abortions and breast cancer.

And many people here have linked to later studies that show that the supposed link doesn’t exist. This is how science works; a study will be conducted and a finding will be reported, and later studies with either confirm or disprove the initial study. When the initial study has been disproven (as in this case), then the initial study is no longer considered valid for reference.

Please learn this lesson about how scientific knowledge progresses and grows. If you could also extend this lesson to our other scientific debates, I would be very grateful.

Also, according to Abortionno.org, an anti-abortion website, there are approximately 46 million abortions worldwide per year. Since the annual number of abortions in the US is about 1.3 million, it’s likely that there are about 45 million abortions annually in the rest of the world. And since those abortions were not legalized by Roe v. Wade, it’s once again amazingly unlikely that the “factual” claims you make have any basis whatsoever in fact.

Heck, there were over 282 million reported abortions in the former Soviet Union alone. Plus the same page shows 927,000,000 estimated abortions worldwide between 1920 and 2006.

You really don’t know what you’re talking about.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 31, 2007 12:44 AM
Comment #205965

Lawnboy

Your statements above are only claims, not proof.

According to Terry S. parents she tracked them aroung the room, not randomly as you claim.

I’m on my way to a meeting. Will continue later

Posted by: tomh at January 31, 2007 10:33 AM
Comment #205968

tomh,

My claims are based on evidence that disproves your unsupported claims.

Your claims about a link between breast cancer and abortion are based on old studies that have since been disproven.

Your claims about the numbers of abortions before Roe v. Wade have no basis whatsoever in fact, and are easily disproven by looking at the numbers.

Your claims about Terri Schiavo are based on an invalid reliance on correlation instead of causation, and ignore the facts of the dozens of medical exams she received from experts while alive, and the facts discovered in course of her autopsy.

Her parents fervently wanted to believe that her brain was still functional, so they saw patterns where none really existed. This is a common problem; the human brain is designed to interpret patterns, and con-men have relied on this capacity for centuries to fool people into seeing what they want to see.

Terri Schiavo’s parents saw evidence of life in her eyes because they wished to see it, and because they were not experts in the field able to distinguish randomness from intent. However, dispassionate experts looked at the same evidence and looked both at the times when there was coincidence and at the vast majority of the time when there wasn’t.

Please learn what proof is, and please learn that “tomh believing something” is not proof, and that you don’t get to dismiss logical conclusions based on evidence as mere “claims” if you don’t like the answers.

Again, if you could also extend this to our other scientific debates, I would be very grateful.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 31, 2007 10:56 AM
Comment #205970

tomh,

I will back up a bit and say that you have some point about the difference between claim and proof for Terri Schiavo - it’s not immediately provable that her eye movements were random.

However, there is a major and significant difference between my claim that they were and your claim that they weren’t. My claim is supported only by the non-expert observation of people who had a vested interest in seeing the result they want to see. In contrast, my claim is supported by the expert judgment of many specialists that observed the same phenomena, plus other medical exams, plus the results of her autopsy.

So, perhaps you can claim that we haven’t met some standard of proof, but I would say that the judgment of multiple experts supported by empirical evidence is a lot closer to proof than the non-expert opinion of people who see what they want to see.

However, in terms of the breast cancer and the pre-Roe v. Wade questions, your claims are just wrong. The breast cancer link has been definitively disproven, and your claims about the numbers of abortions has no basis in fact.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 31, 2007 11:08 AM
Comment #205974

Sorry, “My claim is supported only by the non-expert observation” should have been “Your claim is supported only by the non-expert observation”.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 31, 2007 11:18 AM
Comment #205989

All I can say about this thread is: WOW.

I agree 100% with David Remer and Lawnboy. I’ve yet to read one counterpoint which is based on anything but faith and wishful thinking.

Faith is a perfectly legitimate basis for voting a certain way, or expressing your opinion to others in an attempt to convince them. However, it is NOT a substitute for sound science.

What I’m hearing is that science is to be taken with a grain of salt because it is biased towards godlessness. Its ok to hold such opinions. But as soon as you try to impose them on me, a true believer in good science, you are taking an unconstitutional, let alone extremely unpopular, approach. That is wrong any way you cut it.

