# More evidence Liberalism is dieing.



## racer66

South Dakota sent a clear message with the House passing it on a 50-18 vote and the Senate passing on a 23-12 vote.

PIERRE, S.D. - The Legislature on Friday approved a ban on nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a direct legal assault on Roe v. Wade.

Republican Gov. Mike Rounds said he was inclined to sign the bill, which would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman's life. The measure would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench.

Planned Parenthood, which operates the only abortion clinic in South Dakota, has pledged to sue over the measure, which would become law July 1. The clinic does about 800 abortions a year.

The House passed the bill 50-18 on Friday. The Senate approved the measure 23-12 earlier this week.

Under the measure, doctors could get up to five years in prison for performing an illegal abortion.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

So evidence of a conservative state going more conservative is a sign of liberalism dying? That logic doesn't seem very sound at all. If anything, it is conservatism that is dying in favor of neo-conservatism. The Republican party is losing the values that made them popular in the first place, and they are becoming more and more liberal economically. The election 2008 is going to be a shake for the modern Republican party.



> Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench.


Judge Samuel Alito stated that he would uphold precedent. Roe v. Wade is a precedent, whether you agree with it or not. He will not break his promise so soon after stating such things under oath.

As to the banning of abortion itself, you all know where I stand.

Check out http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038551 ... oding=UTF8

Written by a man who served as an advisor to R. Reagan and a treasury official under Bush senior.


----------



## racer66

South Dakotans obviously have had enough of the liberals, they booted that wacko nut case Tom Daschle last year and now this. These to moves are a clear messages and there will be many more. It will be a slow but painfull death MT but all you have to do is keep talking, along with the likes of SCREAMIN Howie Dean.


----------



## racer66

One perons opinion over vast numbers of peoples votes. You still haven't learned KID.


----------



## DecoyDummy

MT Wrote:

So evidence of a conservative state going more conservative is a sign of liberalism dying?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a conservative state standing by what it believes and having it's stance tested in the "Vast Waters of American Society."

Time will tell just how quickly Liberalism is dying. This will be one test of the convictions of the Country.

Or so it seems to me.


----------



## Gohon

> Judge Samuel Alito stated that he would uphold precedent. Roe v. Wade


No he didn't say that. He said it was certainly a precedent but should a case come before him he would keep a open mind and listen to oral arguments from both sides and make his decision from that. Alito refused to be trapped into stating it was settled law. Roberts said the same thing in his hearings.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Gohon said:


> Judge Samuel Alito stated that he would uphold precedent. Roe v. Wade
> 
> 
> 
> No he didn't say that. He said it was certainly a precedent but should a case come before him he would keep a open mind and listen to oral arguments from both sides and make his decision from that. Alito refused to be trapped into stating it was settled law. Roberts said the same thing in his hearings.
Click to expand...

His close associates disagree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01221.html


----------



## Gohon

What's wrong with you????????? These are your words....*"Judge Samuel Alito stated that he would uphold precedent. Roe v. Wade"*. Now you want to say Oh gee golly I was talking about what someone that knew him said he *might* do. So did you just out right lie in that post or just slip up and misquote Alito??????? Either way Alito didn't say what you claimed did he?


----------



## racer66

The KID just never learns.


----------



## Plainsman

I watched on TV as they (mostly Kennedy) tried to corner Alito time after time, and he would not commit either way. I liked his answer. He said it wouldn't be right to try predetermine a case before it was brought before the supreme court. His point was that there were to many variables that could not be predicted. He said he would interpret it strictly by the constitution. This was his answer not just for abortion, but he would not commit to any case of any kind that Kennedy kept throwing at him. It doesn't make any difference what any of his close associates said.

MT wrote:


> Judge Samuel Alito stated that he would uphold precedent. Roe v. Wade is a precedent, whether you agree with it or not. He will not break his promise so soon after stating such things under oath.


Gohon wrote:


> No he didn't say that.


MT followed with:


> His close associates disagree.


MT what ever Alito's associates may or may not have said does not constitute a promise on the part of Alito. I think even you will agree with that.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> MT what ever Alito's associates may or may not have said does not constitute a promise on the part of Alito. I think even you will agree with that.


No, but it was one of the factors that got him on the court, the testimonials of those who worked with him that is. Thus, it cannot be discounted.


----------



## Plainsman

No where during the hearings did anyone say that Alito would support Roe vs. Wade. I have no idea which way he would go, but he does not have to abide by what someone else things. Would you? I don't feel responsible for what someone else says I would do. As a matter of fact I would be offended if someone expected it. What games we would play if things like that were binding. Politics is greasy enough already.

Also, why would you consider it binding when in plain English he said otherwise? MT I think you are preparing for it to go the other way so you can accuse him of being a liar.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If the testimonials were good enough for the court, why are they not good enough for you? Of course he did not say specifically if he was for or against it, supreme court nominees make a point to never point out whether they are for or against anything. They attempt to duck as many questions as possible.

Anyway, here's what the Christian Science Monitor said

"In a deliberately balanced response, Alito said he agreed "with the underlying thought when a precedent is reaffirmed, that strengthens the precedent," but added that he didn't "want to leave the impressions that stare decisis [following precedent] is an inexorable command because the Supreme Court has said that it is not." He said he would approach the issue with an open mind."


----------



## Plainsman

> If the testimonials were good enough for the court, why are they not good enough for you?


OK MT look at it this way. If I was in court and testified as to what I thought you would do would you feel bound by it, and if you did differently than I testified would that make you dishonest?


----------



## arctic plainsman

Ok,..........well anyway, I have a question for you guy's that relates back to the original topic.
Is Liberalism dying or regionalizing? Here's what I was thinking. Both coasts of our Nation seem to be as liberal as ever. We've already taked ad nauseum about the office holders the coasts return to the capitol and capitals every year. I mean, no kidding, Nancy Pelosi has been representing San Francisco and California since something like the inception of state hood!
So as the coasts continue to urbanize and liberalize, are the other states moving in a different direction? I also wonder if a growth of conservatism is a reaction (like polarization,) to the growth of liberalism?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> OK MT look at it this way. If I was in court and testified as to what I thought you would do would you feel bound by it, and if you did differently than I testified would that make you dishonest?


Look I'm not saying it is legally binding in any way shape or form, but the media will be in a frenzy if he does vote that way based on the testimonials which did help to get him into office.


