A cautionary glimpse into the social problems abortion can produce

[101A]

http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif Google, Microsoft pull sex ads after India legal threat (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080918062030.n6tjt4fb&show_article=1) http://img.breitbart.com/images/LogoAFPsmall.jpg (http://www.breitbart.com/partner.php?source=afp) http://www.breitbart.com/images/common/dot.gif Sep 18 02:20 AM US/Eastern


Internet giants Google and Microsoft have pulled adverts for sex selection (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=sex%20selection&sid=breitbart.com) products and other services considered illegal in India after being threatened with legal action, activists said Thursday. India's Supreme Court had last month asked the two companies plus Yahoo to respond to a complaint that they were illegally advertising do-it-yourself kits and expensive genetic techniques to find out an unborn baby's gender.
Activists said the products -- which have not been scientifically proven to be accurate or safe -- damage efforts to stem mass abortions of girls because of a traditional preference for boys in India.
"Sponsored links in Google have come down considerably. They have disappeared from Microsoft India search," activist Sabu George, who filed the petition, told AFP.
A random search for "gender selection (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=gender%20selection&sid=breitbart.com)" on Yahoo, however, produces links to resources and clinics offering to help people choose the gender of their child.
Yahoo India was not immediately available for comment.
There are 927 females for every 1,000 males in India compared to the worldwide average of 1,050 females. The UN Children's Fund (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=UN%20Children%27s%20Fund&sid=breitbart.com) (UNICEF) says India loses 7,000 girls daily through abortion.
Google said it will "review the petition carefully."
"In India, we do not allow ads for the promotion of pre-natal gender determination or pre-conception sex selection. We take local laws extremely seriously," the company said in a statement.
India -- the world's second most populous country -- has the highest number of births, with 27 million children born every year, making it a lucrative market for gender selection products.
"As of now, not a single product has been scientifically proven but they will become accurate sooner than later," said Puneet Bedi, a gynaecology consultant at New Delhi's Apollo hospital.
"Eventually, they will be misused for sex determination," Bedi told AFP.
Most Indians prefer sons, who are typically regarded as breadwinners, while girls are seen as a burden because of the matrimonial dowry demanded by a groom's family and the fact that their earnings go to their husband's family.
Currently, the most popular way to know the gender of a foetus is through an ultrasound test, which costs as little as five dollars, and is banned in India for that purpose.
Activists say abortions of female foetuses shot up dramatically in the 1990s once ultrasound tests became widely available and affordable in India.
"What ultrasound did for female foeticide in the 1990s, these new products have the potential to do in the next few decades. We have to be one step ahead of them," said activist George.
No estimates were available for the number of Indians using gender determination products.
"If the advertisements are there, people must be buying them," George told AFP.
In a similar legal row in Britain, Google agreed this week to change its policy on abortion-related advertisements by religious groups after a pro-life Christian group challenged the company in court for refusing its advert.
"This is an important issue of free speech and religious liberty," the Christian Institute (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Christian%20Institute&sid=breitbart.com) said in a statement on its website after the legal proceedings were "settled on amicable terms."
As technology improves, and we can learn more and more about what traits our potential offspring might/might not have.....selective abortion is inevitable. Child gonna be gay? Abort it. Want a boy? Abort the girls. Brown eyes? Sorry. Girl from the Midwest gets knocked up by a foreign black guy? Ooops, that happened; good thing abortion was illegal, huh?

[Oh, Gee!!]

"A cautionary glimpse into the social problems sexism and gender discrimination can produce" is a better thread title

[101A]

"A cautionary glimpse into the social problems sexism and gender discrimination can produce" is a better thread title

Those are ALREADY illegal.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Those are ALREADY illegal.

not in India

[cool hand]

80% of woman that get abortions suffer from PTSD.

[101A]

not in India

And by saying to "cautionary", I wasn't referring to India, was I?

I tried to point out traits that Americans might be inclined to select.

If you don't see any issue here, great.

Abortion = Good, couldn't possibly create any problems EVER. You're in lock-step.

I get it.

[DarkReign]

Cmon 101, the thread title is misleading at best.

We dont live in the same culture as India/China where having boys is BY FAR more preferable.

I mean, with doing no research whatsoever, I am guessing people prefer boys because they have certain advantages in their society that woman do not.

Couple of guesses: land ownership, inheritance, better job placement, etc.

I can understand the thread title if you put:

A cautionary glimpse into the social problems abortion can produce in patriarchal societies.

[101A]

Cmon 101, the thread title is misleading at best.

We dont live in the same culture as India/China where having boys is BY FAR more preferable.

I mean, with doing no research whatsoever, I am guessing people prefer boys because they have certain advantages in their society that woman do not.

Couple of guesses: land ownership, inheritance, better job placement, etc.

I can understand the thread title if you put:

A cautionary glimpse into the social problems abortion can produce in patriarchal societies.

DR;

Didn't think it was that out of line, might need to reassess.

My point that I was trying to make wasn't JUST about Girls. As we learn to understand DNA more and more, and to decipher which genes go with what, OUR society, though not patriarchal, does have traits it prefers:

Heterosexuality; Athletic Build, Intelligence, Blue Eyes, etc....

With abortion on demand being the rule of the day, and tests for which traits YOU like being readily available at some point in the relatively near future....I see an ethical dilemna. The stats in India suggest that selective abortion affects the population as a whole somewhat dramatically. We might not choose for the same things, but given the choice, many, IMO, will choose.

[PixelPusher]

I'm still waiting on the requisite conservative finger-wagging thread on the social problems out-of-wedlock pregnancies can produce. Funny how that was suddenly transformed into a private family matter when it happened to Republican family.

[Oh, Gee!!]

And by saying to "cautionary", I wasn't referring to India, was I?

I tried to point out traits that Americans might be inclined to select.

If you don't see any issue here, great.

who knows what your ill-conceived ramblings attempted to point out.


Abortion = Good, couldn't possibly create any problems EVER. You're in lock-step.

I get it.

ah, the old strawman argument. How long has it been since you trotted that out? a day?

[101A]

I'm still waiting on the requisite conservative finger-wagging thread on the social problems out-of-wedlock pregnancies can produce. Funny how that was suddenly transformed into a private family matter when it happened to Republican family.

Out of wedlock pregnancies have been shown to produce children that are at a significant disadvantage socially. It is astonishing, given the evidence, that in practice, our nation's policy is to encourage them. Additionally, marriages of necessity, especially at a young age, seldom succeed. It is unfortunate Bristol Palin is having to make this particular Hobson's choice.

[101A]

who knows what your ill-conceived ramblings attempted to point out.



ah, the old strawman argument. How long has it been since you trotted that out? a day?


With abortion on demand being the rule of the day, and tests for which traits YOU like being readily available at some point in the relatively near future....I see an ethical dilemna. The stats in India suggest that selective abortion affects the population as a whole somewhat dramatically. We might not choose for the same things, but given the choice, many, IMO, will choose.


Do you want to discuss this more refined "rambling", or do you just want to lob bombs?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think it's fair that a bunch of men can decide what a women can do to her body.

[Oh, Gee!!]

tests for which traits YOU like being readily available at some point in the relatively near future.

I think you made this part up, or at least it was never mentioned in the article you used in support of your impending moral decay hypothesis. The article deals with gender selection and not "trait" selection.

[DarkReign]

DR;

Didn't think it was that out of line, might need to reassess.

My point that I was trying to make wasn't JUST about Girls. As we learn to understand DNA more and more, and to decipher which genes go with what, OUR society, though not patriarchal, does have traits it prefers:

Heterosexuality; Athletic Build, Intelligence, Blue Eyes, etc....

With abortion on demand being the rule of the day, and tests for which traits YOU like being readily available at some point in the relatively near future....I see an ethical dilemna. The stats in India suggest that selective abortion affects the population as a whole somewhat dramatically. We might not choose for the same things, but given the choice, many, IMO, will choose.

Hmmm, now that is much more compelling argument...if the technology is there some day to choose those specific traits you mentioned (I dont think they are....yet), then I am not entirely sure I disagree with your opinion.

But you must admit the thread title doesnt really put forth that particular idea....it may in content, but not in title.

BTW, I didnt think the title was "out of line" :lmao

In comparison to the shit slung around here thats passed off as news or fact, the worst you could do was unintentionally/intentionally slant a thread title. :lmao

Just look at the front page of this forum, its like a "Whose team are you on ANYWAY?" slogan, line-by-line.