And one more thing: if a life is a life whenever it is subjectively seen as “living”, then there is no right answer. There is, as of today, no sound objective answer. So any accusation of “murder” is an attempt to demonize rather than provide insight.

After reading Tomh and Dana, I thank God for the framers of our constitution. Their vision is what makes this country great, not some abstract notion of “life”. I find it unwise to ignore their wisdom in this case simply because the word “murder” can be easily, albeit illogically, invoked (logic requires all dots to be connected).

Faith is a net benefit for any society because it generally makes people feel better and act better when responsibly invoked and kept in its correct context (a personal choice and not obligatory on others through direct threat). But the law should be free from passion and faith because it is, by nature, not a personal choice and it is obligatory through a direct threat.

Posted by: kevin23 at January 31, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #206010

Dave-1:

Those are completely invalid questions and have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Actually, they are the most pertinent questions asked in the entire thread…

Dave, exactly what is a fetus??? Is it a frog? Is it a dog? Is it a car? Nope…it’s a developmental stage of a human being…just like infant, toddler, teenager, adult, elder…

Posted by: Lynne at January 31, 2007 4:57 PM
Comment #206016

Lynne,

That a fetus is a developmental stage of a human being does necessarily not mean that it is a human being with all the rights and responsibilities that humanity carries. There are significant differences between the stage of fetus and the other stages (infant, toddler, teenager, adult, elder) - primarily whether the birth happened.

For you, those differences are insignificant when deciding the human rights of the fetus. For others, they are very significant.

Both sides of the debate run into difficulties when analyzing their positions:


  • Dave has to reconcile whether he thinks a fetus 8-months into gestation that would survive outside if taken outside the womb has any rights. If so, then when were those rights imbued? If not, is he equating rights with geography?

  • In the other hand, you have to define at which point the embryo/blastocyst/fetus became a person with full rights. At conception? What to do then with the 25% of conceptions that naturally don’t implant in the womb? At implantation? What to do then with natural miscarriages?


Neither definition of the beginning of life works for all situations and makes complete sense. There’s an interesting article on Wikipedia about the controversy over the beginning of pregnancy. It brings up the point that there are many different points that are considered to be the beginning of pregnancy: including the day of last menstruation, ovulation, fertilization, implantation and chemical detection.

Because the issue is so difficult, bringing up frogs, snakes, dogs, and cars is a silly tactic that deserved the scorn Dave gave it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at January 31, 2007 5:29 PM
Comment #206031

Kevin23

So those who don’t want babies killed through abortion are demonizing the issue.

Well, take a look at this.

A Texas Appeals Court upheld the conviction of a man who stomped on his girfriends stomach because she did not want the babies. He did so and in the process killed a set of twins. He was charged and convicted of double capital murder.

If she were to go to an abortion clinic the abortionist would have killed the twins for her and her boyfriend would be scott free and so would the abortionist.

Where is the logic killing the babies is murder.

Posted by: tomh at January 31, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #206033

Tomh-

re: demonization - you did not re-state my point. Instead you made a straw-man. Until you can extend me the courtesy of accurately quoting me, why should I believe your going to ever debate the issue in good faith? At least pretend to understand.

re: murder convictions - I agree that the contradiction you raised is not fair. It just goes to show how difficult if not impossible it is to come to a conclusion that is universally applicable and reasonable. The contradiction exists because the Texas state legislature holds a different inconclusive belief about what is legally recognized as a life than did the Supreme Court in 1972. They analyzed the issue in two VERY different contexts, and came to two different conclusions. This is, if anything, evidence that an all out prohibition, either way, would be foolhardy, and based more on passion than fact.

Again, I don’t believe law should be based on passion.

Posted by: Kevin23 at January 31, 2007 7:29 PM
Comment #206035

Tomh, this man should not have been convicted. I hope he appeals his case so that a higher court may correct the error.

6-9 month old fetuses represent a gray area that I do not know what we should do, but nearly all abortions are done earlier, before the embryo develops features such as certain neural capabilities. The best solutions are to provide real sex education classes, not ones that refuse to discuss anything other than abstinence as well as means to prevent abortions at later stages such as making Plan B contraceptives available without restrictions over-the-counter.

David, Thank you. Although I was not personally affected by the tragedy, I appreciate your concern.

