• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway

We're letting the woman make her own judgments and choices. "All hell isn't going to break loose because we're not advocating abortion - we're advocating choice.

It should never be a choice whether or not to murder something so helpless as an unborn child, for the mere sake of convience of life of the child bearer. That is not couragous, but rather cowardly instead.

j-mac
 
There is a lot of oil in Alaska the present government chooses to ignore and the Keystone pipeline has been waiting on a decision for far too long. If you call treating oil companies with some respect is "coddling" then i can see why some companies are saying it's become to difficult to do business there.
The problem is that we can't get both parties to come to some reasonable agreement. You blame Democrats, but there are Republicans that feel the same way.

MINNEAPOLIS — Senator John McCain reiterated his opposition to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on Thursday, a day after his statement that he would be willing to “go back and look at it again” sparked speculation among both opponents and proponents of drilling that he might change his mind.

“My position has not changed,’’ Mr. McCain said here on his campaign bus.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...es-opposition-to-drilling-in-wildlife-refuge/

I'm glad out economy is doing well also, but I want the same for the American people too. And if you are going to strangle the chief suppliers of your energy resources then I can only see problems ahead. Nancy Pelosi visited here a while back to make sure Canada was following environmental guidelines but her visit was all for American political consumption. We follow very strict guidelines here but it's all become too political in the States.
There is a big difference between strangling chief suppliers and making sure they do things in a safe manner to protect the people and the environment. It only seems political because the country has become divided - it isn't about what is right for the country any more, it's about what does my party stand behind!

This is a new attitude for Americans. I've never heard a time in their history when they waited for money to "trickle down". In fact this attitude seems exclusive to Americans right now.
Oh no, it is not new. It was introduced by Reagan when he was president, the idea that if you don't tax the rich and corporations, some of their earnings will trickle down to the poor people. The opposite has happened, the poor people's money is trickling up. George HW Bush called it voodoo economics, and after G W Bush left us in such a mess, I guess his father knew what he was talking about.

That's right, but we don't have the same rights here as the Americans do. Previous governments have removed those rights and the present generation grows up not realizing what is gone, or that they can never get it back. Now you're going through the same process and gradually eroding those rights that made your country great. We've seen it happen throughout the democracies and Europe is probably the best example of what the future holds.
That is why we are fighting to maintain those rights. It isn't fair that we pay taxes and the only ones that get major returns are the wealthy, who are being given loopholes and shelters so they can keep more of their money. I would like to keep more of my money, too, but it seems my taxes keep going up while the rich are able to work around their rates and some end up paying even less than the middle-class.

That's right also. A majority government put it under our Medical system and despite protests there was nothing the Canadian people could do. Now you have the freedom to debate abortion, a luxury Canadians don't have. Soon that debate will disappear in the US also, probably sooner than many think.
That some are trying to take the country back a few hundred years is nothing new. I guess they preferred when women were doing them behind closed doors with clothes hangers. I guess their compassion for the fetus does not take into consideration that now we'll be losing both the women and the fetus. I don't believe they will ever do away with abortion, there will always be a need for it (risk of mother's life, rape and incest), and there will always be those who will be willing to bend the rules. The real help was in providing education, but that seems to be one of the things Republicans want to get rid of.

Our welfare system has become more strict, but of course we also have many dependent on it to. I once worked in a city welfare department for a couple of years and it just went from one generation among many families to the next. They just became paperwork and nothing was really ever expected of them.
That is the problem with the state, not the people. You are always going to have a small group that will try to milk the system, no matter what it is. It is up to the states to come up with rigid rules to obstruct abuse. The new welfare laws (Clinton's reform), only allow a person to stay 5 years - (I'm sure there are exceptions), but anyone that is able to work should be expected to get a job. If that doesn't happen it is because the State is not doing their job.


yes, I'm familiar with that GE debacle and its ties with the US President and his political party but in fact the corporate tax rate in Canada is almost half of what is is in the States so with NAFTA in place it's very easy for companies to move up here.
Obama has named Immelt as head of the New Jobs Panel. I guess he believes the old adage, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" - Immelt is a Republican and has contributed heavily to Republican candidates. Either that, or he is trying to appeal to Republicans by naming one of their own. Since it has been declared that GE didn't pay taxes most Republicans are now trying to disassociate with him, trying to make him a Democrat or somehow tie the "no taxes paid by GE" as a Democratic endeavor, when we all know they are all out for reducing corporate taxes.