[101A]

Just look at the front page of this forum, its like a "Whose team are you on ANYWAY?" slogan, line-by-line.

Yeah.

Although voting for McCain; kind of hoping Obama wins.

Would make debating in here much easier.

Find ANY bad news, cut and paste the article; blame it on Obama.

Since Bush is really the first President to deal with wide-spread internet use/blogs/etc... I think we might not ever have another popular president. We'll see.

[Mr. Body]

Since Bush is really the first President to deal with wide-spread internet use/blogs/etc... I think we might not ever have another popular president. We'll see.

Bush was MASSIVELY POPULAR. It's crazy how you guys deny how much in love you were over him.

[DarkReign]

Bush was MASSIVELY POPULAR. It's crazy how you guys deny how much in love you were over him.

Who denies? 101?

Youre way off base with that statement.

[Mr. Body]

Who denies? 101?

Youre way off base with that statement.

It's endemic. All over the place. Republicans everywhere are pretending they don't know the guy and he was always a middling president at best.

Ignoring the massive, massive, massive cult of personality you built up around him.

[DarkReign]

Since Bush is really the first President to deal with wide-spread internet use/blogs/etc... I think we might not ever have another popular president. We'll see.

Man, I dont know. Bush seems more like an anomoly in Presidential history in more ways than popularity.

The guy would have been villified in this time or another all the same, IMO.

Besides the way he handled 9/11 (after leaving kindergarten), what redeeming thing has he done? How was the country before in comparison to what it is after?

No, it isnt fair to pin all this crap on Bush in particular, because he isnt a dictator (though, in his own words, he said it'd be easier if he were) thats sets national policy on his word alone.

I will remember one of his quotes, nearly word for word, after he won re-election in 2004 with gains in both houses of Congress....

In his very smug, Bushy way he said "I have gained a lot of political capital. I intend on spending it."

In other administrations of the past, blame could be spread around because Dems controlled this branch, while Reps controlled this other branch.

Dude had 6 years of the White House, Senate and House...AND appointed 2 (3?) Supreme Court Justices!

What do we have to show for it (again, just talking about one party having this much control)?

A tanking economy, a foreign war with an ever-changing set of objectives for victory much less the reason for entry (Powell), No Child Left Behind, MedicareD, a tax-cut which hasnt done shit (for business or personal) and the most important IMO, a country as divided idealogically as I could imagine to the point of hatred.

I admit the last point is subjective, but the others are not.

Another subjective opinion that I dont think anyone would argue is, our international standing. He sapped 60+ years of good will and charity in 8 short years by being a cowboy and a buffoon with his flippant foreign policy.

No no....Bush is/was a mockery of the office in everyway imaginable, IMO. Not because he's a Republican, but because he is an idiot. Bush being elected made me hate the Democratic party more than anything else. These are the fucking hacks who couldnt put a candidate next to Bush that the American people thought would be better!

Better than what?! The guy who cant pronounce nuclear?! The guy who has drunk-drivings and known cocaine abuse in his past?! How in some weird alternate universe, this draft-dodging buffoon somehow came out of an argument with a veteran of Vietnam smelling like the patriot on stage?!

Dems are out of touch completely. Reps just abused what was given them. We the People deserve this entire symphony of discord, and I hate humanity much more than I did before.



I hate everyone equally
You can't tear that out of me
No segregation -separation
Just me in my world of enemies

[Spurminator]

If we reach a point where technology allows people to selectively abort based on child preference then we are free to vocally condemn such actions and shun anyone who does such a thing. I think you overestimate the number of women who would do this, though. You're typically pretty far enough along in a pregnancy that everyone knows you're pregnant before you find out the gender of the fetus. I don't feel like we're anywhere near a point as a society where a woman might show up to work one day and her coworkers would say, "Hey, I thought you were pregnant," and she'd replay, "Eh, I was, but it was going to be a girl/gay/retarded/left-handed so we decided to try again."

[101A]

Bush was MASSIVELY POPULAR. It's crazy how you guys deny how much in love you were over him.

Both Bush's were "massively popular" after national crisis or war brought us together; they were both less than popular after that.

However, I compare Bush to Carter, and their relative unpopularity


Carter certainly wasn't popular, but his favorability was better than G.W.'s. If you compare unemployment (nearly double), inflation (through the roof), interest rates (QUADRUPLE!!!) - the things that actually affect the average American, throw in the hostage crisis he seemingly didn't, or couldn't, do anything about - hell, even had his own big old corporate bailout with Chrysler - Carter should have had abysmal numbers -worse than Bush's.

Those economic indicators, relatively, are pretty good for G.w. (jobs, inflation, interest rates), and yet he is pilloried as, quite possibly, the WORST president in history. If you ask the question, "Can you remember a worse economic time?" I'm betting most people would answer "no". The war is even polling "better", but Bush's numbers remain in the toilet. That might have to do with the doulbe whammy of liberals AND conservatives being unhappy with him, and answering the favoribility question from different sides.

But I think it's even more than that.

Now, I am not defending Bush with this post, just pointing out a disconnect between the actual state of things, and his historically low popularity - and drawing a possible correlation to the speed with which information and ideas can spread now, vs. then. I was called three weeks ago and asked if I approved of the job Bush was doing. I answered, "No". Go ahead and flame me for my theory, but we don't need another Bush Bashing thread.

[101A]

If we reach a point where technology allows people to selectively abort based on child preference then we are free to vocally condemn such actions and shun anyone who does such a thing. I think you overestimate the number of women who would do this, though. You're typically pretty far enough along in a pregnancy that everyone knows you're pregnant before you find out the gender of the fetus. I don't feel like we're anywhere near a point as a society where a woman might show up to work one day and her coworkers would say, "Hey, I thought you were pregnant," and she'd replay, "Eh, I was, but it was going to be a girl/gay/retarded/left-handed so we decided to try again."

I hope you're right. I'm afraid I have less faith in humanity. I think they'll be able to tell traits before a woman has to admit she's pregnant. We ain't looking for a package, we're looking at chromosomes.

[101A]

Man, I dont know. Bush seems more like an anomoly in Presidential history in more ways than popularity.

The guy would have been villified in this time or another all the same, IMO.

Besides the way he handled 9/11 (after leaving kindergarten), what redeeming thing has he done? How was the country before in comparison to what it is after?

No, it isnt fair to pin all this crap on Bush in particular, because he isnt a dictator (though, in his own words, he said it'd be easier if he were) thats sets national policy on his word alone.

I will remember one of his quotes, nearly word for word, after he won re-election in 2004 with gains in both houses of Congress....

In his very smug, Bushy way he said "I have gained a lot of political capital. I intend on spending it."

In other administrations of the past, blame could be spread around because Dems controlled this branch, while Reps controlled this other branch.

Dude had 6 years of the White House, Senate and House...AND appointed 2 (3?) Supreme Court Justices!

What do we have to show for it (again, just talking about one party having this much control)?

A tanking economy, a foreign war with an ever-changing set of objectives for victory much less the reason for entry (Powell), No Child Left Behind, MedicareD, a tax-cut which hasnt done shit (for business or personal) and the most important IMO, a country as divided idealogically as I could imagine to the point of hatred.

I admit the last point is subjective, but the others are not.

Another subjective opinion that I dont think anyone would argue is, our international standing. He sapped 60+ years of good will and charity in 8 short years by being a cowboy and a buffoon with his flippant foreign policy.

No no....Bush is/was a mockery of the office in everyway imaginable, IMO. Not because he's a Republican, but because he is an idiot. Bush being elected made me hate the Democratic party more than anything else. These are the fucking hacks who couldnt put a candidate next to Bush that the American people thought would be better!

Better than what?! The guy who cant pronounce nuclear?! The guy who has drunk-drivings and known cocaine abuse in his past?! How in some weird alternate universe, this draft-dodging buffoon somehow came out of an argument with a veteran of Vietnam smelling like the patriot on stage?!

Dems are out of touch completely. Reps just abused what was given them. We the People deserve this entire symphony of discord, and I hate humanity much more than I did before.

You put that together very quickly. You stated you point well - and it makes perfect sense. You are right.

I'm betting, in 4 years, we'll be able to do the exact same thing, with a different littany, to the new president.