Posted by: Warren P at January 31, 2007 7:33 PM
Comment #206038

Lawnboy,

To be clear I hate the idea of abortions and would prefer we focus our efforts on preventing the unwanted pregnancies that will likely end up in voluntary abortions. However, I also hate the idea of theocratic autocracy and believe that the woman has the primary right to chose what to do with her body without regards to my (and your) moral priorities. I posted quite comprehensively in a prior thread (no link) about my views of abortion. In brief, I believe that if a fetus that would survive outside of the womb independent of life support should not be voluntarily aborted. Basically, that’s consistent with the Roe v Wade decision. And, yes, it is a bit of a “geographic” perspective.

lynne,

I think this is funny. But excluding the clearly politically incorrect presentation, it seems to be a common philosophy of anti-choice advocates.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 31, 2007 7:55 PM
Comment #206042

Warren P
And Plan B contraceptives are responsible for the death of several women. So why are we so in favor of death; for women and babies? And most abortions are done when the baby can feel pain and there is a heart beat. Would it be better to err on the side of life rather than guessing that it is ok to kill someone because they cannot defend themselves?

Posted by: tomh at January 31, 2007 8:12 PM
Comment #206043

tomh,

How many women died from illegal abortions? Or from giving birth? BTW, those deaths were, I believe, from infection after application by insertion into the vagina, which is, I also believe, contraindicated.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at January 31, 2007 8:17 PM
Comment #206096

Dave1-20-2009,

I’m sorry. I did not mean to misstate your beliefs. I was just looking for a counter-example to show the other side.

Perhaps my characterization would apply to David Remer, and then all would be ok :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 1, 2007 8:52 AM
Comment #206098

LawnBoy,

I don’t believe you mistated anything, you just pointed out some details of a complicated issue. My reply was intended to be general in nature and to show a rational perspective of a prochoice proponent. It wasn’t intended to be a defensive response, etc… etc…, although it did seem a bit ‘pissy’; sorry about that.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 9:17 AM
Comment #206188

Dave1-

Stop dancing around the issue…what exactly is a fetus if not a developmental form of a human being???

Third time I’ve asked…

Posted by: Lynne at February 1, 2007 4:39 PM
Comment #206206

Fetus is a developmental form of human being in much the same way that a sperm is. I thought that was fairly obtusely stated in the link linked here. And in lawnboys post immediately below.
.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 7:03 PM
Comment #206233

Dave1-20-2009
Then take your best guess. When does it become a human being?

Posted by: tomh at February 1, 2007 9:52 PM
Comment #206237

Dave1-

Fetus is a developmental form of human being…

Then a fetus IS a human being…just like a neonate, an infant, a toddler,…glad you finally realized it!!

Posted by: Lynne at February 1, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #206238

tomh,

Fortunately I don’t have to guess, the Supreme Court already decided that for us.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #206239

Dave1:

Since when do the Justices and the Chief Justice have medical degrees and medical research experience??? They’re deciding legalities, not scientific proofs.

Posted by: Lynne at February 1, 2007 10:31 PM
Comment #206241
Since when do the Justices and the Chief Justice have medical degrees and medical research experience.

The relevant question is whether a fetus has human rights. That’s a question of law, not a question of medical science, medical degrees, and medical research.

They’re deciding legalities, not scientific proofs.

Yes, and for the question at hand, the legalities are the right approach, and science provides no proof in any direction.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 1, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #206243

lynne,

I said: “Fetus is a developmental form of human being in much the same way that a sperm is.”

You need to read whole sentences. I don’t put words in your mouth, common decency means you won’t put words in mine. Do you define sperm as a “developmental form of human being”? I do not.

And, what lawnboy said.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 1, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #206254

Dave1-20-2009

What Supreme Court decision decided when a baby is a human being? Roe v. Wade certainly didn’t. The Supremes at that time only said you could kill a baby. Why is it that a mother carrying a baby can sit with her husband and ask him to put his hand on her stomach and feel the baby move? Reference—baby. Why do so many people cannot refer to a baby born premature as a baby? Why is it that people who kill the baby while the mother is carrying the baby are charged with a capital crime? Too many people are trying to define a baby as an infant with a diaper. There are studies available that show the type of music the mother listens to, has an effect on the baby in the woomb. There are so many reasons to call the baby in the woomb a baby. The baby never has an attorney to assist it in wanting to stay alive. The baby can feel pain. To dismember a baby and call it abortion is glossing over the fact that a murder has occured to a baby that cannot defend itself. The words infanticide, genocide, murder, homicide, child abuse all fit. Shame on mankind!