Canada is doing well right now but if the government tries to do too much spending or the public makes greater and greater demands, I can see it collapsing, just as it has elsewhere. I tend to make conservative investments myself and it's served me well, and I appreciate my government doing the same thing. But once in power, with all that money at their disposal, they get a thrill of excitement they wouldn't otherwise enjoy, and want to right every wrong the world has ever known. That's when the problems begin and reminds us of Lord Acton's warning on power corrupting, which is just as true now as it was when he said it those many years ago. And the political party doesn't matter at all.
I don't know what is going to happen here. I've never seen so much animosity between the parties as has been seen since Obama got elected. It has split families and caused friends to split. I speak from experience!
 
Here's the absurdity of pro-abortion argument:

They don't believe that a prenatal life conceived in a human womb is a prenatal human baby. They claimed it is a blob of tissue with no consciousness and no ability to feel pain. They will claim “It doesn't sway many people” even having “watched films on abortions with friends and acquaintances where they show all the gruesome stuff “.

Including the claim that: “If someone doesn't believe that a stage of development has the full value of a fully developed human, they are likely not going to react emotionally because they do not have the same attachment to it that a person who does believe those things will.

In their own word they claimed that it has only "the potential to develop consciousness and yet it is certainly not a human being".

As such, they convince themselves that abortion is not murder. If that's true, if that's what they truly believe, how on earth could they be emotionally disturbed by a factual description of a procedure called Dilation and Curettage performed during a surgical abortion procedure?

Do you get emotionally disturbed when people described the meat processing procedure? Would you accuse me of emotional appeal if I describe the butchering procedure as cutting into pieces of various sizes of meat or ground them hind legs into ground meats for sausage making? How about a description of cutting down a tree, a life no less, and shredding it into tiny pieces as mulch or pulverizing it into saw dust to be dumped into the compost pile?

How about liposuction procedure? Would you cry foul if I tell you how your fatty tissues are being sucked out of your sagging tummy?

Of course not. So, why would pro-abortion zealots who claim they don't believe a prenatal human life is a human being or, by their term, " a human person", get emotionally upset when a procedure of surgical abortion is factually described to them?

Obviously, deep down they know abortion is a cold blooded murder of innocent prenatal human beings. They may vehemently deny it and cry foul, but when confronted with reality, deep down within them their conscience convicts themselves. Thereby, involuntarily and unconsciously it betrays their lies. That’s why they cry foul and cry hard they do, vehemently and loudly.

Also, they will tell you abortion is a complex issue involving “unwanted children”. Yet, they refuse to realize that abortion is also too simple a solution to a complex problem. Not only that, it’s also a cop out option to destroy another human life to cover for the irresponsibility of the perpetrators.

With one foot, they will stand firm on the ground of abortion to make their point, which is a moot point. But, with the other foot hanging aloft, when confronted into a tight corner, they will stand on another ground to deny their case “to abort them".

It's an evasive behavior.

1) I have never stated that a prenatal life is not human. In fact, I have always stated that, genetically, it IS human.
2) Everything else you stated is nothing more than more dramatics and appeals to emotion.

Let me know when you either post something that attends to my actual position, or that doesn't reek of dramatics. Thus far, I haven't seen you do either.
 
I certainly look at the complexity of the situation, however I also look at the bigger picture and see in that no serious loss to justify the kind of attitude people have here. That some portion of the poor might have a problem finding such a facility in the immediate term, presuming again that Planned Parenthood actually had to shut down over the loss of funding, is not serious enough to override the benefit of shutting down the largest abortion provider in the country.