[PixelPusher]

Both Bush's were "massively popular" after national crisis or war brought us together; they were both less than popular after that.

However, I compare Bush to Carter, and their relative unpopularity


Carter certainly wasn't popular, but his favorability was better than G.W.'s. If you compare unemployment (nearly double), inflation (through the roof), interest rates (QUADRUPLE!!!) - the things that actually affect the average American, throw in the hostage crisis he seemingly didn't, or couldn't, do anything about - hell, even had his own big old corporate bailout with Chrysler - Carter should have had abysmal numbers -worse than Bush's.

Those economic indicators, relatively, are pretty good for G.w. (jobs, inflation, interest rates), and yet he is pilloried as, quite possibly, the WORST president in history. If you ask the question, "Can you remember a worse economic time?" I'm betting most people would answer "no". The war is even polling "better", but Bush's numbers remain in the toilet. That might have to do with the doulbe whammy of liberals AND conservatives being unhappy with him, and answering the favoribility question from different sides.

But I think it's even more than that.

Now, I am not defending Bush with this post, just pointing out a disconnect between the actual state of things, and his historically low popularity - and drawing a possible correlation to the speed with which information and ideas can spread now, vs. then. I was called three weeks ago and asked if I approved of the job Bush was doing. I answered, "No". Go ahead and flame me for my theory, but we don't need another Bush Bashing thread.
For both Bush and Carter, you state conditions of the moment (the economy, how the war is going, etc.), but you left out current polls showing that roughly 80% of Americans don't like the direction this country is headed; a look to the future.

You underestimate Bush's extraordinarily negative effect on people's confidence about this county's future.

[101A]

For both Bush and Carter, you state conditions of the moment (the economy, how the war is going, etc.), but you left out current polls showing that roughly 80% of Americans don't like the direction this country is headed; a look to the future.

You underestimate Bush's extraordinarily negative effect on people's confidence about this county's future.

Maybe so. Not a lot of cheerful people in the administration; neocons not known for their giddy dispositions, after all.

Again, I suspect the internet has something to do with that pessimism, as well. I certainly thing it is fostering deep schisms in society. Hell, look at the thread entitled "Things you don't like about YOUR candidate". People are afraid to post in it; hell, people are so blinded, they probably ARE in lock step any more.

It wasn't like this before; people say it's Bush; I think that is part of it, but if not him, it is going to be another.

[Supergirl]

80% of woman that get abortions suffer from PTSD.

I'd like to see THAT source. LOL.

[boutons_]

"The British-based medical journal The Lancet published a study yesterday quantifying the phenomenon: The report estimated that Indian women aborted a stunning 10 million girls in the two decades leading up to 1998. The study, analyzing data from a national survey of 1.1 million households, calculated that 500,000 female fetuses were aborted each year in India.


The ''girl deficit," as the study labeled it, was more prevalent among educated women and did not vary according to religion, the study found."


http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/01/10/girl_deficit_grows_in_india/


=============


"Bush was MASSIVELY POPULAR."


... so popular he lost the 2000 people's vote by 600,00, and won in 2004 as a bogus war president with the smallest winning margin of any incumbent President.

[101A]

"The British-based medical journal The Lancet published a study yesterday quantifying the phenomenon: The report estimated that Indian women aborted a stunning 10 million girls in the two decades leading up to 1998. The study, analyzing data from a national survey of 1.1 million households, calculated that 500,000 female fetuses were aborted each year in India.


The ''girl deficit," as the study labeled it, was more prevalent among educated women and did not vary according to religion, the study found."


http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/01/10/girl_deficit_grows_in_india/


=============


"Bush was MASSIVELY POPULAR."


... so popular he lost the 2000 people's vote by 600,00, and won in 2004 as a bogus war president with the smallest winning margin of any incumbent President.

Oh holy crap.

Gonna be a bunch of hard up Indian dudes in a few years.

[Tully365]

Both Bush's were "massively popular" after national crisis or war brought us together; they were both less than popular after that.

However, I compare Bush to Carter, and their relative unpopularity


Carter certainly wasn't popular, but his favorability was better than G.W.'s. If you compare unemployment (nearly double), inflation (through the roof), interest rates (QUADRUPLE!!!) - the things that actually affect the average American, throw in the hostage crisis he seemingly didn't, or couldn't, do anything about - hell, even had his own big old corporate bailout with Chrysler - Carter should have had abysmal numbers -worse than Bush's.

Those economic indicators, relatively, are pretty good for G.w. (jobs, inflation, interest rates), and yet he is pilloried as, quite possibly, the WORST president in history. If you ask the question, "Can you remember a worse economic time?" I'm betting most people would answer "no". The war is even polling "better", but Bush's numbers remain in the toilet. That might have to do with the doulbe whammy of liberals AND conservatives being unhappy with him, and answering the favoribility question from different sides.

But I think it's even more than that.

Now, I am not defending Bush with this post, just pointing out a disconnect between the actual state of things, and his historically low popularity - and drawing a possible correlation to the speed with which information and ideas can spread now, vs. then. I was called three weeks ago and asked if I approved of the job Bush was doing. I answered, "No". Go ahead and flame me for my theory, but we don't need another Bush Bashing thread.

I think that there is a big difference in terms of situations inherited when comparing Bush and Carter. It's true the US had inflation, high interest rates, etc, during the Carter years, but so did the entire globe. Practically everyone was in a recession that was much worse than the USA's. Right now, the US is suffering economically while countries in Europe and Asia watch and hope that they don't get dragged down by these problems. Bush inherited the best economic situation of any president in recent history-- the DJIA had nearly quadrupled in the previous 8 years, and the yearly federal budget had just posted its first surplus in decades. I don't think it can be said that Carter was nearly as fortunate.

[Tully365]

80% of woman that get abortions suffer from PTSD.

What's the percentage for soldiers serving in Iraq currently running?

[101A]

I think that there is a big difference in terms of situations inherited when comparing Bush and Carter. It's true the US had inflation, high interest rates, etc, during the Carter years, but so did the entire globe. Practically everyone was in a recession that was much worse than the USA's. Right now, the US is suffering economically while countries in Europe and Asia watch and hope that they don't get dragged down by these problems. Bush inherited the best economic situation of any president in recent history-- the DJIA had nearly quadrupled in the previous 8 years, and the yearly federal budget had just posted its first surplus in decades. I don't think it can be said that Carter was nearly as fortunate.


He inherited an economy that is now recognized at the time as being in recession. He inherited an economy that had grown amazingly well; driven by the capital infusion of the .com boom. He also inherited a bubble.

If our economy is so bad, why do we have better unemployment numbers, and lower inflation that those countries that hope to not be "dragged down"?

[Tully365]

He inherited an economy that is now recognized at the time as being in recession. He inherited an economy that had grown amazingly well; driven by the capital infusion of the .com boom. He also inherited a bubble.

If our economy is so bad, why do we have better unemployment numbers, and lower inflation that those countries that hope to not be "dragged down"?

I'm not saying the situation of the US is unfixable or all gloom and doom-- just pointing out that it seems to me that Bush inherited a much better economic situation than Carter. I'm not even a big fan of Carter's, just so you know.

For example, if one person works his way up from a poor family situation to become a middle class citizen while another inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund which by age 35 is down to 2 million, is it fair to say the second guy is "better with finances" because he has 2 million while the first guy only has, say, $100,000? Sure, he has more actual money, but only because it was given to him-- not because he managed or invested it well. I just don't think you can favorably compare the US economy of 1976 to the US economy of 2000.

[jochhejaam]

I think it's fair that a bunch of men can decide what a women can do to her body.

Her body? That would mean that you are, uhm...your mother...

There are still more than a few thick-headed people that use this argument, in spite of scientific evidence that a baby is a separate individual at the point of conception.
The woman's body is the incubator for assisting this baby with the nourishment, oxygen, etc., needed to sustain his or her life until they emerge from the birth canal.
Abortion terminates this life.

In other words; abortion equals murder in the womb. Plain and simple.



And regarding selective abortion; for those that support abortion in general, don't feign abhorrence over selective abortion. An unconcionable 1.2 million times a year, in the U.S. alone, people don't give a dam if the baby has blue, green or brown eyes; blonde, brown or black hair; male or female; none of it matters, they just don't want the boy or girl messing up their life, so they go for the "medical execution".