Posted by: tomh at February 1, 2007 11:52 PM
Comment #206279

tomh,

The fact that people use the word “baby” to refer to a fetus (or unborn child, if you wish) has legal status as a human.

It’s the same problem you get into when you equate the religious “theory” of Creationism (scientifically a failed hypothesis) with the very different concept of a “scientific theory”.

Just because you can play with words doesn’t mean that your beliefs have the force of law.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 2, 2007 8:35 AM
Comment #206280

Sorry. The first sentence “The fact that people use the word “baby” to refer to a fetus (or unborn child, if you wish) has legal status as a human.” should have been “The fact that people use the word “baby” to refer to a fetus (or unborn child, if you wish) does not mean that it has legal status as a human.”

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 2, 2007 8:38 AM
Comment #206289

tomh,

Do yourself a favor and familiarize yourself with Roe v. Wade. You might notice it’s consistency to my prior stated positions, esp. 3(c). Read, learn, understand. It’s important that people do so with an open mind.
The key section:

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother’s behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 2, 2007 9:28 AM
Comment #206299

Dave1:

You should learn a little basic biology….a fetus is a living human being that is the result of the merging of an ovum and a sperm, each of which carry only half the DNA of the fetus…you can’t equate a fetus with a sperm…

Posted by: Lynne at February 2, 2007 10:19 AM
Comment #206317

Learn a little basic biology? lol. Funny, especially if you knew my educational and professional background. Now replace the word “sperm” with “blastocyte” What “witty” retort do you offer now?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 2, 2007 11:44 AM
Comment #206334

Dave1:

A blastocyte is the first dividing of a new organism which comes into being by the union of a sperm and an ovum…each of which contain half the DNA of the new being….

Posted by: Lynne at February 2, 2007 12:28 PM
Comment #206339

Dave1-20-2009

You spend too much time lecturing what others should do.

Roe v. Wade does not define life or baby.

It only determines when a person wants to perform death on an infant.

Just because nine old people with a variety of political bent determined that a person could kill an infant does not make it right. If you believe that, then when R v. W gets overturned then you must support life in a real sense.

Posted by: tomh at February 2, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #206340

dave1-20-2009

Dave I care less what your background is.

I know some medical doctors who have degreees in medicine that are considered quacks.

Posted by: tomh at February 2, 2007 12:43 PM
Comment #206346

lynne, and by extension tom,
Now you can admit that to you a clump of undifferentiated cells (differentiation occurs at about day 14) is a human. Whatever. That is a religious based argument that has absolutely no bearing in my life nor should it hold any sway in a country of laws. I’d appreciate if people keep thier religion and so called morals out of my life, and I’ll promise to keep mine out of theirs.
Oh, wait, I forgot, that particular god is the only god and all others are false before him (since the anti choice crew know oh so well what he wants, Allah Akhbar!) and it is their evangelical jihadic duty to keep people from living their own lives and instead force their world view on everyone else, all because of that clump of cells, a little red book, and an idiot from Texas.
\/\/hatever. quack quack

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 2, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #206352

“You spend too much time lecturing what others should do.”

Correct me if I’m wrong Tom, but your whole position is that you have all the information you need, despite it being considered uncredible by most Americans, to unilaterally impose a blanket restriction on the act of abortion. You even equate it directly with “murder”. Is that not imposing your will on others based solely on belief?

Dave and many others are simply poking holes in your assumption to show there is no good basis for a blanket restriction. You only counter that the science they use must be flawed because it doesn’t take into account the things you believe.

Who is lecturing who about what to do? Lets be perfectly clear about this.

I say to each their own, unless you can provide conclusive evidence that the act of abortion is, in fact, the same as “murder”. So far, I’ve read nothing making that connection anything more than a faith-based, heart-felt belief. Law is not the instrument to advance that belief, Tom. At least not without a clear majority consensus.

So is it safe to say that this issue is purely based on belief for you? Or will I get to read the science behind your many assumptions before you again scream at me to take them as absolute truth?

