Obama would have to stand up against infanticide. But I guess that would infringe upon your right to kill your unwanted child.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=39541

Quote :

"These disabilities are often detected during pregnancy. Sometimes the pregnant woman will choose to have "induced labor" or "live-birth abortion" before the fetus is full-term. Christ Hospital's policy was to give only comfort care to the newborns after birth until they died. No evaluations were made whether the newborns could have survived if given appropriate medical assistance. One nurse testified that a live-birth abortion was performed on a healthy infant at more than 23 weeks gestation. This is a time at which premature infants have about a 40% chance of survival, although usually with serious disabilities. The newborn was given only comfort care and died about 2½ hours later. The hospital has since changed its policies. It now performs live-birth abortions only on fatally-deformed fetuses."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_aliv.htm

I didn't pay attention in history class, but wasn't there a wealthy democracy that did something similar some years back? Apparently, most Americans don't remember history.
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN THE FINAL SOLUTION

6/9/2008 9:02:15 AM

The great thing about government run hospitals for democrats is that:

not only will they have the priveledge of killing your unwanted babies and controlling who comes -into the world-,

they'll have the right to kill all the old fogies and control -who they take out of this world-


it'll be a perfect monarchy of the democratic party

6/9/2008 10:01:48 AM

^Well, when your ideologues are being outbred by everyone else, I guess you have to start killing the competition to survive.

6/9/2008 10:08:41 AM

stan, you're a tool. Late-term abortions are less than 5% of all US abortions and a large percentage of them are absolutely needed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844532/

Don't be a tool, the world isn't black and white. Sure, abortion shouldn't be used as a primary form of contraception - I'd say pretty much everyone can agree with this statement, but people like you like to paint the situation black and white and make it much harder to come to amicable solutions.

6/9/2008 10:16:08 AM

Quote :

"stan, you're a tool. Late-term abortions are less than 5% of all US abortions and a large percentage of them are absolutely needed."

Did you even read the articles? They were about the neglect & subsequent death of babies that had been born. How about presenting actual arguments, rather than resorting to name-calling. Better yet, man up and admit the true consequences of your ideology.

Why are you against abortion as a form of birth control? If a fetus is a human being, then why do you think it is permissible to extract it from the womb? If it is not a human being with inalienable rights, why do you have a problem with it being used as a contraceptive? If you are not sure, then how many more millions of potential murders will occur before you make up your mind? The clock is ticking. Approximately 17,805 abortions have occured since the beginning of this thread.

6/9/2008 10:42:27 AM

Quote :

"If a fetus is a human being, then why do you think it is permissible to extract it from the womb? If it is not a human being with inalienable rights, why do you have a problem with it being used as a contraceptive? If you are not sure, then how many more millions of potential murders will occur before you make up your mind?"

There you go again with the black and white.

I don't think many people would argue that abortions are good things. They're bad. But they're clearly not coequal with murder.

The fact that you're not bombing clinics attests to the fact that you agree with me at some level.

6/9/2008 10:48:53 AM

yeh the libs don't have kids. i think they are all gay or hippy and the only kids are accidents. so abortion isn't a bad thing coming from that side.

6/9/2008 10:54:14 AM

Stan, did you read the article I posted? It addresses a large percentage of the late term abortions that are 'evil' and you rail against.

I'm not against abortion as a form of birth control, by the way. I'm against it as a primary form of birth control for many reasons - mainly the fact that it's completely not healthy for the woman involved, physically or mentally. And no, I don't see a fetus as a human being. Fetii are on the path to becoming human beings, this is not really disputable, however the point at which they become conscious or whatnot is easily disputable from both sides.

6/9/2008 10:56:24 AM

Quote :

"The fact that you're not bombing clinics attests to the fact that you agree with me at some level."

That makes no sense. I'm against killing other human beings PERIOD.

Quote :

"Fetii are on the path to becoming human beings, this is not really disputable, however the point at which they become conscious or whatnot is easily disputable from both sides."

Then, where do you draw the line? Birth? Two years of age? Any age for a handicapped person?

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 10:57:25 AM

Quote :

" That makes no sense. I'm against killing other human beings PERIOD."

But you're for allowing the government to control peoples bodies? For a christian, you seem to not really care about allowing people to use the facilities that god granted them - free will.

Also, god commanded the murder of many people in the bible, killing people isn't *always* bad according to the bible.

Quote :

"Then, where do you draw the line? Birth? Two years of age? Any age for a handicapped person? "

That's for the parents to decide, not me or the government.

I'd rather try to bring a healthy baby into the world than one that has to suffer. If the parents are willing to raise a handicapped child and support it then kudos to them, but don't force them into that commitment.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 10:59:40 AM

I'm calling it now... watch, there will be a law in <5 years: women who have more than 2 abortions a year will be sent to prision because of the carbon emissions wasted on the process

lol

and while i was watching the news of barack flying on his plane he probably spent more on carbon emissions than i will in my entire life with my new ride.

and he wants to ration out carbon. lol. the senate just pwn3d that shit on friday. they declined that bill like it was a dead dog.