----------



## Plainsman

The media will have a fit no matter what he does. To heck with the media. Some days I remember when we gave money to radio free Europe so they could broadcast the truth across the iron curtain. Now we need radio free America where some country in Central America can broadcast the truth to us. Fox news comes the closest now.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Fox news comes the closest now.


Considering your beliefs, I'm sure it does.


----------



## Gohon

> but the media will be in a frenzy if he does vote that way based on the testimonials which did help to get him into office.


Who cares???????????


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Who cares???????????


The uh... country?


----------



## Plainsman

Not really. I think a majority of the country has caught on to the media being full of bull.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

So they just stay ignorant of the present issues?


----------



## Plainsman

No, they watch Fox News.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Plainsman said:


> No, they watch Fox News.


That is still the media. Where do people get this idea that the media is heavily liberal? All studies show otherwise.


----------



## Longshot

Ya, all the liberal studies do. I think we have been through this before. It depends on which type of media you are looking at, but all in all the majority are liberal.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Longshot said:


> Ya, all the liberal studies do. I think we have been through this before. It depends on which type of media you are looking at, but all in all the majority are liberal.


Can you support that?


----------



## Bobm

Two posts deleted because they were again personal attacks. drop that tactic please

thanks


----------



## racer66

> That is still the media. Where do people get this idea that the media is heavily liberal? All studies show otherwise.


Show us these studies, credible ones preferably.


----------



## Bobm

here is plenty of examples that they are extremely liberally biased

http://www.mrc.org/archive/realitycheck/welcome.asp


----------



## DecoyDummy

Since the issue is scheduled on the docket for Judicial review ... Isn't it a little silly to sit and argue what and Justice will or will not do ...

We need only "Hide and Watch" ... Alito will tell us exactly what he thinks in due time.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

If you're going to use a .org, here is some bias in Fox
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

This is the study of which I spoke
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/articl ... erral=SUPP

Another site on the same study
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002

And a third site on the same study of which I spoke
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/02/1 ... 15638.html

And a fourth
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=60950

Though a blogger, this guy points out a lot of factual information.
http://quinnell.us/politics/media.html

Wikipedia shows some of both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... Examples_2


----------



## racer66

One story on Fox news and the rest stories about bias on SUNDAY morning shows. As far as I know Fox News has not falsified a story and run with it in attempts at defaming a person. On the spending side I will agree to an extent, the administration and congress need to reign it in.


----------



## Gohon

If the Governor hasn't even signed the bill yet that means the bill must go through all the lower courts first before ever even getting to the Supreme Court. And, if for example all the lower courts side with the state, all the Supreme Court has to do is refuse to hear the case and the decision of the lower courts stand. What makes anyone think this will ever even get to the Supreme Court.


----------



## DecoyDummy

Gohon

I think I may have confused something there ... there is a case on the docket of SCOTUS which some feel will lead back to RvW in some measure ... Maybe I need to do some research and verify what I'm thinking of.


----------



## racer66

I haven't verified this for myself yet, but I heard on the radio yesterday that the unions have lost close to 5 million on their membership roles.


----------



## racer66

JACKSON, Miss. - Gov. Haley Barbour said Wednesday he would probably sign a bill under consideration in the state House that would ban most abortions in Mississippi.

The measure, which passed the House Public Health Committee on Tuesday, would allow abortion only to save a woman's life. It would make no exception in cases of rape or incest.

Barbour, a Republican, said he preferred an exception in cases of rape and incest, but if such a bill came to his desk: "I suspect I'll sign it."

The full House could vote on the bill next week, and it would then go to the Senate


----------



## racer66

Has anybody noticed how bonkers the media and the left went when the NSA program was leaked and now the sale of P&O terminals to the UAE has got them screamin from the roof tops. The NSA program had them screaming civil rights violations, the evesdropping was happening on calls that were happening with suspected Al Quaeda members for gosh sakes. Now all of a sudden security is their main objective with the UAE sale. It is truely sad how low this bunch is.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

racer66 said:


> Has anybody noticed how bonkers the media and the left went when the NSA program was leaked and now the sale of P&O terminals to the UAE has got them screamin from the roof tops. The NSA program had them screaming civil rights violations, the evesdropping was happening on calls that were happening with suspected Al Quaeda members for gosh sakes. Now all of a sudden security is their main objective with the UAE sale. It is truely sad how low this bunch is.


How could you possibly prove that it was only suspected Al Quaeda members? God only knows who they think is a suspect. If you've ever said the words "bomb" or "powder" on the phone you may be a suspect. The reason people had an issue with the wirtaps was because it was not done within the established law. The reason that I heard that they were not going through the FISA court was because they didn't have sufficient evidence to get a permit for wiretaps. It is possible to protect civil liberties and provide for America's security at the same time. What is the use in protecting our country if the very liberties that make America what it is are eroded?


----------



## racer66

Posted on 01/17/2006 8:01:45 AM PST by Thanatos

The ACLU had announced on Tuesday, November 16, 1999 that it will create a website called "www.echelonwatch.org". This website would chronicle all uses of the Planetary Evesdropping system used by the United States to monitor Phone Calls, Cell Phones, Satellite Communications around the world. This is the "NSA Evesdropping" system that's in the news today.

The ACLU had an extensive Library of documents, archives, news articles, links to congressional testimony and was the place to go for this information. That is until now. The ACLU is deleting all this information off the website. It had chronicled all this information and is now hiding it from the public.

Why?

Why would the ACLU delete their extensive website on Project Echelon? The answer is simple, they are arguing that all this "Spying on American Citizens" started with the Bush Administration, they do not want evidance unearthed that proves that the Clinton Administration and every Administration has used these "Wiretaps" to protect American Citizens since the invention of the Telephone


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Replicated original post: You're right, all administrations wiretapped, and the vast majority was done legally. Your issue is that you cannot separate the idea of gaining such information from the way that permission is granted to gain such information. Put it this way, I'm not against guns, I'm against people buying them illegally.



> I'm sure every administration has done wire taps, just like racer said. However, I really don't know, and I wonder how you get information that makes you so sure. You said the vast majority was done legally. Explain to me please how you know this when I don't even know if it was done, or if it was legal. I notice many statements on here that are put out as fact, when reality is, it is more than likely classified. I offer this out as a serious question. Is it web, or personal contact, what?