Feel free to respond to my prior posts as well. Enough of this petty squabbling over semantics. The real issue has been conveniently ignored thusfar: the role of government…the when, the why, and the how.

Posted by: Kevin23 at February 2, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #206355

Dave1)

If you test the “clump” of cells, you would find human DNA, not frog DNA…every living thing has developmental stages, and for animals (including humans) some portions of the developmental stages are quite remarkably similar…why? because they all start as a single cell (normally the result of the union of sperm & ovum)and then those cells divide and differentiate…if you take a human blastocyst and a frog blastocyst, the human one does not become a frog and the frog does not become a human. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science.

Kevin23: Well, it’s always been said that government can’t legislate morality…it can only decide, with the information at hand, what a specific governmental entity will consider as legal or illegal and the consequences thereof.

Posted by: Lynne at February 2, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #206363
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science.

Lynne,

Again, the relevant question is whether a fetus has human rights. That’s a question of law, not a question of medical science, medical degrees, and medical research.

There’s no question in anyone’s mind whether the DNA of a fetus is human DNA. The question is whether the existence of human DNA in a mass of cells means that those cells are a human being under the law.

If you say yes, then what is the legal ramification of the 25% of fertilized eggs that never implant in the uterus? What is the legal implication of a natural miscarriage? Does that make the contraceptive pill murder since the secondary way that the pill works is by reducing the changes that a fertilized egg would implant?

There is human DNA in a clump of skin cells. Does that mean that the clump of skin cells are a person with legal rights? Of course not, but that’s part of the argument you are making here, ignoring all the complications I mention above.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 2, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment #206365

LawnBoy:

Law defines personhood; science defines personhood…the two do not always agree, e.g., in the case of the human fetus.

Miscarriage can be natural or medically induced (abortion)…they are two quite different matters.

Posted by: Lynne at February 2, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #206367
Law defines personhood; science defines personhood.

Not exactly. Law defines personhood in the face of the law, which is the question at hand. Science doesn’t define personhood at all. Science can define a species, but it doesn’t define “personhood”.

Miscarriage can be natural or medically induced (abortion)…they are two quite different matters.

This is just stating the obvious without dealing with the problem. Of course they are different things, but if the law recognizes fetuses as citizens with full legal rights, then a citizen is killed by a natural miscarriage, and by natural non-implantation, and by the pill. You can’t just wave away those issues because you don’t want to deal with them.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 2, 2007 2:22 PM
Comment #206374

lynne,

What’s with the frogs? Are you french? I’ve never eaten frogs legs but I’ve heard they taste like chicken. Are they genetically equivalent? If so by what percent, the 93%+ like human and chimpanzee?

BTW; human spit has human DNA in it. Yet, I still haven’t heard from the pro spit lobby.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 2, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #206381

Lynne

Sorry to leave you hagin’. I have a medical situation with my mother 2 hours awaw. Keep up the good work with a coupla of guys that can’t understand life.

Posted by: tomh at February 2, 2007 3:56 PM
Comment #206383
Keep up the good work with a coupla of guys that can’t understand life.

Gee, thanks, tomh. After we point out that you make up “facts” as they suit your purpose and that you don’t understand how the processes of scientific discovery and medical diagnosis work, you pop up with this stupid insult in response.

How thrilling.

Anyway, if you read back through what I’ve said here, I’m not even making a pro-choice argument. I’m pointing out that you and Lynne are making invalid assumptions and bad logic. I’ve pointed out that neither side has an argument that answers all the questions.

I understand life; I’m just not willing to accept one definition or the other of the legal rights of a fetus based on the mistakes you guys are making in conflating belief and science, proof and definition, law and semantics.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 2, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #206397

Lawnboy-

Even though he did not mean to be, Tom is absolutely correct. We do not know all the mysteries of life. Not even close. All the more reason to keep government the hell out of it. It is a moral question. Where no common morality exists, and no conclusive evidence or popular consensus exists showing a detriment to society will result in the absence of a prohibition, only a real jerk would advocate using the power of government to impose their will onto others.