Fact #1 - Abortion = No regard for the sanctity of human life

Fact #2 - The Democratic Party's platform supports the right to terminate life through abortion.

Conclusion from facts - Democrat leaders, and their supporters, do not value human life.


The proposed 2008 abortion plank:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion <the safety of the baby be damned, end their life!>, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right <how freakin' proud you must be!>.


Total insanity!

[Tully365]

There are still more than a few thick-headed people that use this argument, in spite of scientific evidence that a baby is a separate individual at the point of conception.
The woman's body is the incubator for assisting this baby with the nourishment, oxygen, etc., needed to sustain his or her life until they emerge from the birth canal.
Abortion terminates this life.

In other words; abortion equals murder in the womb. Plain and simple.

And regarding selective abortion; for those that support abortion in general, don't feign abhorrence over selective abortion. An unconcionable 1.2 million times a year, in the U.S. alone, people don't give a dam if the baby has blue, green or brown eyes; blonde, brown or black hair; male or female; none of it matters, they just don't want the boy or girl messing up their life, so they go for the "medical execution".


Fact #1 - Abortion = No regard for the sanctity of human life

Fact #2 - The Democratic Party's platform supports the right to terminate life through abortion.

Conclusion from facts - Democrat leaders, and their supporters, do not value human life.

[


I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between fact and opinion. Someone could easily use your same argument, but substitute the word "war" for "abortion":

Fact #1- war = no regard for the sanctity of human life.

fact #2- McCain & Palin support the war in Iraq

Conclusion- McCain and his supporters do not value human life.


It's an overly simplistic way of trying to sum up a very complex problem. And it is pure opinion, not fact.

[101A]

Her body? That would mean that you are, uhm...your mother...

There are still more than a few thick-headed people that use this argument, in spite of scientific evidence that a baby is a separate individual at the point of conception.
The woman's body is the incubator for assisting this baby with the nourishment, oxygen, etc., needed to sustain his or her life until they emerge from the birth canal.
Abortion terminates this life.

In other words; abortion equals murder in the womb. Plain and simple.



And regarding selective abortion; for those that support abortion in general, don't feign abhorrence over selective abortion. An unconcionable 1.2 million times a year, in the U.S. alone, people don't give a dam if the baby has blue, green or brown eyes; blonde, brown or black hair; male or female; none of it matters, they just don't want the boy or girl messing up their life, so they go for the "medical execution".


Fact #1 - Abortion = No regard for the sanctity of human life

Fact #2 - The Democratic Party's platform supports the right to terminate life through abortion.

Conclusion from facts - Democrat leaders, and their supporters, do not value human life.


The proposed 2008 abortion plank:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman's right to choose a safe and legal abortion <the safety of the baby be damned, end their life!>, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right <how freakin' proud you must be!>.


Total insanity!

Paglia, who writes in the Huffington Post; is at least honest about this.

She is pro-choice, and readily admits that abortion ends Human life.

She simply says that a person cannot be compelled to have another parasitic life attached to it. It's intellectually honest, but if the Dems, as a whole, were this honest, public sentiment would change. Therefore they use phrases about "when life begins", etc...to muddy the real issue.

Frankly, I think they stand or relatively firm ground with Paglia's view; as abhorrent to the senses it generally is.

[jochhejaam]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between fact and opinion.
That's opinion, not fact. (See, I do know the difference)



Factoids:
1. Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion is a process that ends that life
3. The Democratic Party Platform unequivocally throws their support behind the process that ends the life of the baby.
4. When voting Democrat, like it or not, you have cast a vote for their entire platform, thereby you have cast a vote that supports abortion. Nothing on the ballot you cast lets you opt out of that support.

Now, show me, as you have stated, where I have this "fundamental misunderstanding" between fact and opinion. If you were honest, you'd agree that your statement is opinion and my statements are fact.
If that's not the case, support your arguement with facts, and prove that what I've stated as fact, is merely opinion.




It's an overly simplistic way of trying to sum up a very complex problem. And it is pure opinion, not fact.
There is no complexity here, simply put, life begins and conception and ends with abortion.
That's fact, not opinion.

[Spurminator]

Fact: If you're voting on the abortion issue you've wasted your vote because Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Fact: The title of this thread is misleading.

[DarkReign]

If you were honest, you'd agree that your statement is opinion and my statements are fact.

No, I would completely disagree and Tully's argument for word subsitution is valid.



There is no complexity here, simply put, life begins and conception and ends with abortion.
That's fact, not opinion.

Once again, youre not being honest. There is a complexity here, otherwise it wouldnt be up for debate if everything were as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Obviously, we all know your position. But just because you find yourself on the one side of an equation does not necessarily make you and your position correct. It makes an opinion, which is worth no more or less than anyone elses.

Sorry if that bothers you.

[DarkReign]

Fact: If you're voting on the abortion issue you've wasted your vote because Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.


....as in will never be overturned.

[jochhejaam]

Once again, youre not being honest.
Compelling argument, no doubt the facts that you have given in support of my dishonesty are persuasive...wait a minute, you didn't present any arguments.
That would put your post in the "opinion" category, also known as a non-factual opinion.

You could have at least attempted to argue the facts that I presented (Until you do we'll have to assume that you did not because you could not).





There is a complexity here, otherwise it wouldnt be up for debate if everything were as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Life beginning at conception is not up for debate, life ending with abortion is not up for debate.
Nothing complex there, that's a ruse that the supporters of abortion use to hide from the fact that they have taken a human life.




Obviously, we all know your position. But just because you find yourself on the one side of an equation does not necessarily make you and your position correct. It makes an opinion, which is worth no more or less than anyone elses.
That's not an argument against my position.




Sorry if that bothers you.
:lol You've posted nothing of substance, no arguments, nothing at all, why would that bother me?


Big time fail DR

[jochhejaam]

Fact: If you're voting on the abortion issue you've wasted your vote because Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.
1. Submit your proof that Roe v Wade will not be overturned.

2. God has created human life (you're a Christian, so I don't think you'll argue this point), He says that we are beautifully woven in our mothers womb, furthermore He states that He "hates the shedding of innocent blood", says that it "would be better for a millstone to hung around someone's neck and for them to be cast into the sea" for those that would harm his "little ones".

I will state without reservation that God most assuredly hates abortion, and yet you contend that for me to cast a vote that lines up with His view on the sanctity and sacredness of human life is a waste?
Between you and God, whose opinion do you think I'm more interested in? Whose opinion are you more interested in?


If you feel it's a waste, so be it, but don't tell me, with God as our audience, that it's a waste for me to vote along scriptural lines.

[Spurminator]

All I'm saying is you're being duped if you think either administration is going to overturn Roe (I'd never say "never" because things change, but we're nowhere near that point.) It's a wedge issue designed to keep the masses firmly entrenched on either of the two sides. You're free to do whatever you want, but if abortion is the one issue that's keeping you from voting for one side or the other, I think it's a waste. If you support the Republicans on a number of issues, including abortion, then it's not a waste because you probably would have voted for them anyway.

And God hates adultery and divorce too but I would not support criminalizing it. Frankly, God hates a lot of the things both parties stand for (in word and in practice).

[101A]

All I'm saying is you're being duped if you think either administration is going to overturn Roe (I'd never say "never" because things change, but we're nowhere near that point.) It's a wedge issue designed to keep the masses firmly entrenched on either of the two sides. You're free to do whatever you want, but if abortion is the one issue that's keeping you from voting for one side or the other, I think it's a waste.

And God hates adultery and divorce too but I would not support criminalizing it. Frankly, God hates a lot of the things both parties stand for (in word and in practice).


The relatively conservative court THIS year had a chance to review Roe; they passed.

The administration is irrelevant, and the Supreme Court ain't biting.

[jochhejaam]

Paglia, who writes in the Huffington Post; is at least honest about this.

She is pro-choice, and readily admits that abortion ends Human life.

She simply says that a person cannot be compelled to have another parasitic life attached to it. It's intellectually honest, but if the Dems, as a whole, were this honest, public sentiment would change. Therefore they use phrases about "when life begins", etc...to muddy the real issue.

Frankly, I think they stand or relatively firm ground with Paglia's view; as abhorrent to the senses it generally is.


Honesty goes a long way with me, take a stand and have the intestinal fortitude to proclaim with clarity what that stand is.

