09 Feb 08
3 edits
Originally posted by duecerSo do you know of anyone in the democratic party who opposes Roe vs. Wade and thinks it should be overturned? I'm ALL ears!!
wrong, that's how brainwashed the right has become, they have no understanding of the democrats at all
At least the Republican party has room in their party for both points of view. That is some large tent they have. NOT!!!
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by whodeyThe silence in here is deafening!!
So do you know of anyone in the democratic party who opposes Roe vs. Wade and thinks it should be overturned? I'm ALL ears!!
At least the Republican party has room in their party for both points of view. That is some large tent they have. NOT!!!
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by whodeyhttp://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/012100/012100j.htm
So do you know of anyone in the democratic party who opposes Roe vs. Wade and thinks it should be overturned? I'm ALL ears!!
At least the Republican party has room in their party for both points of view. That is some large tent they have. NOT!!!
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p03s01-uspo.html
there are more, we are the big tent party. I personally oppose abortion, but do not believe I have the right to tell a woman to not have one.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by duecerSo you don't think the unborn baby is really human? If you don't, I would say you would probably then not feel as though you have the moral obligation to oppose those that would take their life. However, if you think they are human, you should have the moral "gahoonas" to stand up for them no matter who you rub the wrong way. Just because the unborn don't have a voice, does'nt mean they don't have a right. Unfortunatly, that is the common perception in society today.
there are more, we are the big tent party. I personally oppose abortion, but do not believe I have the right to tell a woman to not have one.[/b]
09 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeymy opposition to abortion does not rest on wether the fetus is human, or has a soul, etc... it is an argument that you cannot prove, nor would I waste time trying. I oppose abortion, because people should not use medically invasive procedures as a method for birth control. Personal responsibility needs to addressed, not wether it has a soul. We do not live in a theocracy, applying religious beliefs to an argument does not lend it any further wieght.
So you don't think the unborn baby is really human? If you don't, I would say you would probably then not feel as though you have the moral obligation to oppose those that would take their life. However, if you think they are human, you should have the moral "gahoonas" to stand up for them no matter who you rub the wrong way. Just because the unborn don't n they don't have a right. Unfortunatly, that is the common perception in society today.
09 Feb 08
4 edits
Originally posted by duecerI could not down load the first web site, but the second web site I did down load. In it all you have are a bunch of democrats saying how nice it would be if the "other side" of the abortion issue was represented in the democratic party. Granted, there is one obscure Congressman from Indiana that is mentioned, however, that is about it as far as the article mentions.
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/012100/012100j.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0121/p03s01-uspo.html
there are more, we are the big tent party. I personally oppose abortion, but do not believe I have the right to tell a woman to not have one.
I think your statement, "I personally oppose abortion, but do not believe I have the right to tell a woman to not have one." is a MUST position for anyone in the democratic party who does not care for abortion but don't care if its the law of the land. That is, if they have a conscience. However, the rest of us must have our conscience to answer to. Therefore, we are not privilidged to have such a happy go lucky attitude about such matters that deal with life and death.
Edit: Why don't people come out and be honest and simply say, I don't care if people have abortions or not.
09 Feb 08
3 edits
Originally posted by duecerThis is a common fallacy thrown at the feet of pro-lifers. That fallacy is that if you oppose abortion you do so soley on the grounds of religious dogma. However, oddly enough there is no mention of the word abortion written in any holy book that I am aware of.
my opposition to abortion does not rest on wether the fetus is human, or has a soul, etc... it is an argument that you cannot prove, nor would I waste time trying. I oppose abortion, because people should not use medically invasive procedures as a method for birth control. Personal responsibility needs to addressed, not wether it has a soul. We do not live in a theocracy, applying religious beliefs to an argument does not lend it any further wieght.
The painful fact of the matter is, is that it is a question of science. Is the unborn "human" or do they have the rights of the human only if they are completly out of the womb? I think there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that just because the unborn are not out of the womb does not mean they are not human. For example, a baby who could live outside the womb may not have been delievered as yet. However, the woman has the option for a partial birth abortion nonetheless. It is unforgivable that such practices are legal and are defended. However, politicians have their lobby groups to appease, don't they?
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by whodeyWe've gone over this a million times. Let's keep abortion debates out of this thread, eh?
This is a common fallacy thrown at the feet of pro-lifers. That fallacy is that if you oppose abortion you do so soley on the grounds of religious dogma. However, oddly enough there is no mention of the word abortion written in any holy book that I am aware of.
The painful fact of the matter is, is that it is a question of science. Is the unborn "human" ...[text shortened]... legal and are defended. However, politicians have their lobby groups to appease, don't they?