Most of this is not MT's post it is mine (Plainsman) I screwed up and hit edit instead of respond. Unfortunately this lost most of MT's original post.

I think that was wrong also, I'm still trying to figure out what I did. The important thing is, it is my screw up.

Rebuttal to Plainsman's edit-
Well I don't have any spreadsheet of who used them and who didn't, and whether they followed protocol, but I am running on the assumption that if wrong was done, they would have been caught for doing so and brought into the limelight, as was done with this administration. This is of course probably not true for all cases, and I was generalizing as well as making assumptions. Sorry.


----------



## racer66

Sad state of affairs the left is in.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

racer66 said:


> Sad state of affairs the left is in.


I do not call protecting American liberties and security a sad state of affairs.


----------



## Gohon

> I'm not about to start conspiracy theories just because the site wasn't put up


No but you're certainly willing to start one with ......



> How could you possibly prove that it was only suspected Al Quaeda members? God only knows who they think is a suspect


----------



## Militant_Tiger

That is simple fact Gohon. Why are you willing to take them at their word? None of us have seen just who were wiretapped, and it is our best interest to assume that the government will abuse it's power whenever it is capable. History has borne this out.


----------



## racer66

:lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

That's cute, editing my post to make your rebuttal.


----------



## racer66

What is blatantly obvious, the media and the left are willing to do ANYTHING for political gain and to try and discredit this administration. Brother Gore lead the pack recently while over seas. In the end it will only bury them further.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

racer66 said:


> What is blatantly obvious, the media and the left are willing to do ANYTHING for political gain and to try and discredit this administration. Brother Gore lead the pack recently while over seas. In the end it will only bury them further.


Would it not be politically wise to do so? Why would they shoot themselves in the foot for 2008 by supporting the president on things which they feel are wrong, like the Dubai port deal? Do you not think that the Republicans were guilty of this during the Clinton years?


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> That's cute, editing my post to make your rebuttal.


MT I really apologize for that. I have done it to my own a couple of times, but then I caught it and made corrections. I think I did that one other time also. I wanted others to see your post, so rest assured it was not intentional. It doesn't make me feel any less the fool for the mistake however.

It was only part of your statement I didn't think there was anyway for anyone to know. I think both sides do it, and I will perhaps ask conservatives to tell me where they get thier information. It would be nice to dig into some of these sites that come up with information and determine if they are correct or not.

Can you reconstruct your original?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

No worrries, accidents happen. I was just concerned that someone was being cute and figured out my password or abusing their privileges. I'll try to reconstruct it.


----------



## racer66

Another ace in the hole.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186708,00.html


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Neocons 1 - Freedoms 0


----------



## racer66

I hope you're not equating freedoms with what this wacko did.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Freedom of speech is universal, you can't pick and choose based on your beliefs.


----------



## Gohon

> Freedom of speech is universal, you can't pick and choose based on your beliefs


Sure you can............. walk aboard a plane and yell out bomb and see just how much freedom there is in that.


----------



## Plainsman

I would guess that you have the freedom to make all the racist remarks you want also. You could say anything you want against your Muslim friends, etc and you would say it was their freedom. Actually you might, and I may have to agree, but there is another freedom and that is not to employ jerks. Try ridiculing black students in college and see how long you last. Personally, I don't like any of this type of people. People like this teacher, racists, or hate mongers of any kind. I will not excuse their stupidity liberal or conservative. 
MT are you sure this isn't just partisan thinking on your part. If he condemned John Kerry, how would you feel about him. I think this man has no shame, and perhaps because he is socially clueless.


----------



## Plainsman

> I'm sure every administration has done wire taps, just like racer said. However, I really don't know, and I wonder how you get information that makes you so sure. You said the vast majority was done legally. Explain to me please how you know this when I don't even know if it was done, or if it was legal. I notice many statements on here that are put out as fact, when reality is, it is more than likely classified. I offer this out as a serious question. Is it web, or personal contact, what?





> Rebuttal to Plainsman's edit-
> Well I don't have any spreadsheet of who used them and who didn't, and whether they followed protocol, but I am running on the assumption that if wrong was done, they would have been caught for doing so and brought into the limelight, as was done with this administration. This is of course probably not true for all cases, and I was generalizing as well as making assumptions. Sorry.


MT I missed this before so here is my response:

Darn, that was a good honest answer. My only rebuttal is I think all of them get away with a lot. Some of it they shouldn't get away with, and when it involves national security I think sometimes they are forced to choose what many would not think is entirely honest. For us on the outside looking in we may not always be able to tell the difference. Our problem is each year it becomes more difficult to trust them. Partly because partisanship creates more mistrust each year and that partisanship is endangering America I think. The problem is how do we stop it. Your honest answer about assumptions on your part is a start. Also, no need to apologize we all goof up and make assumptions at times. We have been sucked into an us against them mentality by our genius politicians.


----------



## DecoyDummy

For the record here ... Assumptions might be a problem in certain instances "wild assumption with no basis in fact" for example ... which seems to rather common in the politcal realm.

But anyone who is afraid to assume a few things based on history, ideology, policy or simple laws of nature ... is most likely not moving forward in a very enlightened fashion.

As I said ... Just for the record, as I see it, from where I sit.


----------



## Plainsman

Decoydummy, were in agreement, we simply have different definitions. When you base what you think on history, ideology or anything I don't see it as assumptions anymore. I see assumptions as the same thing as a SWAG (simple wild *** guess).


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I suppose that my assumption was based too much on the good nature of men. Recent developments have shown however, that if someone is doing something fishy in the government, people are more than willing to go to the newspapers on background.

A little quote from the Wikipedia article on wiretapping



> During the American Civil War, government officials under President Abraham Lincoln eavesdropped on telegraph conversations. Wiretapping has also been carried out under most Presidents, usually with a lawful warrant. Domestic wiretapping under the Clinton administration led to the capture of Aldrich Ames, a former Soviet spy in 1994. Robert F. Kennedy monitored the activity of Martin Luther King Jr. by wiretapping in 1966.
> 
> The most recent case of domestic wiretapping was discovered in December 2005. It aroused much controversy, after several people accused President George W. Bush of violating a specific federal statute (FISA) and the United States Constitution. The president argued his authorization was consistent with other federal statutes (AUMF), other provisions of the Constitution, and was necessary to keep America safe from terrorism, and could lead to the capture of notorious terrorists responsible for 9/11.