This is exactly the type of action true conservatives are against. This new brand of quasi-conservative, however, has no qualms about warping their ideological beliefs to suit their short term desires and passions. They truly believe that faith and science should be equal in the eyes of the law…the “government decides moralty” crowd will never be convinced that morality exists independent of the law unless doing so would lead to the results they desire. That is the great irony here. Common sense is just a tool to be used or unused. Remember that faith is on equal footing with science because neither one can be proven right or wrong. And there is no grey area.

You and I may be willing to trust ordinary people with their own morality when in doubt. Others need to know that theirs is superior and infallible…just because.

Posted by: Kevin23 at February 2, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #206452

LawnBoy:

Simply because our logic and scientific facts don’t match your assumptions does not make our logic and facts incorrect. Demonstrate how your asumptions are logical & scientifically proven??

I’m pointing out that you and Lynne are making invalid assumptions and bad logic.
Posted by: Lynne at February 3, 2007 10:27 AM
Comment #206453

Dave1:

Kindly make a logical argument as to why a human fetus is not a human being.

BTW; human spit has human DNA in it. Yet, I still haven’t heard from the pro spit lobby.

Why not make a logical and scientific statement that actually proves that a human fetus isn’t human???? Can you do it???

Posted by: Lynne at February 3, 2007 10:29 AM
Comment #206458
Simply because our logic and scientific facts don’t match your assumptions does not make our logic and facts incorrect.

True. The inaccuracy of your logic and “facts” stands independent of my opinion.

Demonstrate how your assumptions are logical & scientifically proven??

Well, let’s see. I guess it’s time for a flashback episode.

  • tomh claimed that Terri Schiavo’s brain was functional based solely on the non-expert interpretation of people with an agenda, when the nearly unanimous judgment of qualified impartial observers (supported by medical tests both before and after death) is the opposite.

  • tomh claimed that there were fewer abortions (presumably world-wide) in the 2000 years before Roe v. Wade than in the 24 years since. He provided no source for his claim, which was easily disproven by looking at actual numbers of reported abortions.

  • tomh cited an old study proposing that there might be a link between abortion and breast cancer, and he refused to acknowledge that subsequent studies have examined the same issue and found that the first study was in error.

  • tomh used the ridiculous logic that the use of the word “baby” for a fetus in casual speech meant that a fetus was entitled to inherent legal rights. This is what I meant by conflating “law and semantics” - the use of a term in casual conversation has no bearing whatsoever on legal rights.

  • Lynne has repeatedly made the claim that the scientifically proven existence of human DNA in a fetus means that a fetus should be considered a full human being with full legal rights, despite the fact that the existence of DNA in a group of cells does not necessarily mean that the group of cells constitutes an individual of its species. She has also repeatedly ignored the logical complications that this position would mean for other facets of human reproductive life.

  • Lynne has repeatedly claimed that science and medicine can define what a person is, and what persons should be granted full legal status, although the definition of legal status is an issue completely outside the realm of science and medicine.

So, I haven’t “Demonstrate(d) how (my) asumptions are logical & scientifically proven” here, because I wasn’t talking about my assumptions. What are my assumptions? That Science can be used to answer scientific questions and that the Law can be used to answer legal questions. That’s really about it. Science and Law affect each other, and both do well to take the other into account, but they exist in separate realms. Can I prove this? No, not really. It’s axiomatic, but I believe it’s self-evident. I guess that’s not my only assumption. I also assume that supportable facts and logical reasoning should be used.

On the other hand, you were replying was my statement about the logical weakness of your claims. I think I’ve summarized them quite fully here.

Why not make a logical and scientific statement that actually proves that a human fetus isn’t human???? Can you do it???

This is a strawman. No one is saying that the species and DNA of a human fetus isn’t human. The argument at hand is whether a human fetus has legal status as a human being. For that question, there is no scientific proof either way. This is what I’ve been saying for days, but you’re focused on a strawman.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 3, 2007 11:27 AM
Comment #206475

LawnBoy:

You must love twisting facts…spit may have DNA, but I never claimed “spit” was a living human being…

Someone else claimed that sperm was as human as a fetus, because it had DNA in it…however, I repeatedly pointed out that it takes the union of sperm & an ovum for the fetus/baby/blastocyst to have the full compliment of human DNA…and in all those developmental stages (and even in stages where we’re no longer “developing”, but headed for old age and eeath) cells are multiplying and replacing dead cells (apoptosis) with a full compliment of DNA of the individual person.