Again, you are avoiding the issue, DoL. You are still simplifying a complex issue. One way to avoid abortions is to make birth control and low cost medical-sexual services as easily accessible as possible. PP helps make this happen. You want abortion stopped, but you offer nothing to assist in the post-situational process. In fact, the things you suggest complicate matters, further. SOP for pro-lifers.


Really? Why do you think most women have abortions if not convenience?

Define convienence.

It is an appeal to emotion because you are using the fear of these problems as an argument in itself. You are saying we should allow abortion because very bad things would happen if we didn't. That is classic appeal to emotion because it does not involve an actual argument for allowing abortion, only an argument for how scary things would be without it.

No, I am giving you actual statistics. If we do not allow abortions, there will be more children do manage. Many more. Many of these chidren will be unwanted... as if abortion were legal, they would not exist. This is very simple logic, DoL. No appeal to emotion, just simple logic.

Calling it what I believe it to be is just that. It is not an appeal to emotion in any way. Do not mistake saying something that incites strong emotions with an appeal to emotion. My emotions on this issue are strong and I am not going to sugarcoat abortion just to satisfy misguided nit-pickers like yourself who pompously toss around the names of logical fallacies to try and "win" a discussion.

No need to get snippy because your lack of logic on this issue makes you look silly. It does. Calling it what you believe it is does not make it accurate. You are using emotional terms to garner pity. This is an appeal to emotion. Very weak debating, DoL... very weak.

I was not telling you how to debate, just telling you the only two possible choices for your accusation to have any consistency. The people who defined "appeal to emotion" are responsible for that.

I have demonstrated your poor logic repeatedly. Your denial of that is your problem.

I did not just say "human" but "as human as the rest of us" and there is a significant difference.

Explain the difference.

My issue with you is the insistence that one can only propose putting an end to abortion if they already have a plan to deal with the entire child-care system. Were you only inquiring as to what would be done to deal with the consequences it would be one thing, but here you are conditioning an end to abortion with answering the query to your satisfaction. I am not playing your game.

You're refusing to answer because you can't. It is the failure of the pro-lifer position. Further, you have been altering my position from the start... as is your standard MO when you debate. I will tell you again, I am not asking for a solution to the entire child-care system. I am asking you to provide a plan that would address the management of the additional children that would not be alive if abortion were legal. This is what I have been asking from the beginning. Your alteration of what I am asking is just more of your standard dishonest debating. Now, I understand that you can't answer the question, but at least admit that instead of being dishonest and changing what I am asking.

Your vague anecdotes are of no interest to me. How about you provide some hard facts?

You didn't even offer vague anecdotes. All you said was "nuh, uh." Show us some evidence that I am wrong.

For now, though that is slated to change. However, one-third of their facilities being focused more on abortions than any other services sounds a lot different from "3% of their services are abortions" which is what you and Chappy first trotted out. The latter gives the deceitful impression that abortion is not a significant part of what Planned Parenthood does while the former indicates it is a central service to the organization.

And your "one-thirds" is you parsing statistics and gives a deceitful impression that abortion is a more significant part of what PP does that it actually does.
 
If abortion is such the "right" that the pro advocates say it is then there should be no problem in making it a constitutional amendment rather than a judicial fiat like it is now.

Second, if it is such the moral non sequiter that the pro side says, then why not address it for what it is, discontinuing a human life.

We need to see this for what it is, population control. Margret Sanger was a eugenicist, and started this org with the control of the AA community, and mentally challenged in mind. It is sickening that the current proponents of this infanticide are allowed to mask this travesty in some pseudo moral rights argument. Talk about turning morality on its head.


j-mac
 
Problem is.....the circumstnaces of the beginning of life and the end of life are not the same.
which "circumstances" are you talking about. i'm talking about the POINT at which both occure.
 
Well there are already arguments out there that suggests babies can be 'aborted' up to the time they are two years old and that women should be forced to have abortions so perhaps some Harvard professors should advise when people should be put to death as well. How about 55? That's when people begin becoming more of a burden to society and our taxes start to go up as a result. Think that might suit the Leftists?
those arguements are not mine.
 