As to the banning of abortion in S. Dakota, this leaves hardly any room for cases of rape, incest, cases where the mother's health is threatened, what have you. This reactionary attack on American freedoms cannot be allowed. All points lead to this motion being shot down.

God bless America


----------



## racer66

Ooops here's another one.

http://search.foxnews.com/_1_2KJPTN2049 ... 99,00.html


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Do these things make you feel good racer? It states right in the fox article that it makes no place for abortions in cases of rape or incest. Is this really the America you invision?


----------



## zogman

Every time the abortion issue has come up on this site I have tried to stay away from it. But being silent is not the answer either.

I was adopted at the age of 4 months old. I truly believe my life stared at conception. It had to. The same can be said for my three daugters and my three grandchildren. Without my life being spared those 6 living loving human beings would not be here. There are a few of you younger folks on this site who have just strated having childeren. The next time you hold a baby whether it is your child or grandchild or watch the children sitting up front at a school program or taking in the chilren's sermon at church. Vision that little person one hour after conception. Life began.............

As far as choice goes. Let me say this there are many choices that can and should be made before the act of conceiving a child happens. Abortion is not one of them.

This is from my heart. I wish I could be more eliquote. MT and others I will not enter into a pissing match with you on this subject.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> As far as choice goes. Let me say this there are many choices that can and should be made before the act of conceiving a child happens. Abortion is not one of them.


Rather unfortunately nature gives us the chance to breed long before our minds have grown enough to know better. This is not to mention that sh1t happens.

It is good that your life was spared. My uncle was also adopted, and my cousins would not be alive today were it not for the choice his parents made. I would not have it any other way. However, in your scenario it seems that if abortion is legal, adoption does not occur. Your birth occurred while abortion was legal, yet you are here today.



> Vision that little person one hour after conception. Life began.............


How do you define that as life when one would not consider my finger a separate life? Neither has its own will, nor thoughts, nor can it live on its own.


----------



## racer66

> Do these things make you feel good racer? It states right in the fox article that it makes no place for abortions in cases of rape or incest. Is this really the America you invision?


Does it make you feel good to know that thousands of babies are killed? Unfortunately you refuse to see all of the good sides



> Rather unfortunately nature gives us the chance to breed long before our minds have grown enough to know better. This is not to mention that sh1t happens


Nature does afford the parents the chance at educating the kids so they do know better. As far as sh1t happening, it doesn't when your pants are zipped up.



> How do you define that as life when one would not consider my finger a separate life? Neither has its own will, nor thoughts, nor can it live on its own


As far as the quote above goes, you are merely arguing because that's what you like to do. You know deep down when life is created you just refuse to agree so you can play it anyway way you want in an attempt to rid yourself of guilt now or perhaps in the case of a future event.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> How do you define that as life when one would not consider my finger a separate life? Neither has its own will, nor thoughts, nor can it live on its own.


Because in 9 months, your finger wont have grown eyes to look at you, ears to hear you, a mouth to coo at you, nor will it grow more fingers of its own to hold onto one of your remaining fingers.

I used to be prochoice. Then I had kids of my own. Ours wasnt a happy go lucky pregnancy either. I went through hell, my wife, well hell would have been a vacation. My 2nd son spent over 3 months in the hospital. He was born at the very end of the 2nd trimester, a point in which abortion is still legal. When he was born, he cried. It was an uphill battle from there.

here he is a few days after he was born.










Thats my hand BTW....

How is it the law can say that at this point, that child would not have been alive in utero? The current law would allow a woman to kill a child at this gestational age. If by law, my son was still legally disposable, why then did he cause us so much heartache?

Care to try and explain where life begins again?


----------



## Gun Owner

I was having pic trouble, but I got it squared away now.

Here is my "disposable" son today with his big brother.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Nature does afford the parents the chance at educating the kids so they do know better. As far as sh1t happening, it doesn't when your pants are zipped up.


So if someone was trapped in a well, you would leave them down there because it was their own fault for playing around a well?



> Does it make you feel good to know that thousands of babies are killed? Unfortunately you refuse to see all of the good sides


I don't think it is a baby. I think it becomes human some time before it is born, when it begins to develop all of the human characteristics. Until then, it is a mass of tissue with potential.



> As far as the quote above goes, you are merely arguing because that's what you like to do. You know deep down when life is created you just refuse to agree so you can play it anyway way you want in an attempt to rid yourself of guilt now or perhaps in the case of a future event.


No, I argue because that is what I believe. If it makes you feel better to think your way, go ahead.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> So if someone was trapped in a well, you would leave them down there because it was their own fault for playing around a well?


Falling down a well is an accident. Removing someone from a well is an act that preserves life.

Having sex without thinking that a child could result is sheer stupidity. Killing that unborn child destroys a life.

The only way this would be relevant is if we killed the guy in the well for being stupid.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Ok then gun owner. Why does life begin at conception? What about the meeting of the sperm and the egg causes a supposed soul to enter and makes what was before just masses of cells that are regularly tossed out by the body into a human being?


----------



## Gun Owner

The same way a puzzle is always a puzzle, even when its completely disassembled. You dont build the edge first, and then call it a puzzle.

Life begins at conception because thats what directs these normally disposable cells to be something different. Im sure even you cant argue that a fertilized egg is the same as an unfertilized one. The instant sperm and egg meet, that combination of cells begins to grow.

Growth takes time, but that doesnt mean its unimportant. You'd have a helluva time eating if Farmers threw away seeds because they werent food yet.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

No one will claim that it does not have the potential to become a child. As to the seed reference, would you feel worse tossing away an apple seed, or a whole apple?


----------



## mr.trooper

Dont worry racer. We will alwase have libs to pick on. :lol:


----------



## racer66

> I don't think it is a baby. I think it becomes human some time before it is born, when it begins to develop all of the human characteristics. Until then, it is a mass of tissue with potential.


All in an attempt to remove guilt from the equation.


----------



## racer66

It's a little dated but it's a good read.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/3910

Here's another good read.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articl ... cleID=3240


----------



## zogman

racer 66, part of this was so TRUE that I just had to paste it. Thanks.