That’s it…period. Stop putting your assumptions of what I said into my actual statements.

Lynne has repeatedly made the claim that the scientifically proven existence of human DNA in a fetus means that a fetus should be considered a full human being with full legal rights, despite the fact that the existence of DNA in a group of cells does not necessarily mean that the group of cells constitutes an individual of its species. She has also repeatedly ignored the logical complications that this position would mean for other facets of human reproductive life.
Posted by: Lynne at February 3, 2007 2:16 PM
Comment #206497
You must love twisting facts…spit may have DNA, but I never claimed “spit” was a living human being…

Well, considering that I both never once mentioned “spit” before this comment and that I never attributed that claim to you, I think the love of twisting facts is being displayed by someone else.

The arguments that Dave and I made about spit (his example) and skin cells (my example) were in response to your question about whether the DNA in the cells of a fetus was human DNA or frog DNA. It seemed that the conclusion you wanted to force us into was that, because the DNA was human, then the fetus was “a human”. We countered by pointing out that the existence of human DNA does not necessarily mean that the groups of cells it came from was “a human”.

When you made an argument, we responded by showing that your argument was inherently flawed when looked at in a different way. That is what is called debate. If you cannot handle people analytically addressing the flaws in your claims, then I would recommend restricting yourself to forums in which everyone agrees with you at the start.

Yes, someone else “claimed that sperm was as human as a fetus,” and I wish he hadn’t. It was a bad argument for the reasons that you bring up. However, this is not “Thank You For Smoking”: just because your opposition made a bad argument doesn’t erase your side’s reliance on conflating belief and science, proof and definition, law and semantics.

If I misstated your argument, it was an honest mistake. However, I was simply responding to your insistence that there is scientific proof of your position, that judges don’t have the medical background to make these legal decisions. Since the only scientific evidence I can think of in your favor is that the fertilized egg has a full compliment of human DNA, it seems that your argument is that the existence of human DNA in the fetus makes for a person with full legal citizenship rights. Science cannot make that claim (defining human rights is outside science), but it seems you have. You’ve refused to address the issues of human reproduction that this brings up.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 3, 2007 4:26 PM
Comment #206578

You still haven’t said what a fetus is…human? frog? dog? cat? hippopotamus? What is a fetus??

Posted by: Lynne at February 4, 2007 10:28 AM
Comment #206600

Lawnboy-

Would you hurry up and tell the class what you say you have no way of knowing! Otherwise we’re going to make you stand in the corner while we point and laugh.

Posted by: Kevin23 at February 4, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #206601
You still haven’t said what a fetus is…human? frog? dog? cat? hippopotamus?

We’ve already repudiated the silliness of claiming that a human fetus is of another species several times. Do you take yourself that unseriously?

What is a fetus?

I’m not sure what you want. Here’s what one dictionary says:

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal

Do you need another dictionary definition? How about Wikipedia?

What are you asking?

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 4, 2007 3:01 PM
Comment #206703

Lawn,
As usual, Lynne distorts staements, what I had said was: “Fetus is a developmental form of human being in much the same way that a sperm is” Perhaps I should have used blastocyte. But, I learned long ago there is no debate with that segment of the belief spectrum so would it have made a difference?
I wiil repeat here my stance and support of roe v wade in their decision:

the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 5, 2007 12:33 PM
Comment #206739
Fetus is a developmental form of human being in much the same way that a sperm is”

Now you’re equating a fetus, the result of the union of a sperm and an egg with a sperm??? Go learn some basic biology…sperm and eggs are the result of meiosis, or the splitting of DNA…a fetus is the result of mitosis, the division of cells so that 2 cells split into 4, 4 cells split into 8…and the fetus grows and the cells specialize in function.

Posted by: Roberta at February 5, 2007 6:21 PM
Comment #206749

why bother?

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 5, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #206792

Why bother? Because you’re spouting false science…

Posted by: Roberta at February 6, 2007 9:56 AM
Comment #206797

Why don’t people ever actually read what’s been written? There’s absolutely zero science in the “sperm” post. That was the original point, long lost. Geez.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 6, 2007 12:36 PM
Comment #206835

Dave1-20-2009:

Why don’t you quit…you obviously don’t understand the difference between meiosis and mitosis as Lynne stated…nor the difference beteen a man’s producing sperm that carry only half of his DNA and a new individual with a full complement of DNA which is formed with the union of sperm and ovum (AKA egg).