It should never be a choice whether or not to murder something so helpless as an unborn child, for the mere sake of convience of life of the child bearer. That is not couragous, but rather cowardly instead.

j-mac
that is not the only reason people have abortions.
 
which "circumstances" are you talking about. i'm talking about the POINT at which both occure.

Well first...technology doesn't exist to adequately measure brain activity in utero. Second, a brain starting up is not the same thing as one shutting down, the circumstances and indications are entirley different. "About to happen" is not the same consideration as "never will happen again". To name a few...
 
Again, you are avoiding the issue, DoL. You are still simplifying a complex issue. One way to avoid abortions is to make birth control and low cost medical-sexual services as easily accessible as possible. PP helps make this happen. You want abortion stopped, but you offer nothing to assist in the post-situational process. In fact, the things you suggest complicate matters, further. SOP for pro-lifers.

Birth control is already pretty damn accessible. Also, I have no objection to explaining what I think should be done with our child-care system with or without abortion being disallowed. However, I do object to people saying the only way you can legitimately call for stopping abortion is if you provide a plan for dealing with the system afterward. It is a way of avoiding the real issue of whether abortion is something that should be allowed in the first place.

Define convienence.

I am sure you have a dictionary to do that for you.

No, I am giving you actual statistics. If we do not allow abortions, there will be more children do manage. Many more. Many of these chidren will be unwanted... as if abortion were legal, they would not exist. This is very simple logic, DoL. No appeal to emotion, just simple logic.

Like I said already, it is an appeal to emotion because you are using this probability to claim the scary situation that would result is not worth stopping abortion. Your logic is fallacious because you do not actually present something that argues for why abortion should be allowed. All you are arguing for is why it should not be disallowed, specifically in a way that does not address any argument on the other side. Here is how your arguments works: "A fetus has a right to life? Well, we can't put an end to abortions because all sorts of unwanted kids would be born as a result and it would be bad for our child-care system!" What you have done is completely ignore the central issue in favor of fear tactics.

No need to get snippy because your lack of logic on this issue makes you look silly. It does. Calling it what you believe it is does not make it accurate. You are using emotional terms to garner pity. This is an appeal to emotion. Very weak debating, DoL... very weak.

It seems pretty clear that, like many terms you do not understand the meaning of, you have no clue what "appeal to emotion" means. Saying that this is a slaughter of innocent children is not an appeal to emotion because it is what I believe and that belief is my reason for wanting it stopped. That belief is centered on seeing those human lives as being just as important as any other human life.

Explain the difference.

It's actually pretty simple. The fact you do not think the unborn have the same protections as the rest of us means you do not see them as being as human.

You're refusing to answer because you can't. It is the failure of the pro-lifer position. Further, you have been altering my position from the start... as is your standard MO when you debate. I will tell you again, I am not asking for a solution to the entire child-care system. I am asking you to provide a plan that would address the management of the additional children that would not be alive if abortion were legal. This is what I have been asking from the beginning. Your alteration of what I am asking is just more of your standard dishonest debating. Now, I understand that you can't answer the question, but at least admit that instead of being dishonest and changing what I am asking.

I told you what your demand really means, not what you claimed it means. You cannot fix the child-care system for just kids who would not have been aborted. There would be no basis for deciding what kids get these improved services and attempting it would distort the workings of the child-care system. Rather, your demand would require fixing the entire child-care system. Also, as I have said several times, I am not answering your question because I do not consider it to be a legitimate question to ask as a condition for legitimizing my position. The legitimacy of my position is independent of any such condition.

You didn't even offer vague anecdotes. All you said was "nuh, uh." Show us some evidence that I am wrong.

Ok:

But according to a 2008 survey of 4,700 physicians by the Center for Studying Health System Change, nationwide only 28 percent of physicians won’t accept any new patients who are insured by Medicaid. HSC, which is funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is affiliated with Mathematica Policy Research Inc., also found that 19.2 percent accept some new Medicaid patients, while 53 percent accept most or all of them.