6/9/2008 11:00:39 AM

Quote :

"That makes no sense. I'm against killing other human beings PERIOD."

So that would make you a pacifist?

Please. You don't think abortion is coequal with murder.

You'd at least be at the Planned Parenthood in downtown trying to stop some of the murders.

6/9/2008 11:01:15 AM

or you could go to church which typically is against murders and abortions.

oh well, religion is a bad word with you guys so that'll never help:

6/9/2008 11:02:57 AM

Quote :

"You'd at least be at the Planned Parenthood in downtown trying to stop some of the murders."

According to their website, they don't do abortions at the Raleigh location.

6/9/2008 11:27:35 AM

Way to tackle my argument head-on, chief.

6/9/2008 11:28:28 AM

Didn't even address mine

6/9/2008 11:29:12 AM

Quote :

"I'd rather try to bring a healthy baby into the world than one that has to suffer."

The serious problem with this logic is this: it's practically against nature. Hold a dogs neck to the ground and squeeze and you'll see it squirm to get free. Take an abused, tortured dog and do the same, and he fights to live. Look at the Jews in the holocaust, spending years being tortured and abused, yet they had the will to live. The basic, natural law for living beings is to prolong life, no matter the circumstance. The convenience is yours to abort an unhealthy baby. The baby would know no different and it would only have the life it knows, which for all we know, is perfectly happy. You can't handle it.

We protect everything in this country. We protect the trees, the water, the land, the bald eagle... we protect the helpless, the young, the old, we protect baby turtle eggs... yet we will not protect our own unborn.

YES IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO DESTROY BABY TURTLE EGGS. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO TERMINATE THE LIFE OF AN UNBORN TURTLE... yet abortions happen everyday with not so much more than a glance.

it's ashame and it speaks to the moral degradation of this country.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 11:37:22 AM

^ I support a turtle's right to choose too.

6/9/2008 11:43:17 AM

I wonder if there's anything to this http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/why-is-mccain-getting-58000-year-in.html

6/9/2008 12:02:26 PM

Your comparison doesn't really cut it man.

The tortured dog, while mentally damaged is still a relatively healthy dog, it can survive on its own.

A child with severe mental and physical handicaps cannot survive without large amounts of money and support.

6/9/2008 12:10:26 PM

Quote :

"A child with severe mental and physical handicaps cannot survive without large amounts of money and support. "

The same could be said for any child. Are you for people killing their children, who aren't severly mentally or physically handicapped, just because they decided the resources expended would be too great?

6/9/2008 12:21:58 PM

Quote :

"Are you for people killing their children, who aren't severly mentally or physically handicapped, just because they decided the resources expended would be too great?"

Yes, I am for people having abortions if their birth control fails if they cannot financially support the child.

6/9/2008 12:25:46 PM

Quote :

" But you're for allowing the government to control peoples bodies? For a christian, you seem to not really care about allowing people to use the facilities that god granted them - free will. Also, god commanded the murder of many people in the bible, killing people isn't *always* bad according to the bible."

Bible is a proper noun, btw. Being deliberately disrespectful does not help your case.

The Bible is full of governments established to maintain order. My position is based upon a human's right to life. I have no problem with people doing as they wish with THEIR OWN bodies. No one has a right to harm or kill an innocent person.

If you read the Bible, you'll understand the difference between MURDER and KILLING.

Quote :

" Quote : "Then, where do you draw the line? Birth? Two years of age? Any age for a handicapped person? " That's for the parents to decide, not me or the government. I'd rather try to bring a healthy baby into the world than one that has to suffer. If the parents are willing to raise a handicapped child and support it then kudos to them, but don't force them into that commitment."

No one wants their child to be handicapped (except for that deaf couple in England who thinks they have a right to have a deaf baby). There are plenty of people with horrible disabilities who are happier than some of us. Also, how do you define what makes a child not worthy of being brought into the world (Downs Syndrome, CF, dwarfism, facial disfiguration, different sex than the parents desire)?

Quote :

"You'd at least be at the Planned Parenthood in downtown trying to stop some of the murders."

Quote :

"Way to tackle my argument head-on, chief. "

Sorry that I don't have any responsibilities outside of posting in this thread.

I will acknowledge that there is one significant difference between an adult human and a developing embryo. The embryo does not feel pain. There, I said it. But that does not change the fact that it is a human being. It is a difference of degree, not of kind. That gets us to the core of the issue. Skankin and Boone both believe a human becomes a human at some later point in development (unless there is a severe mental handicap), while I believe life begins at conception and all humans (born & unborn) should be treated with dignity and respect.