Liberalism is a failing ideology. Liberalism has failed to keep up with the times. Blue color workers are becoming a dieing breed. Today they're the CEO's of small independent businesses. They've become independent tradesmen replacing the larger unionized companies of the past. Independently they're small businesses collectively they're larger than General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler combined. These new businesses are the backbone of the new American economy. They're a stable force that can't be outsourced to other countries. Most operate as LLC, [Limited Liability Corporations.] The advantage is they aren't affiliated with a union, They're to small to be effected by cumbersome federal regulations. These new businesses with fewer than 25 employees are America's salvation. They are carpenters, roofers, painters, hairdressers, coffee venders, fast food providers, independent truckers, there are literally hundreds of independent operations these men and women can build a future on.

Liberal minded people will do their best to prevent these operations from being successful by over regulation, over taxation, and an over zealous attempt to discredit them.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> No one will claim that it does not have the potential to become a child. As to the seed reference, would you feel worse tossing away an apple seed, or a whole apple?


This is Gun owners wife. An apple does not have a soul but a child no matter what stage of growth does. You can hear the heart beat of an unborn baby at about 7 weeks qestation. In your opinion what qualifys as a child? Does the baby have to be born or is it when the child looks like a child?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

That is making the presumption that a soul does indeed exist. One must then assume that there is a god of some sort, and you've broken the wall between church and state. This cannot be allowed. When do I think a fetus becomes human? I think that a fetus becomes a human when it has developed all of the human characteristics that a child which is born normally would have.


----------



## Gun Owner

By that definition, you just killed my son.... or at the very least do not consider him a human. Thanks

You dont have to believe in a soul to believe in life. You simply have to be calluos enough to deny life when it is shown to you.

You talk about the lump of cells that cannot live on its own. Well, once a child is born, does it continue to live on its own? It cannot feed itself, it cannot clothe itself. It cannot do anything without the care of someone else.

So what changes in a baby that makes it a human, even though it is just as dependant out of the womb as it was within the womb?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> By that definition, you just killed my son.... or at the very least do not consider him a human. Thanks


How is that? Did he not have all of the characteristics of a child born after the normal 9 months. If you are going to call me a killer at least read my post first.


----------



## Gun Owner

No, he didnt.

He couldnt breathe on his own. He couldnt eat. His thyroid wasnt developed. A valve in his heart that usually closes at birth on a normal infant had to be closed surgically. His skull was so un developed that the individual plates would sometimes overlap. It took a lot of patient care keeping his head supported to keep it from becoming very misshapen.

Theres a long list of stuff that wasnt right about my son when he was born. You wouldnt know it now, but by your definitions, he wasnt human at birth.

Wanna go the other way with this? Is a child born without an arm human? Its missing charecteristics most normal children have.

If you're going to define life, you cant have exceptions. Just picking and choosing to justify abortion doesnt work. Life either starts at conception (my belief) or life never begins at all unless you are born perfect (your definition)


----------



## Gun Owner

Gun Owner said:


> So what changes in a baby that makes it a human, even though it is just as dependant out of the womb as it was within the womb?


I'd still like this question answered.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> So what changes in a baby that makes it a human, even though it is just as dependant out of the womb as it was within the womb?


Being able to survive as a fetus and being able to survive as a baby are two different animals. A fetus cannot survive outside of the womb at all, where as a baby could live for days, maybe even a week with no food or water. It is dependant, but it is an independant being.

I suppose you are right, I didn't consider the minor things like a thyroid that may not have yet been developed. I suppose then that if the fetus can survive outside the womb then one could consider it human.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> I suppose then that if the fetus can survive outside the womb then one could consider it human.


With or without medical assistance? Does the ability of modern medicine directly relate to when life starts? Many years ago a 27 week baby was called a miscarriage. Today I call him Robert. So as time goes by, and medical techniques improve, do we keep moving that number back? Eventually modern medicine will likely be able to begin life without ever needing a Uterus. What do you use for justification then?

Please MT, this is one thing you cannot close your mind to simply because you want to. You know as well as I do the only logical answer for all of this is that life begins at conception.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

With modern medicine. If at some point we could grow humans without the use of a uterus, I don't suppose we would have the problem of abortion any longer.

I really do not belive that life begins at conception. In my heart of hearts I know that life begins at some point beyond that.


----------



## Gun Owner

Ok, lets say that your "some point" is 7 weeks, when the heartbeat can be heard. You dont have to agree with this number, Im just using it to set example.

If life starts at 7 weeks, what do you call the first 6 weeks of rapid development that that child completed to be able to have its own heartbeat? It doesnt happen out of the blue, it can only get that far if there was an actual conception.

For that matter, I'd like for you to define when life starts.

http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

Lots of pictures here of development at certain stages. Pick one and tell me when you think Life has begun.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

The issue here is that you are asking me for hard numbers, and I simply cannot produce that. Such things would take loads of research, and even then might not be procurable.

Here is a question to you. What makes a heartbeat so special? My dog has a heartbeat, it is not human. That is not to say that you can compare the two, but rather that in your mind it appears that the potential to become human makes you human. Does not each and every sperm have the chance to become human? Does not each egg have the chance to become human? Simply because it requires the other half does not mean that the potential is not there. A fetus cannot become a human without a womb, and a sperm cannot become a human without an egg. Thus then shall we give legal rights to each and every sperm and egg?


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> Does not each and every sperm have the chance to become human? Does not each egg have the chance to become human? Simply because it requires the other half does not mean that the potential is not there.


Yes, they do each have the potential to become human. However, there is a difference between the sperm flushed down the shower, or the egg lost to menstruation as there is to a fertilized egg. The difference is the conscious decision to ensure that part A and part B are allowed to meet in the uterus. Without the act of mating, there is no conception.

Its quite simple. Dont wanna get pregnant, dont allow the two to meet. Now I do make exceptions for cases of Rape and incest, although I'd prefer the mother not abort, I cant imagine the position she is in, and I wont pretend I can. But in regards to the average woman having an abortion, the most common reason is the mother says she isnt ready. Its all about responcibility. Just because sex feels really good doesnt mean you can simply cast aside the end result of it. Sex is for us to enjoy, no doubt, but in the end, if it wasnt for procreation, sex would have never been created.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> The difference is the conscious decision to ensure that part A and part B are allowed to meet in the uterus. Without the act of mating, there is no conception.


And with the conscious act of masturbation one could produce the semen all the same. An act doesn't justify life. What if the female was out cold? Is mutual consent necessary for a life to be created using your definition?