Source: FactCheck.org

And your "one-thirds" is you parsing statistics and gives a deceitful impression that abortion is a more significant part of what PP does that it actually does.

It is not parsing statistics at all. A third of Planned Parenthood's facilities offer abortions and since 11% of Planned Parenthood's overall clientele receive abortions this suggests those Planned Parenthood facilities provide, on average, a third of their clients with abortions meaning these facilities are more about providing abortions than they are about providing other services.
 
1) I have never stated that a prenatal life is not human. In fact, I have always stated that, genetically, it IS human.
2) Everything else you stated is nothing more than more dramatics and appeals to emotion.

Let me know when you either post something that attends to my actual position, or that doesn't reek of dramatics. Thus far, I haven't seen you do either.
Like I said, the way abortion proponents go about their way of defending their abortion cause is none other than evasive behavior. They are so elusive as to think they can call the shot with false charges, ignore fact and do away with rational reasoning. They think they can simply throw some mud at you and hope at least one will stick or else in most likelihood it would misdirect into numerous instances of beating a dead horse with circular logic far removed from the original contention. As in this case. And of course, everybody would eventually forget what the original argument was all about to begin with.

Of course, you’re claiming you “never stated that a prenatal life is not human”. If you and I pretend that we mean the same by the term “human”, you certainly won’t admit that by supporting the killing of innocent “human” as in a “human being”, you are a self-confessed cold blooded murderer of tiny helpless children. When push come to shove, you will morph into something else and claim that by the term “human” you simply mean “human” as in human skin cell or hair follicle. The “genetically” thang is simply thrown in as icing on the cake for good measure.

You second point is also a moot point. Here is D & C described:
Abortion: Some Medical Facts

Abortion Techniques
• Surgical
• First Trimester

Dilatation (Dilation) and Curettage (D&C)

In this technique, the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit the insertion of a loop shaped steel knife. The body of the baby is cut into pieces and removed and the placenta is scraped off the uterine wall. [14] Blood loss from D & C, or "mechanical" curettage is greater than for suction aspiration, as is the likelihood of uterine perforation and infection. [15]

This method should not be confused with routine D&C’s done for reasons other than undesired pregnancy (to treat abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea, etc.). [16]

Remember, D & C is just one abortion method. There are other gruesome abortion techniques, such as D & E (AKA Partial Birth Abortion) which I had not even mentioned in my previous post for brevity’s sake.

The factual description of abortion technique is what it is. To argue persistently that it is an appeal to emotion (which is a fallacy or logical error in argument, which in this case is not) is simply an evasive tactics of yours in order to elude my pursuit of you into a tight corner. In fact, you’re the one being dramatics and highly emotional without any basis. Talk about turning the table.
 
The problem is that we can't get both parties to come to some reasonable agreement. You blame Democrats, but there are Republicans that feel the same way.

Then those Republicans, like John McCain, should be ignored and steps taken immediately to have some sort of rational plan to get oil to the lower 48 States. This has been going on too long and the US will continue to decline as a result. I may harass and tease you about our differences but in fact I want to see the American people, our very good neighbors, prosperous and strong.

Now is the Time to Pass an ANWR Bill | RedState


There is a big difference between strangling chief suppliers and making sure they do things in a safe manner to protect the people and the environment. It only seems political because the country has become divided - it isn't about what is right for the country any more, it's about what does my party stand behind!

No one from any party want to damage the environment. That has been blown way out of proportion and as a result the US has become energy dependent. The environment will change but that doesn't mean t will be destroyed. We've made some huge changes here in Canada and the environmentalists were ina dither for a while but everything is going well now and people, and animals, are getting on fine. The 'environment' is a lot tougher and stronger then we think. It is not 'fragile' at all and will still be humming along once we're all gone.


Oh no, it is not new. It was introduced by Reagan when he was president, the idea that if you don't tax the rich and corporations, some of their earnings will trickle down to the poor people. The opposite has happened, the poor people's money is trickling up. George HW Bush called it voodoo economics, and after G W Bush left us in such a mess, I guess his father knew what he was talking about.