Don't be the weasel that hides behind the "oh, it's such a complex issue" or the politician that claims that "I'm personally against taking the life in the womb, but I support a woman's right to take that life".
Screw that you hypocrites, you have no regard for the sanctity of human life!

[jochhejaam]

All I'm saying is you're being duped if you think either administration is going to overturn Roe (I'd never say "never" because things change, but we're nowhere near that point.)

I'm not being duped, my opinion is that abortion law is established and accepted to the point that it is virtually irreversible.




You're free to do whatever you want, but if abortion is the one issue that's keeping you from voting for one side or the other, I think it's a waste. If you support the Republicans on a number of issues, including abortion, then it's not a waste because you probably would have voted for them anyway.
I respect your opinion but I don't ascribe to your thought that voting one's conscience is a waste. And I do support the Republicans on far more than one issue.




And God hates adultery and divorce too but I would not support criminalizing it.
Are you equating the sin of taking an innocent life (abortion) to adultery and divorce?

[101A]

And God hates adultery and divorce too but I would not support criminalizing it. Frankly, God hates a lot of the things both parties stand for (in word and in practice).

Got a ex-buddy whose wife worked two jobs to put him through medical school - then kept working through his residency WHILE popping out 4 kids. Now the a-hole's landed a $450,000 salary with a Dr. Corp - got himself a girlfriend and wants a divorce. They are in Texas - no alimony.

Fuck if I don't support criminalizing (or severely punishing) that.

[Oh, Gee!!]

ur just mad cuz you didn't think of doing it first

[Shastafarian]

Individual sperm are living cells. They are a probability. That probability is that they will fertilize an egg. How can all you guys who are saying "life begins at conception" claim that sperm don't matter? I would wager that by your logic, life would begin at the point of ejaculation. So maybe you guys should be worried about getting arrested for busting into tissues for all these years. Assuming you get what you want and outlaw abortion all together.

[101A]

Individual sperm are living cells. They are a probability. That probability is that they will fertilize an egg. How can all you guys who are saying "life begins at conception" claim that sperm don't matter? I would wager that by your logic, life would begin at the point of ejaculation. So maybe you guys should be worried about getting arrested for busting into tissues for all these years. Assuming you get what you want and outlaw abortion all together.


Have you read the thread?

I think the conservatives are in agreement that, regardless of what we "want"; abortion is NOT going to be outlawed. It is off the table.

I don't what you're ranting about with Sperm cells.

[Shastafarian]

Have you read the thread?

I think the conservatives are in agreement that, regardless of what we "want"; abortion is NOT going to be outlawed. It is off the table.

I don't what you're ranting about with Sperm cells.

I'm "ranting" about you guys saying life begins at conception.

[Spurminator]

Are you equating the sin of taking an innocent life (abortion) to adultery and divorce?

In terms of how God views them, yes.

[DarkReign]

Big time fail DR

Meh...

Seeing as I am arguing with someone who cites God as a source of empirical information, and says opinions like "life begins at conception", Ill just have to go ahead and live with myself after I consider the source.

[101A]

I'm "ranting" about you guys saying life begins at conception.


And what do YOU say happens at conception?

[Shastafarian]

One cell is integrated into another.

[101A]

One cell is integrated into another.

...and the result is.....

[Tully365]

2. God has created human life (you're a Christian, so I don't think you'll argue this point), He says that we are beautifully woven in our mothers womb, furthermore He states that He "hates the shedding of innocent blood", says that it "would be better for a millstone to hung around someone's neck and for them to be cast into the sea" for those that would harm his "little ones".



Do you think then that God would view the inevitable shedding of innocent blood in war as unavoidable collateral damage, which while unpleasant still doesn't make ending the war a moral necessity? Would God support human pre-emptive strikes that include collateral damage?

[Shastafarian]

...and the result is.....

You mean after weeks where there is no cell differentiation? I would say that after cell differentiation begins, then maybe it becomes a human. Hard to speak on the subject when I haven't researched it in serious depth.

[DarkReign]

And what do YOU say happens at conception?


Depends on your definition of life.

To me, life begins at consciousness. That is a debate. But not according to some here.

[101A]

Depends on your definition of life.

To me, life begins at consciousness. That is a debate. But not according to some here.


Slippery slope, DR; is someone in a COMA alive? Asleep?

Define consciousness. When I push on my wife's belly, and the baby kicks, is that conscious? A 15 IQ?

And I never said "A Human Being" - I said "Life" or extrapolated "Human Life". I do not deny that their is debate, but I do believe it to be intellectually dishonest. At conception, the resultant embryo is small, only a few cells, but is "human life". It ain't a cow or an oak tree; it's not gonna grow into anything BUT a human. How the hell else can we farm Human cells from it?

[Shastafarian]

At conception, the resultant embryo is small, only a few cells, but is "human life". It ain't a cow or an oak tree; it's not gonna grow into anything BUT a human. How the hell else can we farm Human cells from it?

Why is the integration of cells the point where life begins? Why doesn't it begin when the sperm enter the vagina?

[101A]

You mean after weeks where there is no cell differentiation? I would say that after cell differentiation begins, then maybe it becomes a human. Hard to speak on the subject when I haven't researched it in serious depth.

Gastrulation begins on the seventh day.

[101A]

Why is the integration of cells the point where life begins? Why doesn't it begin when the sperm enter the vagina?

Dude, you need to call your dad, and ask him to tell you the, now this is important, don't get it wrong:

"Birds and Beas" talk.

He'll know what I mean.

[Spurminator]

"Birds and Beas" talk.


http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/070315/dvd/maude_l.jpg

How did I get dragged into this?

[Shastafarian]

Maybe I should spell it out for ya. You're not ending a human life if you "abort" right after conception. You're aborting the possibility of a human life. Again I don't know enough about the biology (nice google search regarding gastrulation) to claim to know when things like the brain and heart form or when there is unarguable evidence of human traits.

[101A]

Maybe I should spell it out for ya. You're not ending a human life if you "abort" right after conception. You're aborting the possibility of a human life. Again I don't know enough about the biology (nice google search regarding gastrulation) to claim to know when things like the brain and heart form or when there is unarguable evidence of human traits.


Didn't Google; opened one of my Wife's books.

Fair enough.

[Tully365]

The "when life begins" argument will never be settled. I've listened to people argue this point for 30 years now and it's extremely rare to see someone change their views when the opposition presents theirs. For me, the difference is in how one views the quality and dimensions of a life. I'm pro-choice, but I don't celebrate abortion-- it's always going to be a difficult decision in a person's life. But if I was presented with a scenario where I had to choose between saving the life of a 2 year old child or a 2 month old fetus, I would choose the 2 year old... not because the 2 month old fetus isn't deserving of respect, but because I view the 2 year old as somehow more alive. And I feel the same way about those rare giving-birth scenarios where the birth is a difficult, troubled situation and the doctor has to choose between saving the life of the mother or the life of the child-- it's not an easy or fun decision to make, but I would choose saving the life of the mother.

I think this issue (especially on internet forums) brings out the worst in many people. Subtlety and the ability to admit conflicted feelings about a difficult topic are rarely allowed to be discussed because the loudest throng of voices are too busy angrily calling each other names.

[101A]

The "when life begins" argument will never be settled. I've listened to people argue this point for 30 years now and it's extremely rare to see someone change their views when the opposition presents theirs. For me, the difference is in how one views the quality and dimensions of a life. I'm pro-choice, but I don't celebrate abortion-- it's always going to be a difficult decision in a person's life. But if I was presented with a scenario where I had to choose between saving the life of a 2 year old child or a 2 month old fetus, I would choose the 2 year old... not because the 2 month old fetus isn't deserving of respect, but because I view the 2 year old as somehow more alive. And I feel the same way about those rare giving-birth scenarios where the birth is a difficult, troubled situation and the doctor has to choose between saving the life of the mother or the life of the child-- it's not an easy or fun decision to make, but I would choose saving the life of the mother.

I think this issue (especially on internet forums) brings out the worst in many people. Subtlety and the ability to admit conflicted feelings about a difficult topic are rarely allowed to be discussed because the loudest throng of voices are too busy angrily calling each other names.

Good post.

FWIW; I've never heard anybody argue that the two year old child, nor the mother's lives were less valuable than the fetus's.

