Bush nominates Alito to SCOTUS

[ChumpDumper]

SW's words illustrate my point that conservatives working to overturn Roe do so at their political peril.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=SpursWoman]

The remark about Bible school = being facetious. I didn't realize I needed to point that out.

Either forego the facetiousness or notate it as such, other than that I would have no way of knowing.

I'm not side-stepping anything. Your absolute, entire argument is based on faith or emotions, which is 100% subjective.

Another fic ious assertion on your part, unfortunately this is becoming a habitual occurence.

Fact #1 the baby facing abortion has no capacity to defend himself or herself and therefore there are no survivors.


Facts #2 - #7
Sixteen weeks old. The baby can grasp with his/her hands, kick, or even somersault. Baby now has a sucking reflex. If a bitter solution is introduced into the amniotic fluid, all swallowing stops, however, if a sugary solution is introduced, the baby swallows twice as fast as before! The baby can also get the hiccups just about now.

Facts #8 - #11 25 weeks: 10" now, Skin now becomes opaque instead of transparent. The heartbeat can be heard by someone outside the body now by placing an ear on the belly. If you talk or sing, he can hear you.

Fact #12
if someone took away your life sustaining necessities you'd die too (In response to you saying "None would survive a premature birth at 8 weeks)"

There are a lot of variables involved in defining a pregnancy than when *life* begins...

How many cons utes "a lot" and would you mind providing me with a list of what this "a lot"?

and if my inclination to bring those up also bothers you then too damn bad

Except for the 18 days and the heart-beating part, .

All it takes is one powerful reason.

the rest of your argument wouldn't mean crap to someone who doesn't believe in God

Data would go a long way in furthering this arguement (do you have any?), other than that it's only your opinion.
Even if you could provide the data, which I doubt you can, like you said in your above comment, "it's only subjective opinion, not scientific fact".

My observation: it's awfully easy for someone to sit back and judge and make decisions about a situation that even by act of GOD will never, ever happen to them.

Unfortunately we will never get the opinion of those that are most affected by the decision to abort.

I don't need anyone making [I]my[ /I] life choices for me, thanks.

You're welcome and it amazes me how defensive you get over opinions that couldn't possibly make choices for you.

[jochhejaam]

Question for Yonivore & Joch: if life begins at conception, please tell me exactly when that occurs, and how you determine that fact. Thanks. [/QUOTE]
I'll let the experts tell you so you don't confuse it with theology of subjectivity.

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."

"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.

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

"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 cir stances." Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in sperm biology.
http://www.theinterim.com/1999/oct/15frted.html

And all that without any mention of God or eternity.

[gtownspur]

It's funny how the same people who want to argue only science for abortion will state that life does not begin at conception. Well i got a question for you.

When did life begin on earth. At the first blobs of microbic life, or when microbes finally turned to a species.

Conception is conception. It is the start of human life. the cell is not just tissue. You posses many cells in the body but not one of them is considered to be human.

[jochhejaam]

SW's words illustrate my point that conservatives working to overturn Roe do so at their political peril.

So valuing human is peculiar to Republicans? What does that say for the Dems and why would that present political peril?
Recent polls refute that premise;

New National Abortion Poll Shows Majority of Americans are Pro-Life

Polls are consistently showing that Americans are becoming more pro-life. A December poll conducted by Zogby International, a respected nonpartisan polling firm, confirms that, by a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter."

In December, pollster John Zogby teamed up with Brad O'Leary of the O'Leary Report to examine the cultural differences in states that elected George W. Bush as president in 2000 and those that voted for Al Gore. The poll also contained questions relating to abortion.

As previous polls have shown, a strong majority of Republicans take a pro-life position, but so do a sizable number of Democrats.

Some 68 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement that abortion "destroys a human life and is manslaughter" while 43 percent of Democrats in the U.S. also agreed.

The Zogby poll also showed that Americans are more inclined to support "restrictions on abortion" compared to five or ten years ago.

According to the poll, 22 percent of Americans were more interested in abortion restrictions, while only 11 percent were less interested.