Yes, i know the history about trickle down economics but it is all bunk. Just go out there and make a living wherever you can and things will happen. Reagan said not to trust the government and he was right, particularly since he was also part of the government.


That is why we are fighting to maintain those rights. It isn't fair that we pay taxes and the only ones that get major returns are the wealthy, who are being given loopholes and shelters so they can keep more of their money. I would like to keep more of my money, too, but it seems my taxes keep going up while the rich are able to work around their rates and some end up paying even less than the middle-class.

Spend less time worrying about the wealthy and get on with your own life. This class envy is destroying the country and we know anyway that even if the government was to take all the money from 'the rich', it wouldn't be enough to pay for all the programs anyway. As soon as the rich run out of money, and it is removed from the economy, politicians will then be looking for others to pay for ther continued spending. The only way to survive is for the government to stop spending so much money. There is no other solution and chasing after the rich won't help at all, even in the short term.
That some are trying to take the country back a few hundred years is nothing new. I guess they preferred when women were doing them behind closed doors with clothes hangers.

You know that's not true. You're complaining about the country coming apart and yet you make those wild accusations. Of course it will come apart if you speak so unkindly of those with an opposing view.
I guess their compassion for the fetus does not take into consideration that now we'll be losing both the women and the fetus. I don't believe they will ever do away with abortion, there will always be a need for it (risk of mother's life, rape and incest), and there will always be those who will be willing to bend the rules. The real help was in providing education, but that seems to be one of the things Republicans want to get rid of.

You're making a lot of wild guesses but would't see that anywhere on a Republican platform. I think you should question your sources.


That is the problem with the state, not the people. You are always going to have a small group that will try to milk the system, no matter what it is. It is up to the states to come up with rigid rules to obstruct abuse. The new welfare laws (Clinton's reform), only allow a person to stay 5 years - (I'm sure there are exceptions), but anyone that is able to work should be expected to get a job. If that doesn't happen it is because the State is not doing their job.

That's why there should be more State rights, not less.
Obama has named Immelt as head of the New Jobs Panel. I guess he believes the old adage, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" - Immelt is a Republican and has contributed heavily to Republican candidates. Either that, or he is trying to appeal to Republicans by naming one of their own. Since it has been declared that GE didn't pay taxes most Republicans are now trying to disassociate with him, trying to make him a Democrat or somehow tie the "no taxes paid by GE" as a Democratic endeavor, when we all know they are all out for reducing corporate taxes.

General Electric has contributed a great deal to the Democrats.

General Electric | OpenSecrets

Top Contributors to Barack Obama | OpenSecrets


I don't know what is going to happen here. I've never seen so much animosity between the parties as has been seen since Obama got elected. It has split families and caused friends to split. I speak from experience!

Well of course there is going to be animosity if you continue with your attitudes towards the other political party, as well as making clearly untrue comments You are putting your partisan politics ahead of your country, and that's being demonstrated right now by what's happening to the United States.
 
Last edited:
How many state funded offer those same services? Goddamn! How much taxes do we really have to ****ting up to pay for these mother****ing deadbeats?

What makes you think every woman who receives abortion services from Planned Parenthood are "deadbeats" - code word for poor minorities (Blacks and Histpanics)? Is it possible that many of these women come from decent, hard working families who just made poor choices? Why does every woman who has an abortion have to be moochers off the goverment's doles?

Now, I agree with you that there are other private and/or state-sponsored organizations that also provide abortion services, but just people were wrongly arguing about states receiving federal funding for abortion per the PPACA, the same holds true here. In other words, state funding for abortions follow their own laws where who pays for abortions just as the PPACA restricts federal funding for abortions. In the patient wants to have one, she has to come out of pocket to pay for it. So, unless you've seen Planned Parenthoods financial records, you don't know with absolute certainty that Planned Parenthood uses federal dollars to finance abortions. However, we do know that they are a "family planning organization that receives federal dollars to provide many of the services they provide to the public." I think we all can agree that such a statement is true. But until you see how those federal funds are utilized and/or disbursed, any such claim for directly funding abortions is just that...speculation and right-wing rhetoric.