[DarkReign]

Slippery slope, DR; is someone in a COMA alive? Asleep?

Define consciousness. When I push on my wife's belly, and the baby kicks, is that conscious? A 15 IQ?

And I never said "A Human Being" - I said "Life" or extrapolated "Human Life". I do not deny that their is debate, but I do believe it to be intellectually dishonest. At conception, the resultant embryo is small, only a few cells, but is "human life". It ain't a cow or an oak tree; it's not gonna grow into anything BUT a human. How the hell else can we farm Human cells from it?

Whoa whoa whoa....

Everything you just said, I agree with (except the coma analogy, I think we agree on that one hands down).

My point was JJ says there is "no debate" on this issue, summarily dismissing the entire argument out of hand on the basis that his belief says life begins at contraception.

I was playing devil's advocate in the sense that just because one says there is no argument, the fact that this thread has reached 3 pages proves otherwise.

I stated my personal belief on what life is (in human terms, not animal or insect). That doesnt mean I support abortion, or that I would abort an unplanned pregnancy. Quite the opposite in fact.

But I am of the mind that the government has no business in "moral law".

Whomever reads that line, please do not extrapolate that into "what about murder?" because thats a weak argument.

Abortion and homosexual couples are two things I deem the government to be "out of". Let the locals determine their merits. The moment the Supreme Court ruled on abortion it cemented it as lawful forever across the land.

So what if a pregnant mother had to travel to another state to get a legitimate abortion (as opposed to a back alley)? Nobody said life was easy or free, you made the decision, you live with the consequences of that.

Should abortion be covered by insurance? Unless its a health-related issue, of course not.

Its people like JJ who piss me off. So covinced of their own moral superiority that pushing their will upon the masses, and what that means to be free, is of little importance to them. So long as society conforms to their chosen path, their chosen moral code, everything is fine. No equivalence, no debate, no openmindedness or respect for others personal belief systems.

Its Jesus Christ and Christianity or eternal damnation. With such a limited view on life, I shudder to think of their daily interactions with (*gasp*) other people! "The mongrels! The heathens! The outrage on daily basis they must endure!"

"All this immorality must be cleansed! We will legislate our belief unto them, by choice or by force! We are righteous! The Bible told us so!"

That sort of crap belong in works of fiction or accounts of Middle Age history, not the here and now. But suffice to say, Im sure he cares what a moral-less, heathen like me thinks as much as I care what a bible-thumping, simplistic sheep like he does.

The difference is, I am willing to accept his existence in my world. He on the other hand....

[DarkReign]

Slippery slope, DR; is someone in a COMA alive? Asleep?

Define consciousness. When I push on my wife's belly, and the baby kicks, is that conscious? A 15 IQ?

And I never said "A Human Being" - I said "Life" or extrapolated "Human Life". I do not deny that their is debate, but I do believe it to be intellectually dishonest. At conception, the resultant embryo is small, only a few cells, but is "human life". It ain't a cow or an oak tree; it's not gonna grow into anything BUT a human. How the hell else can we farm Human cells from it?

To more directly answer this post, I was trying to delineate the difference between a few thousand cells smaller than a ping-pong ball and a baby in the womb with the ability to have rudimentary limb control.

Re-reading that above paragraph doesnt make it any more clear. Basically, the fetus is a cellular blob for the first trimester that takes little shape (no research, just memory here). Afterwords, it has legs, hands, eyes, a brain.

I guess the brain could be used as a precursor.

Honestly, Ive never given this much thought. The whole "there is no debate about this" thing is what pissed me off.

[Tully365]

Good post.

FWIW; I've never heard anybody argue that the two year old child, nor the mother's lives were less valuable than the fetus's.

Thanks. I've heard the Mother/child debate from others, and in a philosophy class 20 years ago. The main purpose of these analogies is just to show that most of us would gauge different levels of "life" to people in real situations. Philosophies from Socrates to utilitarianism have used these types of questions when discussing moral decisions. One I've heard a lot is this scenario: if you were a fireman entering a burning building to look for two people but those people were on opposite sides of the building and you were pretty sure that you'd only be able to save one... which one would you save? What if you knew that one was the world's leading heart surgeon and the other was a 70 year old wino with terminal cancer? Is it fair to say the Surgeon's life is "more valuable" than the wino's? .... questions of that sort. I absolutely understand the view that a 3 day old fetus is a life, but I would find it very difficult to say that fetus is on an equal level with a 30 year old woman or a 10 year old child, and I wouldn't hesitate for a second to say that I find the lives of the latter two more sacred than that of the 3 day old fetus.

[101A]

Thanks. I've heard the Mother/child debate from others, and in a philosophy class 20 years ago.


:lol We might have been in the same class; never mind, for me it was 19 years ago.

[Tully365]

:lol We might have been in the same class; never mind, for me it was 19 years ago.

:lol dude... you're old.

[jochhejaam]

Meh...

Seeing as I am arguing with someone who cites God as a source of empirical information, and says opinions like "life begins at conception", Ill just have to go ahead and live with myself after I consider the source.

Considering the source? :lmao


"Arguing with someone who cites God";

This from someone who threw the Bible away after reading a couple of pages (tell me, is it true that ignorance is bliss?).

You're dsyfunctional in this area to the extent that when your submitted opinions can't possibly come across in a way other than making you look like a total clown.

"Sorry if that bothers you".



Oh, hate to bring it up again, but you cited the facts I posted earlier as "opinion". I'm still waiting for you to take apart my "facts" with facts of you own (I won't hold my breath).



I'll post this again for "those like" you and shasta who think life beginning at conception is opinion; (apologies to the majority who have already read it, and to those that don't argue the point)

The facts are in: life begins at conception

When does human life begin?

The most distinguished scientific meeting of recent years that considered this question in depth was the First International Conference on Abortion, held in Washington D.C., in October 1967. It brought together authorities from around the world in the fields of medicine, law, ethics and social sciences. The first major question considered by the medical group was, "When does human life begin?" Their unanimous conclusion (19-1) was as follows: "The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of the sperm and the egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, at which point we could say that this was not human life." They continued, "The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week child and a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation." (This quotation is taken from Handbook on Abortion by Dr. J.C. Willke.)

Some More Quotations

"It is now of unquestionable certainty that a human being comes into existence precisely at the moment when the sperm combines with the egg. When the sperm and egg nuclei unite, all the characteristics, such as colour of eyes, hair, skin, that make a unique personality are laid down determinatively." Dr. H. Ratner, Report April 1966.

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.

"The birth of a human life really occurs at the moment the mother's cell is fertilized by one of the father's sperm cells." Life magazine, "Drama of Life before Birth," April 1965.

"A baby who has just been born is not brand new; he already has a life story. Human life begins when the sperm of the father enters the ovum or egg of the mother." The Life Cycle Library for Young People.

"When the sperm and egg fuse, the newly-formed cell has conferred upon it the degree of Homo Sapiens, with all the rights and privileges pertaining." (Note, "Rights and Privileges.") Peter Amenta, Ph.D. Professor of Embryology, Hahnemann Medical School.

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at conception. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence, from conception to adulthood, and any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes the termination of a human life." Dr. A.M. Bongioanni, professor of obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

"I oppose abortion. I do so, first because I accept what is biologically manifest - human life commences at the time of conception - and secondly, because I believe it is wrong to take an innocent human life under any circumstances." Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology.

http://www.theinterim.com/1999/oct/15frted.html

[Shastafarian]

Did you just call me a monkey?

Metabolic View:

The metabolic view takes the stance that a single developmental moment marking the beginning of human life does not exist. Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism. Thus, neither the union of two gametes nor any developmental point thereafter should be designated as the beginning of new life.

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. (score one for you dipshit....though it's still not a "fact")

Embryological View:

In contrast to the genetic view, the embryological view states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation.

Neurological view:

Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life.

Ecological / Technological view:

Advocates of the neurological view contend that human life begins when a developing fetus acquires humanness, a point designated by brain activity that can be described as characteristically human. But if this developing fetus is separated from its mother at an early stage, regardless of the state of neural development, the fetus will be unable to sustain life on its own. The total dependence of the developing fetus for the majority of gestation catalyzed the formation of another view of when human life begins. The ecological/technological view of when human life begins designates the point when an individual can exist separately from the environment in which it was dependent for development (i.e., its mother's womb)

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=Shastafarian;2779400]Did you just call me a monkey?
[B]
I did, but it wans't to be taken literally...