> Just because sex feels really good doesnt mean you can simply cast aside the end result of it.


Says who? Precedent disagrees.



> Sex is for us to enjoy, no doubt, but in the end, if it wasnt for procreation, sex would have never been created.


What about bisexual communities in the animal kingdom? Monkeys and hedgehogs have been known to mate with their own species, certainly this is not for procreation.


----------



## racer66

> Here is a question to you. What makes a heartbeat so special? My dog has a heartbeat, it is not human. That is not to say that you can compare the two, but rather that in your mind it appears that the potential to become human makes you human. Does not each and every sperm have the chance to become human? Does not each egg have the chance to become human? Simply because it requires the other half does not mean that the potential is not there. A fetus cannot become a human without a womb, and a sperm cannot become a human without an egg. Thus then shall we give legal rights to each and every sperm and egg?


Someday you MAY learn that a child is by far the greatest gift that can happen in your own life. There has never been a happier moment in my life than the birth of my 2 sons. What is magical is the point of conception when all of the things you listed come together to form LIFE.


----------



## racer66

> Quote:
> Just because sex feels really good doesnt mean you can simply cast aside the end result of it.
> 
> Says who? Precedent disagrees.


Exactly, you want the option of disregarding your actions and not being responsible.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Exactly, you want the option of disregarding your actions and not being responsible.


Don't we all?



> Someday you MAY learn that a child is by far the greatest gift that can happen in your own life.


For you, I'm certain it was. For many, it may come at the wrong time, be due to a mishap, or what have you. In that case, it would be an awful experience.


----------



## racer66

> Quote:
> Exactly, you want the option of disregarding your actions and not being responsible.
> 
> Don't we all?


Not me and I'm quite sure the majority on here feel the same, something you will also learn MAYBE.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> The difference is the conscious decision to ensure that part A and part B are allowed to meet in the uterus. Without the act of mating, there is no conception.
> 
> 
> 
> And with the conscious act of masturbation one could produce the semen all the same. An act doesn't justify life. What if the female was out cold? Is mutual consent necessary for a life to be created using your definition?
Click to expand...

A man masterbating has nothing to do with the uterous or any otherof the female partsw needed for reproduction. I told you I wasnt talking about the sperm going down the shower drain or into the hanky. If the female is outcold, thats rape, and I covered that as well. Mutual concesent inst required to make a life, however as I said before, as much as I wish a rape mother would not abort, I do not have an inkling what that must be like. I would hope at the very least her first choice is adoption.

Forcing someone to create a life by rape is NOT the same as not allowing someone to abort a child simply because she "isnt ready"



Militant_Tiger said:


> Just because sex feels really good doesnt mean you can simply cast aside the end result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? Precedent disagrees.
Click to expand...

Precedent is wrong. Used to be legal to kill horse theives, solve disputes through a duel, or own a man as a slave. Times change.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Sex is for us to enjoy, no doubt, but in the end, if it wasnt for procreation, sex would have never been created.
> 
> 
> 
> What about bisexual communities in the animal kingdom? Monkeys and hedgehogs have been known to mate with their own species, certainly this is not for procreation.
Click to expand...

Yes, humans, monkeys, I've even seen pics of two male octopi having relations. Doesnt change the fact that sex was brought about for procreation. We can enjoy it many different ways, but its root source is procreation.


----------



## Gun Owner

Also, for what its worth. Roe, of Roe Vs Wade, said that that abortion and the ensuing battle was the worst mistake she ever made.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> The issue here is that you are asking me for hard numbers, and I simply cannot produce that. Such things would take loads of research, and even then might not be procurable.


It seems to me that life begining at conception is a pretty hard number. In regards to loads of research that may never yield an answer, I agree. Loads of research will never give you an answer you like. Research will always point to the begining of life as conception.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Not me and I'm quite sure the majority on here feel the same, something you will also learn MAYBE.


It would take one hell of a man to reject the ability to avoid responsibility for his actions.



> A man masterbating has nothing to do with the uterous or any otherof the female partsw needed for reproduction. I told you I wasnt talking about the sperm going down the shower drain or into the hanky.


Your claim is that a conscious action is needed to produce this life upon conception. With one person or two, the action can be conscious.



> Forcing someone to create a life by rape is NOT the same as not allowing someone to abort a child simply because she "isnt ready"


Oh yeah? How so, I see them both as a case of not being ready.



> Precedent is wrong. Used to be legal to kill horse theives, solve disputes through a duel, or own a man as a slave. Times change.


So you disagree with the thing that nearly all decisions in a court of law are based on? Precedent stands unless you can prove that the case which it was based on was faulty for some reason.



> Doesnt change the fact that sex was brought about for procreation. We can enjoy it many different ways, but its root source is procreation.


Thank you, you have made the disctinction between sex for reproduction and sex for enjoyment. The intent of sex for enjoyment is not to produce a child, and as such if something goes awry the woman should have the opportunity to correct things such that they follow the initial plan.



> Also, for what its worth. Roe, of Roe Vs Wade, said that that abortion and the ensuing battle was the worst mistake she ever made.


No one ever said it was pretty. Also, would you mind citing your source? I checked around and couldnt find it.



> It seems to me that life begining at conception is a pretty hard number.


That doesn't make it right.



> Loads of research will never give you an answer you like. Research will always point to the begining of life as conception.


I challenge you to find any credible research that states that life begins at conception. That is simply hogwash.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> A man masterbating has nothing to do with the uterous or any otherof the female partsw needed for reproduction. I told you I wasnt talking about the sperm going down the shower drain or into the hanky.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is that a conscious action is needed to produce this life upon conception. With one person or two, the action can be conscious.
Click to expand...

Your mixing facts. Masterbation is a conscious act, but it is not mating. They are not the same thing.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Forcing someone to create a life by rape is NOT the same as not allowing someone to abort a child simply because she "isnt ready"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah? How so, I see them both as a case of not being ready.
Click to expand...