So, the question I have for everyone who has a heartburn with Planned Parenthood and the abortion question: "Have you seen their books?" The summary brief I linked to and pulled figures from shows the organization's financial breakdown per services rendered, but nowhere does it illustrate how dollars received from this financial contributor or that one were actually used. Splitting hairs you say? Well, isn't this the exact same argument used concerning campaign contributions? Personally speaking, I don't see the difference. Hypocricy is hypocricy and :spin: is :spin:. Bottom line: Don't let misinformation and distortion of the facts cloud your judgment.
 
As it has been pointed out before, many Social Cons' argument against abortion actually has nothing to do with abortion. They want to defund abortion services AT THE SAME TIME as making contraceptive and proper sexual education exceedingly difficult to get. Their views have honestly nothing to do with abortion. It's anti-slut. They just dishonestly hide their views behind stopping abortion, which by the way the federal government funded something like 163 for the whole 2009 fiscal year.
 
As it has been pointed out before, many Social Cons' argument against abortion actually has nothing to do with abortion. They want to defund abortion services AT THE SAME TIME as making contraceptive and proper sexual education exceedingly difficult to get. Their views have honestly nothing to do with abortion. It's anti-slut. They just dishonestly hide their views behind stopping abortion, which by the way the federal government funded something like 163 for the whole 2009 fiscal year.

With the amount of money the government is spending on education you'd think they could give a brief mention of what causes pregnancy. Even the lowest form of animal life understands what makes babies, but adult women don't?
 
As it has been pointed out before, many Social Cons' argument against abortion actually has nothing to do with abortion. They want to defund abortion services AT THE SAME TIME as making contraceptive and proper sexual education exceedingly difficult to get. Their views have honestly nothing to do with abortion. It's anti-slut. They just dishonestly hide their views behind stopping abortion, which by the way the federal government funded something like 163 for the whole 2009 fiscal year.

I don't agree with you at all here. For abortion, conservatives are anti killing of what they believe to be a human being with moral rights. For contraceptives, they are anti any acknowledgment that sex exists before marriage and especially before 20-25.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with you at all here. For abortion, conservatives are anti killing of what they believe to be a human being with moral rights. For contraceptives, they are anti any acknowledgment that sex exists before marriage and especially before 20-25.

You chose your name well.
 
Well first...technology doesn't exist to adequately measure brain activity in utero. Second, a brain starting up is not the same thing as one shutting down, the circumstances and indications are entirley different. "About to happen" is not the same consideration as "never will happen again". To name a few...
okay if we can't adequately measure brain activity in the utero as you say then i say at the point which all the conditions/components are met for brain activity to happen should be that point. as tothe brain starting up and shutting down not being the "same" thing i agree they are the opposite and being the opposite would agree with oneanother according to the law that is the whole point. about the "about to happen" vs. "never will happen again" again those are the opposite of one another and the point of my whole arguement. so i just don't see how what you said is shooting holes in it maybe you could explain how these opposites don't relate to oneanother again without them just being opposite for that is MY whole point. life and death ARE the polar opposites of one another you do agree with that don't you mac?
 
okay if we can't adequately measure brain activity in the utero as you say then i say at the point which all the conditions/components are met for brain activity to happen should be that point. as tothe brain starting up and shutting down not being the "same" thing i agree they are the opposite and being the opposite would agree with oneanother according to the law that is the whole point. about the "about to happen" vs. "never will happen again" again those are the opposite of one another and the point of my whole arguement. so i just don't see how what you said is shooting holes in it maybe you could explain how these opposites don't relate to oneanother again without them just being opposite for that is MY whole point. life and death ARE the polar opposites of one another you do agree with that don't you mac?


Ok, that would be conception....We agree then.

j-mac
 
While not the absolute sole reason, it is the overwhelming predominant one.


j-mac
that may be true but don't you think it should be made available to those who that isn't the reason?
 
Back
Top Bottom