Sixty-six percent said their views on abortion restrictions were the same as they were five or ten years ago. Since polls have consistently shown considerable support for laws such as parental notification, informed consent, and unborn victims legislation, the Zogby poll confirms Americans are moving in the direction of ensuring that sensible limits are placed on legalized abortion.

Other recent polls also confirm a majority of Americans have a pro-life perspective.

An October 2003 Washington Post-ABC News poll, timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, found a majority of Americans and Catholics believe abortion is "morally unacceptable."

Some 58 percent of all respondents said they thought "abortion, when the mother's life is not in danger" was morally unacceptable. About 66 percent of Catholics agreed.

Only 39 percent of Americans and 30 percent of Catholics found abortion morally acceptable.


(1/16/2004)
- By Steven Ertelt, Life News

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=6982

[ChumpDumper]

So you'll believe that poll but not Bush's approval rating polls? Ok, here's another:

Jan. 22 — Thirty years after Roe vs. Wade, public support for legal abortion is highly conditional: In some cases, such as to save the woman's life, it's overwhelming; but in others — notably, solely to terminate an unwanted pregnancy — most Americans oppose the procedure.

Generally, 57 percent in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 54 percent favor the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that made it so. While 42 percent want the government and the courts to make abortions harder to get, more either support the status quo, or favor fewer restrictions.

Still, Americans long have been uneasy with the procedure and the reasons it's done — and these doubts remain. Eight in 10 or more say an abortion should be legal to save the woman's life, to preserve her health, or when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. A much smaller majority, 54 percent, supports legal abortion if there's evidence the baby will be physically impaired.

However, 57 percent oppose abortion solely to end an unwanted pregnancy — "if the mother is unmarried and does not want the baby." And opposition soars to about seven in 10 or more for so-called "partial-birth abortions" or abortions conducted in the sixth month of pregnancy or later.

These views, however, do not cons ute a call for broad anti-abortion activism. Forty-one percent say the government and the courts should not alter the current availability of abortions, and an additional 15 percent say they should be easier to get; that leaves the 42 percent, cited above, who want abortions made harder to obtain.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...oll030122.html

I don't think it's an easy issue for anybody, but I do believe if the demand to take real stands actually come about, neither poll will be of much predictive use.

[SpursWoman]

"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.

That's beautiful, but actual conception can happen immediately or anywhere in between the roughly seven days a sperm can survive inside a female.

If I'm going to be liable for the potential child growing inside me, I need to know exactly when that liability starts so I know when to kick my heroin habit...a week could make a big difference. Also knowing when I have to start answering to every single one of *you* who really don't give a about me or that little DNA thing-y, other than to tell me I have to be the incubator and then go back to your opining on internet message boards, going to bed all self-righteous n'stuff...would be nice, too.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

So you'll believe that poll but not Bush's approval rating polls? Ok, here's another:

I believe the polls that quantify Bush's approval ratings...?

Jan. 22 — Thirty years after Roe vs. Wade, public support for legal abortion is highly conditional: In some cases, such as to save the woman's life, it's overwhelming; but in others — notably, solely to terminate an unwanted pregnancy — most Americans oppose the procedure.

I believe the percentage of abortions for social reasons tops 93%.
The poll basically agrees right on down the line with the poll results that I posted.

1. To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42% For and 57% Against
2. D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23% For and 69% Against
3. Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11% For and 86% Against
Few Extreme Cases in Abortions
Data on why women say they had an abortion are scarce, but a 1988 study cited by the Alan Guttmacher Ins ute found that few were done for health reasons or because the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. Most women cited financial concerns or problems with their relationships, or said they weren't ready to have a child.

Thanks for the duplicate post, I appreciate your support.

[SpursWoman]

1. To End Unwanted Pregnancy 42% For and 57% Against
2. D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions 23% For and 69% Against
3. Pregnancy is 6 Months+ 11% For and 86% Against

I'm very surprised that the percentage of "against", at least for the last two, weren't higher. That's very disturbing.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not support or discredit.

In a perfect world I think everyone would oppose abortion.

Reality is a very, very different story.