Because a rape victim has not made the conscious decision to join in the act of mating. The woman wanting an abortion becasue shes not ready choose to mate, but also chose to disregard the consequences.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Precedent is wrong. Used to be legal to kill horse theives, solve disputes through a duel, or own a man as a slave. Times change.
> 
> 
> 
> So you disagree with the thing that nearly all decisions in a court of law are based on? Precedent stands unless you can prove that the case which it was based on was faulty for some reason.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree with all precedents, just the one in which the SCOTUS decided it was ok for a woman to kill her unborn child.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Doesnt change the fact that sex was brought about for procreation. We can enjoy it many different ways, but its root source is procreation.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, you have made the disctinction between sex for reproduction and sex for enjoyment. The intent of sex for enjoyment is not to produce a child, and as such if something goes awry the woman should have the opportunity to correct things such that they follow the initial plan.
Click to expand...

Your seeing what you want to see. I stated clearly that sex is intended for procreation, we just also happen to be able to enjoy it. Just because you enjoy something doesnt mean you can ignore the consequences. If a man and a woman decide to mate for pleasure, they have to consider that act could create a child. Killing that child via an abortion is no different than the mother strangling the child with her bare hands after it is born, simply because she didnt want it.



Militant_Tiger said:


> Also, for what its worth. Roe, of Roe Vs Wade, said that that abortion and the ensuing battle was the worst mistake she ever made.
> 
> 
> 
> No one ever said it was pretty. Also, would you mind citing your source? I checked around and couldnt find it.
Click to expand...

I saw her use those exact words on Fox news, in a live interview. I couldnt find the video, but here is an excerpt from wikipedia.

""Jane Roe" switches sides
In an interesting turn of events, "Jane Roe," whose real name is Norma McCorvey, became a member of the pro-life movement following her conversion to Christianity, and now fights to make abortion illegal. In a press conference held on January 18, 2005, McCorvey claimed that she was the "pawn" of the ambitious Weddington, who was looking for a plaintiff to challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion. Using her prerogative as a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in a U.S. District Court in Texas and have it overturned. See McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F3d 846 (5th Cir 2004). Her new stance is based on claims made since the decision, claiming evidence of emotional and other harm suffered by many women who have had abortions, and increased resources for the care of unwanted children. On June 19, 2003, Judge David Godbey ruled that the motion was not made within a "reasonable time." On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, ending McCorvey's appeal. "



Militant_Tiger said:


> It seems to me that life begining at conception is a pretty hard number.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...




Militant_Tiger said:


> Loads of research will never give you an answer you like. Research will always point to the begining of life as conception.
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to find any credible research that states that life begins at conception. That is simply hogwash.
Click to expand...

I'll take that challenge. Im at work right now, but I'll dig through some web pages when I get home.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I dont disagree with all precedents, just the one in which the SCOTUS decided it was ok for a woman to kill her unborn child.


Rather, the case in which it was decided that a woman can do with her body what she wills. It is a free country, after all.



> Your seeing what you want to see. I stated clearly that sex is intended for procreation, we just also happen to be able to enjoy it. Just because you enjoy something doesnt mean you can ignore the consequences. If a man and a woman decide to mate for pleasure, they have to consider that act could create a child. Killing that child via an abortion is no different than the mother strangling the child with her bare hands after it is born, simply because she didnt want it.


Ok then, if you are so adamant about taking the road that life begins at conception, why is it that we only gain citizenship at birth? Certainly where the life was created is far more important than where it was born, and as such any child who was concieved in this country should be an American citizen. Because the fetus is not a citizen and the mother (in this supposed case) is, the mother's rights take precedent.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... 68,00.html

Two thirds of the nation do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned.


----------



## Plainsman

Militant_Tiger said:


> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html
> 
> Two thirds of the nation do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned.


To quote you MT that doesn't make it right. It's a weak argument, but I thought I would point out your double standard. One for you one for Gun Owner.


----------



## Plainsman

Plainsman said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1170368,00.html
> 
> Two thirds of the nation do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned.
> 
> 
> 
> To quote you MT that doesn't make it right. It's a weak argument, but I thought I would point out your double standard. One for you one for Gun Owner.
Click to expand...

I think society bent the scientific idea of when life begins. As a matter of fact I noticed society pushing the new qualifier back in about 1965. Zero population growth (I remember many people wearing their pin on their lapel) pushed the new definition very hard. They advanced more available birth control, followed by abortion.

The guys looking for life on other planets really stretch the imagination. It's odd how in one realm of science a couple of DNA structures are life, but in another a pound or two of human flesh is not.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> Ok then, if you are so adamant about taking the road that life begins at conception, why is it that we only gain citizenship at birth? Certainly where the life was created is far more important than where it was born, and as such any child who was concieved in this country should be an American citizen. Because the fetus is not a citizen and the mother (in this supposed case) is, the mother's rights take precedent.


The laws regarding citizenship are written that way. But to assume that an unborn has no rights, is not only morally wrong, its been fough in court as well. If an unborn child was not alive, a person would not be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Peterson trial ring a bell? He wouldnt have been convicted of two counts if the unborn child had no rights.

As for gaining citizen ship at birth, those are questions I cant answer. Im not a lawyer, and I never pretended to be one. I am however simply able to see without any research necesary that I am alive, and I have been since my fathers sperm met my mothers egg. That is the instant I was created. Thats the only way I could have been created. And nothing after I was created "breathed" life into me. My life began at that very instant. I truly dont understand how you can even try to argue that point.


----------



## racer66

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/ ... index.html

Looks like he signed it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> The laws regarding citizenship are written that way. But to assume that an unborn has no rights, is not only morally wrong, its been fough in court as well. If an unborn child was not alive, a person would not be charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman. Peterson trial ring a bell? He wouldnt have been convicted of two counts if the unborn child had no rights.


If life begins at conception certainly all things which are at this time attributed to one at birth should be given then.

As to the murder or killing of a pregnant woman, ask yourself why that person would be charged for two counts of murder. Is it because he is taking a life, or is it because he is making the choice for the mother as to whether it should become life?



> I am however simply able to see without any research necesary that I am alive, and I have been since my fathers sperm met my mothers egg. That is the instant I was created. Thats the only way I could have been created. And nothing after I was created "breathed" life into me. My life began at that very instant. I truly dont understand how you can even try to argue that point.


Breathed is an appropriate word. Why not use the instant one takes their first breath as the point at which life was "breathed" into them? Certainly a child which never breathes was never alive to begin with. How do you mark a grave stone for a child that dies in labor, 9 months old, or just born?


----------



## racer66

> It would take one hell of a man to reject the ability to avoid responsibility for his actions.