And with a newborn arriving within my extended family (possibly any minute now),I must pass on further discussion for a day or two.

[ChuckD]

As technology improves, and we can learn more and more about what traits our potential offspring might/might not have.....selective abortion is inevitable. Child gonna be gay? Abort it. Want a boy? Abort the girls. Brown eyes? Sorry. Girl from the Midwest gets knocked up by a foreign black guy? Ooops, that happened; good thing abortion was illegal, huh?

Only Republicans would consider either of those a bad thing, and we all know they would NEVER abort a fetus, would they?

[jochhejaam]

Genetic View:

The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins. This event is often described as taking place at fertilization, thus fertilization marks the beginning of human life. (score one for you dipshit....though it's still not a "fact")




Thanks for reinforcing what was already stated, that life begins at conception, and it’s “not a fact” because you say it isn’t? That is a thorough and compelling argument against the genetic view shasta. You have truly mastered the art of polemics.


And, as if the act of abortion isn’t reprehensible enough, you have to further debase the act by recklessly labeling an argument that you don’t agree with as having “scored a point”. What is it, first one to 5 wins a prize?
There are no "points" scored in an abortion, every sixteen seconds another baby is aborted...there are no winners.


In summary;
1, Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion, by definition, ends that life.
3. Abortion activists and their many supporters don’t give a dam about that life.

Man up and admit that the carnage that is abortion doesn’t bother you.

[Shastafarian]

Thanks for reinforcing what was already stated, that life begins at conception, and it’s “not a fact” because you say it isn’t? That is a thorough and compelling argument against the genetic view shasta. You have truly mastered the art of polemics.


And, as if the act of abortion isn’t reprehensible enough, you have to further debase the act by recklessly labeling an argument that you don’t agree with as having “scored a point”. What is it, first one to 5 wins a prize?
There are no "points" scored in an abortion, every sixteen seconds another baby is aborted...there are no winners.


In summary;
1, Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion, by definition, ends that life.
3. Abortion activists and their many supporters don’t give a dam about that life.
Do you actually have a brain or what? You only quoted ONE of the theories on when life begins. Then you use it to say it's a fact that life begins at conception. Do you think people can't read or something?


Man up and admit that the carnage that is abortion doesn’t bother you.
Are you pro-death penalty?

[The Reckoning]

well, the cerebral hemispheres form during the seventh week of development. thats when consciousness, environmental awareness, and human thought patterns begin to take shape (according to science, which is just starting to scratch the surface on how the brain works)

[SnakeBoy]

From a biological standpoint you really can't make any valid argument against life beginning at conception.

However, you could make reasonable arguments against human life beginning at conception from a theological standpoint. Even within the christian faith there are differing views about when one recieves a soul or even if the soul is a seperate entity from the body or not. Add all the other faiths into the mix and it is too complex of an argument for a sports/political forum.

I am pro choice, anti roe v. wade. I wouldn't say roe will never be overturned (I hope it is someday). It is not accurate for the pro abortionist's to argue that if roe is overturned that abortion will be illegal. It will NEVER be completely illegal in this country. All that will happen is control of the issue will return to the states where abortion laws will more accurately reflect the views/morals of the majority of people in those states. As it stands right now, the issue at the federal level is driven by minority group of radical pro-abortionists (not pro choice). These are people who make no distinction between an abortion at 8 weeks or 8 months. A view that is reprehensible, immoral by any standard, and does not reflect the view of most women in this country. The majority view from all unbiased polling that I have ever seen would be best described as "pro choice with limits".

[ElNono]

Who is this God fella you guys speak of?
I would also like to see a copy of the 'Scientific Law of Human Life' that factually and scientifically proves that life is created at conception. I'm curious to see what tests were performed and what were the results obtained.
A copy in PDF format would be fine.

[jochhejaam]

Do you actually have a brain or what? You only quoted ONE of the theories on when life begins. Then you use it to say it's a fact that life begins at conception. Do you think people can't read or something?

It's a fact.

For the comprehension challenged, resident tinfoil hats that are unable to differentiate between theory, view and fact, STOP READING HERE! (Shasta, you may now commence with another of your infantile rants)

Here's the scientific basis supporting the fact that life begins at conception

THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE

There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible

The question as to when human life and personhood begins has been made a controversial issue because the proponents of abortion do not want it to begin at least before the first 24 weeks of gestation. There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible. These facts have been obscured on both sides by individuals who do not possess the necessary education, training and experience in science to evaluate and interpret the materials and render valid conclusions or who, influenced by their religious or chauvinistic fervor have reached erroneous or untenable suppositions and conclusions, argumentum ad hominem. Justice Blackmun opined in Roe P. Wade that the determination as to when life and personhood begins is a difficult decision that the court is not in a position to speculate on and there in does not have the resolve since those trained in medicine are unable to arrive at any consensus. The U. S. Supreme Court Justices then carried their defective reasoning even further in Roe v. Wade when in contrast with all other civilized societies, ruled that the unborn is a non-person regardless as to whether it is a human being or not. This decision then made the unborn ineligible for the protection that is guaranteed to all human persons under the U. S. Constitution. What Blackmun and the other U. S. Justices were really saying was that maybe human life and personhood begins at conception but since we do not know for sure, we will allow abortion until someone proves differently. This is the mentality of most of the ardent supporters of abortion which is in sharp contrast to logical reasoning when applied to possible life or death situations. In the field of medicine, the proper medical diagnostic approach must proceed in a rational manner with the safety of the patient always foremost, primum non nocere, first do no harm. An example of this is the patient with chest pain. Here, it behooves the physician to consider chest pain as heart related until proven otherwise even though chest pain is only heart related in less than 20 % of the cases since an error in diagnosis may cause the patient his life. I have personally investigated many unfortunate cases in my role as medical examiner, where this approach was neglected by physicians and the patients subsequently died. In Roe vs. Wade, millions of human beings were legally murdered by the stroke of a pen. Ergo, the Roe versus Wade Decision should have utilized the premise, ...a human person until proven otherwise...thereby preventing. the slaughter of millions of innocent human beings. In the words of Louis Brandeis, "if we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable"
In recent years there has been a revolution in genetics that confirmed what geneticists and embryologists have been saying for years, that human life with all of its characteristics for a particular human being must be coded in the fertilized egg. In 1948, Dr. Bradley Patten, one of the most distinguished embryologists in the world definitively related in his textbook ( I ). "It Is the penetration of the ovum by the spermatzoon and the resulting mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual. In the midst of the current Genetic Revolution, one of the foremost, highly honored geneticist in the world, Jerome Lejeune, M. D., Ph.D., Professor of Genetics at the University of Paris and Sorbonne, related, "...each of us has a unique beginning, the moment of conception...when the information carried by the sperm and by the ovum have encountered each other, then a new human being is defined because its own personal and human constitution is entirely spelled out. The information which is inside the first cell obviously tells this cell all the tricks of the trade to build himself as the individual this cell is already....to build that particular individual which we will call later Margaret or Paul or Peter, it's already there, but it's so small we cannot see it ...It’s what life is, the formula is there; ....if you allow the formula to be expanded by itself, just giving shelter and nurture, then you have the development of the full person "


In order to understand why we now know and not just infer that human life begins at the time of conception, it is important that we understand some of the fundamental concepts in genetics. Both the human spermatozoa and the human egg each contain 23 chromosomes. When the spermatozoa penetrates the ovum, the 23 chromosomes from each, arrange themselves in 23 pairs or 46 chromosomes

One chromosome from each pair is from each parent. It is at this moment that both fertilization and human life begins and the cell divides into 2 cells, then 4 cells, 8 cells, 16 cells and so forth until the complete human body is formed.
The fertilized egg is called the zygote. Each chromosome is packed with a long string of deoxyribosenucleic acid commonly known as DNA. Each of these strings of DNA is composed of two tightly, intertwined, strands which comprise the spiral staircase structure discovered by Nobelists, Crick and Watson in 1953.


For the sake of bandwidth I won't post the entire article. For the open-minded, it's a quick and quite remarkable read.
http://e-forensicmedicine.net/code.htm

[Shastafarian]

Man you are one mindless drone. That article is so biased I think it's easy to see where that person stands on abortion (NOT WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS!). I also like how none of his sources are post-1994. I'll ask you this. Would you have a funeral for a fetus that died let's say 3 weeks into their gestation? It's a person right so you should have a funeral every time there is a miscarriage.