6/9/2008 12:28:06 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "Are you for people killing their children, who aren't severly mentally or physically handicapped, just because they decided the resources expended would be too great?" Yes, I am for people having abortions if their birth control fails if they cannot financially support the child."

How about children who have already been born? At what point does it become immoral? Not trying to troll here, I'm just curious to see how far you would take it.

6/9/2008 12:29:36 PM

Quote :

"It is a difference of degree, not of kind. That gets us to the core of the issue."

There we go.

Now we can all agree that you're arguing over various shades of gray, and bringing murder into the discussion only derails the debate.

6/9/2008 12:30:37 PM

Quote :

"There we go. Now we can all agree that you're arguing over various shades of gray, and bringing murder into the discussion only derails the debate."

That makes absolutely no sense. A human being is a human being is a human being. Humans go through various stages of development (different degrees). They do not one day magically morph from animal to human (type/ kind).

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. I think we both agree on that. What we disagree on is when someone becomes human. So quit trying to put words in my mouth and read what I'm actually saying.

e: It would be shades of gray if I believed in differences of degree (as I do), but supported abortion at certain stages (like you do). From your posts, you seem to be the one swimming in gray. That is, unless you can clearly identify the point where a human becomes a human.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 12:34:36 PM

Quote :

"Also, how do you define what makes a child not worthy of being brought into the world (Downs Syndrome, CF, dwarfism, facial disfiguration, different sex than the parents desire)?"

That is up to the parents, and to think they can make a decision like that on a whim is very ignorant. A parent has to be 100% into having a child or that child will suffer.

Quote :

"while I believe life begins at conception and all humans (born & unborn) should be treated with dignity and respect."

So you would charge parents who have miscarriages due to drinking alcohol, or other things that causes most early-term (first month or so) miscarriages with 2nd degree murder? If you are going to say it is a fully fleshed human being at birth then you have to say that these miscarriages that could have been avoided are the same thing as accidentally running over someone with your car and killing them.

6/9/2008 12:39:08 PM

You're both sidestepping my question.

WHEN DOES KILLING (STOPPING DEVELOPMENT FOR YOU FOLKS) A CHILD BECOME IMMORAL?

Quote :

". A parent has to be 100% into having a child or that child will suffer. "

So killing the child is an appropriate answer for someone being to immature to care for their own offspring?

And yes, if you cause the death of a child in the womb, you should be charged with a crime. If someone punches my pregnant wife in the stomach, they should be locked up.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 12:42:12 PM

Killing a child is always immoral.

A better question is: When does killing a fetus become immoral?

I would say, sometime in the 3rd trimester.

6/9/2008 12:43:47 PM

I just asked you the same thing. Does a miscarriage due to factors that could have been avoided during early term equate to 2nd degree murder or manslaughter?

I am not a scientist or doctor so I cannot give you an accurate (as I would like) statement for my position. In general, it becomes immoral when the fetus/baby could survive by itself outside of the womb, but I don't think abortions are actually performed that late in reality.

6/9/2008 12:44:51 PM

^^^It's a gray area that I'd prefer the government not get its mitts on.

Personally-- at conception.




[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 12:44:53 PM

Quote :

"If someone punches my pregnant wife in the stomach, they should be locked up."

That's not what I'm asking.

Some absurdly high amount of ALL pregnancies end in early miscarriage for various reasons. One of those reasons is alcohol within the first few weeks of pregnancy. So if a woman drinks a beer a few days after she is impregnated, and she then proceeds to have a miscarriage (which she probably would'nt know about anyways) is she guilty of manslaughter?

This is completely different from assault on a woman, which is a crime in itself.

6/9/2008 12:47:01 PM

Quote :

"Killing a child is always immoral. A better question is: When does killing a fetus become immoral? I would say, sometime in the 3rd trimester."

Man, thank you for answering. I think most people would agree with that.

I guess I should rephrase the question: When does a fetus become a child? I don't want to ask when its immoral to kill a fetus, because there are people who have no problem with "aborting" a 2-yr old, given certain circumstances.

6/9/2008 12:47:31 PM

Quote :

"I am not a scientist or doctor so I cannot give you an accurate (as I would like) statement for my position. In general, it becomes immoral when the fetus/baby could survive by itself outside of the womb, but I don't think abortions are actually performed that late in reality."

In one of the articles I posted earlier, babies delivered after botched abortions were left to die, when, given the proper care, they had a 40% chance of viability. This was tolerated by the hospital, because the parents did not want a handicapped child.

Quote :

"That's not what I'm asking. Some absurdly high amount of ALL pregnancies end in early miscarriage for various reasons. One of those reasons is alcohol within the first few weeks of pregnancy. So if a woman drinks a beer a few days after she is impregnated, and she then proceeds to have a miscarriage (which she probably would'nt know about anyways) is she guilty of manslaughter? This is completely different from assault on a woman, which is a crime in itself."

