Reply With Quote
That probably says more about you than it does Ann Coulter. Plus, I'm thinking she couldn't care less if you're into bestiality.
That probably says more about you than it does Ann Coulter. Plus, I'm thinking she couldn't care less if you're into bestiality.
Isn't this kind of contradictory? Or, maybe, it's revealing...
If her popularity is based "in no small part" upon her looks, that'd mean she's attractive. Therefore, by slamming her appearance, aren't you going against conventional wisdom that says she's a babe -- since, after all, she's popular based on her looks?
Maybe you're just attacking her looks because you can't formulate an argument against her positions.
Maybe not. But, all people who support third-trimester abortions are liberal.Because all liberals support third-trimester abortions.
I do believe Teresa Heinz-Kerry's (because, of course, they weren't his)SUVs all had Kerry/Edwards stickers on them. And, all the tree-hugging, West Austin (Tarrytown), money people sport Kerry/Edwards (or that W with the slash through it) bumper stickers on their Benzes, Navigators, Hummers, etc...
http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2...nip&Complete=1
Interesting charts on the voting regions of the U.S. I'm sure you will take note that the two richest regions also have very high percentages of Democrat voters.
So what's your point?
Anne Coulter is an idiot.
I bet there's never been a single conservative parent who has either had an abortion, suggested an abortion, or supported an abortion.
Everytime you make a blanket statement that is inherently irrelevent if not false (and the one above is definetly false) you lose even more credibility.
I agree! I wouldn't necessarily align myself to one political party. It is after all run by a bunch of rich, WASP's who really don't give a flip about what is important my area or me in general. I don't think they care if a Mexican/American woman from the lower Rio Grand Valley is content with the current issues or situation of the US. I don't see them loading up the motorcade to go and visit the poverty-stricken families down here who still do not have bathroom facilities or even running water. Either way, both parties are extremely flawed.
That wasn't my argument. And, sticking strictly to third-trimester (partial birth abortions) -- which was the emphasis of my statement -- you'd probably be hard-pressed to find a ideological conservative that has received one. And, even if you did, what people do under extreme duress should not be held to be typical of their political ideology.
But, I stand by my assertion -- and, therefore -- would brand any conservative that did so a hypocrite.
Again, all who supports a persons right to receive a partial-birth abortion are a liberals. (caveat for Manny: with the exception of those few who, when faced with a difficult choice, compromise their own beliefs)
It wasn't a blanket statement. My statement was specifically about third-trimester abortions (partial-birth abortions). Further, your introduction into the equation of a person with extremely emotional motivation for going against their own principles (which many do on many other occassions for many other principles), is an attempt to marginalize the generally true statement by elevating an aberration to typical status.
That's neither fair to the person who made the agonizing choice nor the two sides that are trying to argue the point to a satisfactory compromise without the inflammatory rhetoric and exceptional case examples.
Go ahead, name one Conservative that is in support of third-trimester abortions. Then, just to round out the argument, name one supporter of third-trimester abortions that isn't a ideological Liberal.
Questions:
1) Who of the FSP posters supports third trimester abortions?
2) At which moment in time (of the pregnancy) its no longer an abortion and therefore becomes murder?
3) Who of those FSP posters that support third trimester abortions have kids of their own?
You're going to be hardpressed to find any supporters here of so much as a second trimester abortion.
Actualy, to take the wording even further, I don't think there are any supporters of abortion here at all. There are some of those here who support the right to an abortion, which is different.
As for me, I view anything after the first trimester as illegal.
I don't know all of the science of it, but I'm against banning abortion at any level where the child could not survive by any means other than the womb. I don't know what trimester that would be, technically.
Technically, a nine-month fetus, having reached normal gestation and undergoing a natural birth cannot survive outside the womb without intervention.
Maybe you should clarify your stance.
What does he need to clarify? He never said he was against any type of intervention, he merely stated it needed to be outside the womb.
So, if a fetus survives an abortion attempt, measures should be undertook to save its life?
And, if medical intervention reaches the stage that all fetuses can be supported outside the womb, would he then be opposed to abortion all together? Because, as we've discussed time and time again in this forum, the fetal age of survivability has receded significantly over time.
And, with that in mind, what do you say to the unborn children that were sucked from the womb at 25 weeks simply because they had the misfortune of being conceived by a pro-abortionist between the time viability was deemed to be at 32 weeks and the present when it is in the neighborhood of 23-25 weeks? Oooops, my bad?
I think there's a lot to clarify.
No there's not. Take the statement for what it's worth. At any point that the fetus can survive outside the womb, it should be illegal to perform an abortion.
In that case, pre-inseminated fertilized eggs survive outside the womb all the time.
I appreciate your zealous defence but, I'd still like the poster to clarify...
Of course, but at that point there is the possibility of intervention.Technically, a nine-month fetus, having reached normal gestation and undergoing a natural birth cannot survive outside the womb without intervention.
If there ever comes a time when science can reliably remove a fertilized egg and raise it to full health, then I will be completely in favor of banning abortion. As it stands, most fetuses will die if removed from the mother's womb before a certain point, so you are left with two choices: see the pregnancy through or kill the fetus. And I do not believe in forced pregnancy.
But if you go by intervention... surgery can be performed on infants in the womb. Now, if the child has a life-threatening condition that can be corrected by prenatal (not sure if that would be the correct word there) surgery, do you have the surgery, or do you have an abortion? The "possibility of intervention" is there.
I think you missed the point...but, let's move on.
Why? Why would your opinion on a surgical procedure to terminate a pregnancy change because of a scientific advance that enables ex-utero pregnancy? I don't get it.
I would argue that "certain point" is pregnancy-dependant and not certain at all and, in fact, has generally changed over time and is specifically non-discernible. So, unless you can give me a specific time certain when a particular fetus goes from being non-viable to viable, I would suggest you have no business playing a guessing game with human life.
More succinctly defined, life or death.
Well, the only "forced" pregnancies are the result of rape and, if the pro-abortion movement would restrict their argument to these very few cases, the debate would be more civil, I suspect.
I think any point after conception is wrong.
I agree.
And they are left in the womb to continue development.But if you go by intervention... surgery can be performed on infants in the womb.
No, I think you missed the point to begin with. A child after birth can be raised by anyone. A child before birth is dependant on the mother.I think you missed the point...but, let's move on.
It's not my opinion of the procedure that would change... it's my opinion of its legality. If the life of the embryo can be protected without the mother, then she should not have the choice to terminate it. Her body will not be violated by keeping the embryo alive in a lab.Why? Why would your opinion on a surgical procedure to terminate a pregnancy change because of a scientific advance that enables ex-utero pregnancy? I don't get it.
Seeing as it IS relative to different situations, it's pointless to define a certain point in the pregnancy, isn't it? The child's ability to survive on its own would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis... and I'll leave that to the doctors, not the partisans. It's not perfect, but it's the better option.I would argue that "certain point" is pregnancy-dependant and not certain at all and, in fact, has generally changed over time and is specifically non-discernible. So, unless you can give me a specific time certain when a particular fetus goes from being non-viable to viable, I would suggest you have no business playing a guessing game with human life.
You are confusing "conception" with "pregnancy."Well, the only "forced" pregnancies are the result of rape and, if the pro-abortion movement would restrict their argument to these very few cases, the debate would be more civil, I suspect.
Forced pregnancy occurs when a woman is told that she must carry a child against her will for 9 months of her life and face all of the responsibilities and physical changes that come with pregnancy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