It is estimated that about 15 to 20% of known pregnancies will end in miscarriage.


So are you in favor of capital punishment? I'm curious to know considering you're so adamant about saving the "lives" of innocent unborn people.

[sabar]

I don't remember any of my life before the age of 2. I can't even honestly say I existed during that time period.

Since the mind isn't even developed enough to store these memories or really anything of significance, then why is infanticide illegal? There is clearly something "more" than consciousness or pain tolerance or whatever that defines life.

A 7 year old dog is more sentient than a 1 month year old child, yet people would not care if you killed the animal but would be horrified at killing the human. What gives the infant the right to life over the fetus? The sole fact that it is no longer parasitic to the mother? Then is it wrong to kill a fetus in a test tube? Why can a city euthanize a thousand unwanted pets a day, but can't do the same to a newborn baby when they have the same intellect? Why can we euthanize our pets and mercy kill them but not people? Is it murder if I kill someone in an persistent coma?

Clearly we have a long way to go in answering these questions.
We have no idea what life is.

[Shastafarian]

Clearly we have a long way to go in answering these questions.
We have no idea what life is.

Haven't you heard? "It's a fact".

[SnakeBoy]

We have no idea what life is.

Go kill a pregnant woman and see how many murders you get charged with. We know.

[Shastafarian]

Go kill a pregnant woman and see how many murders you get charged with. We know.

Again that has to do with the possibility of life. It is up to the mother to have an abortion. If someone takes that right away and kills her and the baby, then it was the termination of a wanted pregnancy. That pregnancy would have come to term and it would've become a human life.

[jochhejaam]

Man you are one mindless drone. That article is so biased I think it's easy to see where that person stands on abortion (NOT WHEN HUMAN LIFE BEGINS!).

It clearly shows where life begins, and respecting life (what you ignorantly refer to as bias) is your basis for his research being skewed? I fail to follow the logic of that argument (don’t bother trying to explain, it’s flat out ridiculous).

If scientific research is skewed because of the researchers personal opinion (it's not), then throw away all conclusions about when life begins that are written by pro-abortion researchers. Using your “logic” scientific research, unless performed by someone indifferent to its outcome, is to be taken with a grain of salt.

I’ll throw you a sop shasta; you have a penchant for stupefying an issue. (enjoy the compliment, based on your posts here, I don’t foresee another coming anytime soon).







I also like how none of his sources are post-1994.
Because the era of true knowledge began in 1995. Got it...







I'll ask you this. Would you have a funeral for a fetus that died let's say 3 weeks into their gestation? It's a person right so you should have a funeral every time there is a miscarriage.
You are a putz.




So are you in favor of capital punishment?
In what respect shasta? (Yeah, I know, that didn't make sense, just thought I'd descend to a level that you're comfortable with)





I'm curious to know
Hope you're not losing sleep over it.

[ElNono]

If scientific research is skewed because of the researchers personal opinion (it's not), then throw away all conclusions about when life begins that are written by pro-abortion researchers.



I would also like to see a copy of the 'Scientific Law of Human Life' that factually and scientifically proves that life is created at conception. I'm curious to see what tests were performed and what were the results obtained.
A copy in PDF format would be fine.

[ElNono]

And BTW, straight from the article you referenced:



THE CODE FOR HUMAN LIFE
[Reprinted from the Catholic Answer 9: 40-45,1996]

A fertilized human egg at the moment of Conception, is the opinion of the creator that a human life at that instant, must begin.... F. Zugibe


Facts indeed... :rolleyes

[Shastafarian]

It clearly shows where life begins, and respecting life (what you ignorantly refer to as bias) is your basis for his research being skewed? I fail to follow the logic of that argument (don’t bother trying to explain, it’s flat out ridiculous).

If scientific research is skewed because of the researchers personal opinion (it's not), then throw away all conclusions about when life begins that are written by pro-abortion researchers. Using your “logic” scientific research, unless performed by someone indifferent to its outcome, is to be taken with a grain of salt.
Um...YES





Because the era of true knowledge began in 1995. Got it...

Thanks for agreeing with me! Aw man are you being sarcastic? That's funny. Wait no it's not. Are you seriously saying that there couldn't possibly be anything since 1995 that would refute scientific findings of a guy who is pro-life?








You are a putz.

Coming from a guy like you I wear this as a badge of honor.





In what respect shasta? (Yeah, I know, that didn't make sense, just thought I'd descend to a level that you're comfortable with)

....leave the comedy to people who can actually pull it off. I'm asking because you're obviously so pro-life that you wouldn't be caught dead (PUN INTENDED!) supporting something that has killed, in a rather horrible manner, innocent people. But I doubt you'll tell me whether or not you support killing innocent people. You only care about fetuses because god supposedly told you to care. Wait, that's right. No he/she/it didn't. I can't seem to remember anything in the bible that talks about abortion.






Hope you're not losing sleep over it.

I lose sleep over the fear that ignorant people like you have a say in the direction of the country.

[Shastafarian]

And BTW, straight from the article you referenced:



Facts indeed... :rolleyes

:lol I didn't even catch that one.

[jochhejaam]

And BTW, straight from the article you referenced:

"it is the opinion of the creator"
Facts indeed... :rolleyes

Nice detective work elnono, except that Zugibe and the "creator" aren't one and the same. Find where the "creator" did the scientific research and you have a point.

A copy of that in PDF form will suffice.





In Zubige's words;

"There, however, should be no controversy because the scientific facts are incontrovertible". F. Zugibe

RIF

[jochhejaam]

:lol I didn't even catch that one.

To the surprise of no one.

[travis2]

keep fighting the good fight, JJ...:tu

[Shastafarian]

Nice detective work elnono, except that Zugibe and the "creator" aren't one and the same. Find where the "creator" did the scientific research and you have a point.



Then who, may I ask, is the creator?

[I Love Me Some Me]

So...if there is at least a doubt, a current intellectual debate about when life begins, why should we err on the side of ending the life?

[Shastafarian]

So...if there is at least a doubt, a current intellectual debate about when life begins, why should we err on the side of ending the life?

We aren't doing anything. It's up to the person in whom the "person" resides. Still waitin on all those pro-"lifers" to come forward and say whether they are for capital punishment.

[ElNono]

Nice detective work elnono

Detective work? It's bolded right after the title, as a summary of the article's contents.


except that Zugibe and the "creator" aren't one and the same. Find where the "creator" did the scientific research and you have a point.
A copy of that in PDF form will suffice.


Weak attempt to change the subject. It doesn't matter who 'the creator' is. What we're discussing here is wether what you posted is opinion or fact. And it's clearly opinion, as stated in the document itself. C'mon, you know very well how the scientific method works. People throw theories (which is nothing but opinions) and then proceed to verify the claims of those theories. If all claims are verified, then it becomes a scientific law (and fact). Thus, my request for the 'Scientific Law of Human Life'. Still waiting for you to produce that document.

[101A]

We aren't doing anything. It's up to the person in whom the "person" resides. Still waitin on all those pro-"lifers" to come forward and say whether they are for capital punishment.

I'm not for capital punishment.

The reasoning, however, is completely unrelated to why I am opposed to abortion.

[RandomGuy]

I am generally against abortion, but oppose criminalisation of the procedure.

An interesting allegory to the whole debate can be seen here where studies show a drop in crime rates 18 years after abortion is legalized. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)

[Shastafarian]

What's the reason then?

[2centsworth]

Anyone going to attempt to argue against the science JJ has presented? I know it's complex, but what does the science say in your own words.

[Shastafarian]

Anyone going to attempt to argue against the science JJ has presented? I know it's complex, but what does the science say in your own words.

I would attempt it but golly-gee-whiz I just don't understand all those big words. JJ, can you explain the science to us? Then I'm sure we'd be more than willing to argue against it.

[ElNono]

Anyone going to attempt to argue against the science JJ has presented? I know it's complex, but what does the science say in your own words.

It was already debunked in this post:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2779400&postcount=76

Different scientists with different backgrounds have different theories of when does life begins.

Perhaps you didn't read the thread in it's entirety?

And FWIW, I'm actually against abortion, with the sole exception being rape cases.