[SpursWoman]

Oh, I know...but by 6 months there is NO question of viability, that that is a complete baby that could survive easily if born prematurely.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

That's beautiful, but actual conception can happen immediately or anywhere in between the roughly seven days a sperm can survive inside a female.

Okay, nothing I posted would contradict that.

If I'm going to be liable for the potential child growing inside me, I need to know exactly when that liability starts so I know when to kick my heroin habit...a week could make a big difference. Also knowing when I have to start answering to every single one of *you* who really don't give a about me or that little DNA thing-y, other than to tell me I have to be the incubator and then go back to your opining on internet message boards, going to bed all self-righteous n'stuff...would be nice, too.

I give a chit (subjective) and I never go to bed feeling self-righteous.
(not sure about the n'stuff)

[RandomGuy]

Educate the people and there wouldn't be near as many unwanted "consequences."

Now The Greatest Gift From God is reduced to "consequence" status?

Why do you appear to be so against putting more effort into educating young people about how babies are made than trying to prevent the problem in the first place? A pre-emptive strike, so to speak. You realize that there are a load of parents out there that either don't care or are too embarrassed to teach their kids anything, right?

Simply throwing a bible at them and telling them "Don't Do It Because I Said So" isn't good enough.

I agree 100%

That is simply because it is easier to be judgemental of people than to think about what might actually be best for society in the long run.

I think there is enough evidence out there that supports the fact that education about sex is one of the best ways to prevent unwanted pregnacies to tip the scales towards that conclusion for any rational person.

The costs of not educating people about sex can be easily outlined in places like afghanistan where there are reports of women putting dead mice in their vaginas to ward off post-partum infections.

I firmly believe that treatment of women is directly related to overall standard of living. The better off and more empowered women are, the better off the society is in any measure of economic activity. While I can't prove a causal connection, I think there is a very good case to make for this conclusion.

[gtownspur]

^^abortion is amoral. It is not empowering or responsible. Women can be empowered through many other avenues other than extermenating your child.

[SpursWoman]

Did you even read what he said?

[Extra Stout]

We've spent so much time talking about abortion in this thread that we haven't even broached the subject about how sovereign immunity and the Fourteenth Amendment impact whether plaintiffs can claim retrospective damages against state governments that violate the FMLA!

[Extra Stout]

By the way, I want to re-affirm that the FMLA is supported by the commerce clause, irrespective of any arguments vis-a-vis the applicability of equal protection to the statute.

[Marcus Bryant]

According to the Table No. 89 of the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2004-05, there were 1.3 million abortions performed in 2000, or 32.4% of the total number of live births (4.0 million).

[Extra Stout]

According to the Table No. 89 of the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2004-05, there were 1.3 million abortions performed in 2000, or 32.4% of the total number of live births (4.0 million).

Take a look at abortions among blacks.

The induced abortions are something like 80% of the live births.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

[Marcus Bryant]

Funny how liberation requires, well, obliteration.

[Marcus Bryant]

Take a look at abortions among blacks.

The induced abortions are something like 80% of the live births.

Margaret Sanger would be proud.

The Klan couldn't have dreamed up a better scenario. Small surprise that the founders of the eugenics movement would see one of their tools put to effective use.

In general, it is somewhat curious that the pro-abortion side in the US is aligned with the left and the pro-life side with the right. I can't think of a more compelling situation for someone who desires to see the government act in ways to protect the innocent and vulnerable than to crack down on abortion on demand. Likewise, one would expect that the right, which is painted as espousing a form of social Darwinism tinged with some racial hatred, would be all in favor of abortion 'rights'.

[Extra Stout]

Likewise, one would expect that the right, which is painted as espousing a form of social Darwinism tinged with some racial hatred, would be all in favor of abortion 'rights'.

The "big business" wing of the GOP likes abortion very, very, super much.

[spurster]

I don't think either side wants to pay for the "consequences" of truly being for or against legal abortion. Making laws that other people have to pay for is just dandy, though.

[Yonivore]

Question for Yonivore & Joch: if life begins at conception, please tell me exactly when that occurs, and how you determine that fact. Thanks.

No one knows. And that, my dear, is the point.