Besides, you're wrong, and I'm right. 🙂
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by whodeymost people (even most democrats) agree that partial birth abortion is an abbohrent practice. If the fetus is viable outside of the womb, an abortion should not be allowed unless, either the mother or the fetus, or both will not survive unless it is done, and that decision should rest with doctors and medical ethisist's, not politcians
This is a common fallacy thrown at the feet of pro-lifers. That fallacy is that if you oppose abortion you do so soley on the grounds of religious dogma. However, oddly enough there is no mention of the word abortion written in any holy book that I am aware of.
The painful fact of the matter is, is that it is a question of science. Is the unborn "human" ...[text shortened]... legal and are defended. However, politicians have their lobby groups to appease, don't they?
09 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionCorrection. We have gone over this a million and one times and still seem to be getting no where. Go figure?
We've gone over this a million times. Let's keep abortion debates out of this thread, eh?
Besides, you're wrong, and I'm right. 🙂
As far as disagreeing you, I do realize that you are right 100% of the time, however, I am not. Therefore, I must disagree with you some of the time if not all of the time, no? Then again, you are a Seahawks fan. How could anyone like yourself be a fan?
09 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerSo in your opinion it is OK to kill "it" so long as it is not viable outside the womb? Is this your position?
most people (even most democrats) agree that partial birth abortion is an abbohrent practice. If the fetus is viable outside of the womb, an abortion should not be allowed unless, either the mother or the fetus, or both will not survive unless it is done, and that decision should rest with doctors and medical ethisist's, not politcians
BTW: I am glad you oppose partial birth abortion. Now you must decide whether it is an important enough issue to vote on. Woops, there goes the Democratic vote!!! Then again maybe it is not a big enough issue to vote on for yourself. After all, there just babies.
09 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by duecerNot to encourage this MASSIVE DERAILMENT any further, but could you, just for fun, give an example of how a partial birth abortion could prevent a fetus from dying?
most people (even most democrats) agree that partial birth abortion is an abbohrent practice. If the fetus is viable outside of the womb, an abortion should not be allowed unless, either the mother or the fetus, or both will not survive unless it is done, and that decision should rest with doctors and medical ethisist's, not politcians
Doc: Ma'am, I'm afraid were gonna have to abort your child.
Mom: What!!
Doc: Ma'am, I know it's tough, but it's the only chance we have of saving your baby.
09 Feb 08
I've just come onto this thread, but it appears to be a proposition that Americans choose to vote for nobody unless the party supports ALL their particular convictions? Since human beings are both imperfect and diverse, there would have to be millions of political parties, each with a few supporters only. Get real! Choose the party which offends you least, then do the hard yards within that party to get the bits altered that you don't agree with.
Of course, you might have to open your mind a little, because there are others in the same party with a different wishlist doing the same thing - but that's democracy after all.
09 Feb 08
Originally posted by MissOleum? how would anyone get elected?
I've just come onto this thread, but it appears to be a proposition that Americans choose to vote for nobody unless the party supports ALL their particular convictions? Since human beings are both imperfect and diverse, there would have to be millions of political parties, each with a few supporters only. Get real! Choose the party which offends you lea ...[text shortened]... e same party with a different wishlist doing the same thing - but that's democracy after all.
09 Feb 08
11 edits
Originally posted by telerionLets finish the conversation, shall we?
Not to encourage this MASSIVE DERAILMENT any further, but could you, just for fun, give an example of how a partial birth abortion could prevent a fetus from dying?
Doc: Ma'am, I'm afraid were gonna have to abort your child.
Mom: What!!
Doc: Ma'am, I know it's tough, but it's the only chance we have of saving your baby.
Doc: Thats right maam. In order to save the first child, we must partially birth him so that he is half in your womb and then half out. Then we will stop him there and then insert a needle into his skull and then suck his brains out with a.......
Mom: Enough!! You had me at the word "That's". It sounds wonderful and it is understandable why you would need to do such a thing in order to save my second child not far behind. Now where do I sign? You're such a fine morally upstanding young doctor. In fact, I will name my surviving child after you....I'm sorry, I can't quite make out your name. Is it Mengele?
Doc: Yep, that's right ma'am......Say your not Jewish are ya?
Mom: How did you know?
Doc: Lets just say its a special gift I have and leave it at that. As for your surviving child, I have a few medical tests I would like to run on him after he is born. Just sign here.
Doc: Also, be sure and vote for Hillary this presidential election. After all, we have 6 or so Supreme Court justices just at deaths door trying to hold on till a democrat President can get in there and appoint 6 more pro-choice judges. This will afford me the unquestioned authority to preform such procedures in the future. After all, I am God...er...I mean a doctor, and we all know the doctor knows best. Mwhahahaha, mwhahahahahaha. Mwhahahahahahahahahahaha......sorry, I get carried away sometimes.