You’ve still also never answered the question of exactly what a fetus is if you don’t consider it human.

Posted by: Roberta at February 6, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #206846

As I said above, this isn’t worth my time.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 6, 2007 6:23 PM
Comment #206915

Dave1-20-2009:

Why did you chicken out? Why don’t you answer and tell us all what you believe a human fetus to be when you claim that the fetus is NOT human????

Posted by: Roberta at February 7, 2007 9:42 AM
Comment #206921
you claim that the fetus is NOT human?

I can see why he doesn’t want to bother. Even here, you create a strawman of his position.

He’s not saying that a fetus is not human. He’s saying that a fetus is not a human.

That’s a big difference.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 7, 2007 10:07 AM
Comment #206927

LawnBoy:

Don’t protect the little coward…he stated that a fetus is much like a sperm…oh, my…

Here’s what he said:

Fetus is a developmental form of human being in much the same way that a sperm is.

It shows his lack of scientific knowledge and expertise…

If a fetus is not a developmental form of a human being (which a sperm is only a portion of a human, having half the DNA of the contributing organism), then what is it? Neither you nor Chicken Dave1-20-2009 have directly answered that question…you’ve certainly danced around it, but never yet given a straight and definitive answer. I’m sure that’s what Lynne was trying to get from you two…so am I. Why do you keep avoiding the answer?

Posted by: Roberta at February 7, 2007 10:21 AM
Comment #206930

Bwaaak! Bwaaaaak! (Or is that copywritten by Condi?) Oh wait, Lynne liked frogs; now it’s chickens again? Will you people please get your analogies together!

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 7, 2007 10:31 AM
Comment #206934
but never yet given a straight and definitive answer

I’m sorry that you consider definitions from two dictionaries and an encyclopedia insufficient.

I do not claim that “a fetus is not a developmental form of a human being”. My claim is that being a developmental form does not mean that it has legal rights as a citizen.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 7, 2007 11:01 AM
Comment #206959

Unfortunately everyone decided to eat lunch in today and with no room at my usual table, here I am… I have to admit some confusion over what Roberta nee Lynne has to gain with this approach. I already said that Blastocyte would have been a better analogy. It’s just that I chose sperm for the Monty Python linkability and the fact it had been part of the ongoing conversations.
BTW; good try Lawnboy, but the Black Knight is very stubborn indeed.

Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at February 7, 2007 1:02 PM
Comment #206970

Wow…Roberta actually gets it…why don’t you? Is a dying elderly person unable to do anything for him/herself any less or more human than a fetus??

What is a human fetus if not human???

Sperm are not “developmental”…they are halved bundles of DNA…sperm grow into nothing unless they are united with an egg (ovum) which is also a halved bundle of DNA…and even that union doesn’t develop unless it is implanted in a ready uterus…

So….what is a human fetus if it isn’t a human being??? It’s well known that severe alcoholics lose brain cells—-are they less than human because they no longer grow the requisite amount of brain cells?

Tell us…

And, Roberta, whoever you are…thanks.

Posted by: Lynne at February 7, 2007 2:33 PM
Comment #206985
Wow…Roberta actually gets it…why don’t you?

So, agreeing with you is the definition of “getting it”. How convenient for you.

What is a human fetus if not human?

A human fetus is a human fetus, meaning that it is human, though not necessarily a human. How many times do I have to give you the same simple answer?

Sperm are not “developmental”
And he’s disavowed that statement several times. Please try to keep up.
what is a human fetus if it isn’t a human being?

A human fetus is… a human fetus.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 7, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #207082

So, LawnBoy, you agree that the fetus is HUMAN…good for you!! That means it’s not going to turn into another animal, like a cow or horse…

Perhaps you need to define “human life”…

Posted by: Lynne at February 7, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #207104
So, LawnBoy, you agree that the fetus is HUMAN…good for you!!

Wow, you’re patting me on the back for saying something I’ve been saying consistently for five days.

How thrilling.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 7, 2007 9:42 PM
Post a comment