This quote says alot about you, someday you MAY learn that you will be ahead if you face your responsibilities HEAD ON.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> As to the murder or killing of a pregnant woman, ask yourself why that person would be charged for two counts of murder. Is it because he is taking a life, or is it because he is making the choice for the mother as to whether it should become life?


So now you're suggesting that the mother decide when life begins? doesnt work that way. The child is either alive or isnt. We measure the time of death when the heart stops beating, and brain waves cease. Unborn children at 6 weeks gestation have these signs of life. Would you then concede that a 6 week old fetus is alive? We've already moved you back to 27 weeks with my son. How about the case of Kenya King? She was born at 19 weeks and survived. How much further can we keep going back before you realise conception is the key?



> Breathed is an appropriate word. Why not use the instant one takes their first breath as the point at which life was "breathed" into them? Certainly a child which never breathes was never alive to begin with. How do you mark a grave stone for a child that dies in labor, 9 months old, or just born?


Usually marked died during birth... and obviously, for a child to die during birth, it has to have been alive before the birthing progress had begun. Children in the womb do breathe by the way. At about 14 weeks the fetus begins to breathe amniotic fluid.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> Usually marked died during birth... and obviously, for a child to die during birth, it has to have been alive before the birthing progress had begun. Children in the womb do breathe by the way. At about 14 weeks the fetus begins to breathe amniotic fluid.


Or they could be a stillbirth and be dead long before they see the light of day. Let us define breathing as breathing air then, through the windpipe.



> So now you're suggesting that the mother decide when life begins? doesnt work that way. The child is either alive or isnt. We measure the time of death when the heart stops beating, and brain waves cease. Unborn children at 6 weeks gestation have these signs of life. Would you then concede that a 6 week old fetus is alive? We've already moved you back to 27 weeks with my son. How about the case of Kenya King? She was born at 19 weeks and survived. How much further can we keep going back before you realise conception is the key?


The mother doesn't decide, there is a set time. What that time is, I don't know. Conception is not the key because the fusing of the sperm and egg does not produce a human. It produces the possibility of a human. One would not call frog eggs a frog, nor should they call an embryo a human. It is not human, it is the possibility of a human, and whether it will become one or not is up to the person whom it grows inside, the mother.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> Or they could be a stillbirth and be dead long before they see the light of day. Let us define breathing as breathing air then, through the windpipe.


So would you define me as dead if I was breathing Liquivent? For those that dont know, Liquivent is similar to the pink liquid that was used in the movie "the Abyss" Also, in that movie, that was not faked. Ed Harris was actually breathing liquid.

Also, for what its worth, the fetus breathes the amniotic fluid through the windpipe.



> The mother doesn't decide, there is a set time. What that time is, I don't know. Conception is not the key because the fusing of the sperm and egg does not produce a human. It produces the possibility of a human. One would not call frog eggs a frog, nor should they call an embryo a human. It is not human, it is the possibility of a human, and whether it will become one or not is up to the person whom it grows inside, the mother.


You're contradicting yourself. If the mother decides to abort at 24 weeks, shes deciding that that child wasnt alive, even though it would have probably survived a birth at that time. You cant have it both ways man.

Let me put it to you this way. You basically want to say that aborting a fetus is not killing a child, because a fetus is not a child. Fine. I dont think I can ever change your mind on that, but I do hope time will. However, you have to concede the fact that since a fetus breathes in its environment, has a heartbeat, and "thinks" (remember, I think therefore I am) an abortion causes the death of a fetus.

If you dont wanna call a fetus a child, thats fine. But if you dont think that an abortion kills a fetus, your simply trying to rationalize your way out of feeling guilty.


----------



## goldhunter470

CONGRATULATIONS SOUTH DAKOTA!!!!!!!!!!
:beer: :beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger

Notice that the punishment is a maximum of five years in prison. Even the state which is attempting to ban abortion states that the fetus is at least less than human, else charges as severe as if the fetus were a human would be broguth against the doctor.

Let us speak of two adult humans. If one is dying of a kidney disease, and another is healthy and capable of donating a kidney, the state cannot force them, even in order to save the first person's life. You cannot force the use of ones body upon another.

I don't know that it kills something, I know that it prevents it from becoming a human though.

As to if a child would survive at 6 months, that is very debatable.

As to if a fetus thinks, we dont know about that one either. Terri Schiavo had some brain waves too, yet her brain was nearly liquified.

Frankly I don't think either one of us will change our minds anytime soon. I don't plan on changing my mind, ever. It may happen, but I simply love freedom too much to allow my personal beliefs to take the right away from another American citizen.

Let me ask you a final question. Think of you as a fetus. Now think of you as a toddler. Stop, actually invision it.

Did you think of yourself in third person for the first and first person for the second? I know I did. That holds meaning for me.


----------



## racer66

It will be interesting to see which states follow.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I would expect to see a backlash more than a game of follow the leader. As I stated, 2/3 of the country simply does not want this.


----------



## Plainsman

> Or they could be a stillbirth and be dead long before they see the light of day. Let us define breathing as breathing air then, through the windpipe.


I think in this statement you are saying that the child died before birth, which in essence acknowledges that it was alive before birth. This leads me to believe you know the truth, but deny it to yourself. Very elementary psychology really.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

> I think in this statement you are saying that the child died before birth, which in essence acknowledges that it was alive before birth. This leads me to believe you know the truth, but deny it to yourself. Very elementary psychology really.


Was it a separate life? No. It had potential that was extinguished.


----------



## racer66

> Was it a separate life? No. It had potential that was extinguished.


Therefore removing all guilt in your mind.


----------



## Gun Owner

Militant_Tiger said:


> Was it a separate life? No. It had potential that was extinguished.


Thats like saying you put out a match before you light it. An unlit match has the potential to light. Kudos to Plainsman for pointing that out, all of your language revolves around synonyms to death. I'd say Frued was right.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I don't believe a match really correlates to this situation, but if you want to, lets say the match got soaked before it was lit. I used the word extinguished because it was the first thing that came to mind. Care to discuss any of the points I made or are we going to go into my id and ego?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

I just came to the realization that I'm attacking this problem the wrong way. I know where I want to go, but I don't know how to get there. I'll have a revised argument tomorrow.

I've got some daily show to watch, so in the words of General Douglas MacArthur, "BRB"


----------



## Eagle Eye

:idea:


> I'll have a revised argument tomorrow.


:huh:


----------