Well, this is a tricky area. Most pregnancies do end in a miscarriage, with the woman never knowing she was pregnant. Its usually assumed to be a late period. This tends to happen because the embryo wasn't developing properly and it just self-destructs because it would either die later, or be super-screwed up. Its easy to be pregnant for a few weeks before a woman realizes it. So no, the government has no business fining/ locking up a woman who has a drink while she's 2 weeks pregnant.

I know that when you give birth in a hospital, the doctors perform a drug test on the child (standard procedure at WakeMed, at least). If there is any illegal substance in their system, Child Protective Services are called in. As much as I hate government interference into families, I think this is a good use of social workers.

I would have to say that this is a gray area. If an obviously pregnant woman is walking down the street smoking cigarettes and chugging a 40, she's clearly in the wrong. I honestly haven't considered your question before. I like it. Its a good catalyst for a difficult discussion. I just can't give a good answer at the moment.

6/9/2008 1:00:12 PM

This weekend I saw an Obama advisor arguing for Obamas position on Iraq.

She basically said that we are babysitting a civil war in Iraq.....

What the hell kind of argument is that?

Its an arguement thats 1.5 years away from being anywhere near accurate.

6/9/2008 3:22:10 PM

... meanwhile, violence in Iraq is at an alltime low.


Facts don't matter. Talking points do.


make no mistake: victory in Iraq is bad for the democratic party

6/9/2008 5:49:34 PM

this is a silly topic, dont waste time on the neocons and intellectually dishonest posters that abound soap box. They'd rather tell you Barack is a silly negro terrorist muslim plant than ever face the shitter their own party is driving America square into.

The fact is, we don't need McCain supporters to switch, he's awfully weak as a candidate and this year will be a landslide.

6/9/2008 5:53:19 PM

Quote :

"he's awfully weak as a candidate and this year will be a landslide."

That kind of arrogance cost the democrats the last election. Honestly people, how the heck did the democrats manage to lose the 2004 presidential election? I'm glad they didn't (not that I especially love Bush, but I think he's much better than Kerry would've been). But I still can't believe that with all the people who HATED the president with a passion, the democrats GAVE Bush a second term.

Pretty much all they had to do was try not to lose. But of course, they had to have their usual cocky attitude. "Hey, we're the experts, trust us. We know whats good for you better than you do. Now just go along with us because we're smarter than you, you uneducated simpletons."

I guess I'll get back on the original topic and say what it would take for me to switch to Obama. I would have to have 3/4 of my brain surgically removed (the critical thinking parts) and be convinced by all my trendy friends that the president of the US is a popularity contest (akin to high school class presidents).

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 8:51 AM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 8:47:50 AM

5 words...


SWIFT
BOAT
VETERANS
FOR
TRUTH

6/10/2008 8:52:04 AM

As a fiscal conservative who is outraged by the Republican Party's direction over the course of two terms, I would say McCain has a lot to worry about.

6/10/2008 8:56:00 AM

^ So, as a fiscal conservative, does that mean you think Obama is the better option?

6/10/2008 9:54:41 AM

he makes so little sense it's startling.

He sounds like a spoiled rotten child... WHAA THE REPUBLICANS DISAPPOINTED ME, SO NOW I'LL VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO I'M SURE WILL DISAPPOINT ME JUST FOR SPITE WHAA

6/10/2008 9:56:33 AM

McCain is by far a better candidate than Obama. All Obama can do is talk from a telepromter or notes. You ever notice how he doesn't answer questions directly to the question. He always talks in vague terms. It is because he can't justify his positions because they are so flawed. Obama's supporters are either liberals who are emotionally damaged or college aged people who don't have a clue about the real world. I wouldn't ever vote for Obama

6/10/2008 12:10:03 PM

Quote :

"...or college aged people who don't have a clue about the real world."

ding ding ding. We have a winner!

6/10/2008 12:24:18 PM

I keep hearing about this real world. Am I to assume that despite graduating from college and maintaining employment I am not in the real world because I still maintain liberal political beliefs? The the needs of college students less real because they are still in college?

What exactly is this real world?

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

6/10/2008 12:26:26 PM

Wrong thread.

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 12:36 PM. Reason : nm]

6/10/2008 12:29:26 PM

Sorry chief, I've graduated a long time ago and been working in the "real world."

6/10/2008 12:32:53 PM

Quote :

"What exactly is this real world?"

The one where people take responsibility for their own actions, rather than expecting the government to coddle and protect them their whole lives.

6/10/2008 12:37:46 PM

What is so different between that and say when someone is 16 years old?

6/10/2008 12:39:33 PM

Quote :

"What exactly is this real world?"

It's what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real.

6/10/2008 12:43:52 PM