The only time i was faced with that decision i chose to be a father. Three times. It was our decision, not the states.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Very ironic statement, considering that abortion is making a personal life or death decision for someone besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
....
I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hatw to make it for anyone besides myself.
If abortion only allowed for rape and incest
13,540 Views |
189 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by Fre3dombear
Let's start with the people attempting to kill humans first, then we can go after the ones who kill them in their attempt to allow them to live.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
The reasons Republicans lose this issue is that we are too GD stupid to advance the ball. We want to take it to the EZ and spike it but literally refuse to take a 99 yard gain.
Yes, of course, you agree to that deal.
Abortion in the case of rape or incest may be abhorrent to you (which is a nearly insane stance but, whatever, to each their own) but it's a 99 yard gain.
1% of abortion is due to rape
.5% is due to incest
There are between 500,000 and a million abortions performed each year depending on whose numbers you believe.
Yes, of course, you agree to that deal.
Abortion in the case of rape or incest may be abhorrent to you (which is a nearly insane stance but, whatever, to each their own) but it's a 99 yard gain.
1% of abortion is due to rape
.5% is due to incest
There are between 500,000 and a million abortions performed each year depending on whose numbers you believe.
nein51 said:
The reasons Republicans lose this issue is that we are too GD stupid to advance the ball. We want to take it to the EZ and spike it but literally refuse to take a 99 yard gain.
Yes, of course, you agree to that deal.
Abortion in the case of rape or incest may be abhorrent to you (which is a nearly insane stance but, whatever, to each their own) but it's a 99 yard gain.
1% of abortion is due to rape
.5% is due to incest
There are between 500,000 and a million abortions performed each year depending on whose numbers you believe.
Exactly, some times you win by incrementalism….
The liberals did a master class on this with LGBTQ+….from just repealing sodomy laws to gay marriage to transsexuality all in 30 years
Republicans could learn something about how you slowly move the ball down the field to the end goal
In fairness to the Pro-Lifers, they're advocating for saving the lives of future children ... slightly different than advocating for adult men diddling children.Redbrickbear said:nein51 said:
The reasons Republicans lose this issue is that we are too GD stupid to advance the ball. We want to take it to the EZ and spike it but literally refuse to take a 99 yard gain.
Yes, of course, you agree to that deal.
Abortion in the case of rape or incest may be abhorrent to you (which is a nearly insane stance but, whatever, to each their own) but it's a 99 yard gain.
1% of abortion is due to rape
.5% is due to incest
There are between 500,000 and a million abortions performed each year depending on whose numbers you believe.
Exactly, some times you win by incrementalism….
The liberals did a master class on this with LGBTQ+….from just repealing sodom laws to gay marriage to trans all in 30 years
Republicans could learn something about how you slowly move the ball down the field to the end goal
That being said, I agree 100% - cannot win the war if you lose every battle.
Only 1% of abortions are because of rape. Less than .5% because of incest. So it wouldn't move the needle at all.Forest Bueller_bf said:I think it would remove more like 98% of abortions.Fre3dombear said:
Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?
Would you accept this?
I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples
What say you?
Except that you'd have alot more guys getting accused of rape.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
I agree with Nein and Redbrickbear where it is a compromise that should be considered, even though the others that have stated correctly, why should the child suffer? That's where the posters that have brought up the ridiculously high cost of adoption really comes in to play. There should be a better offramp for those that don't want the child, but would be willing to carry it to term so that adoption is possible.
I'm sure this could have unintended consequences, but what about incentivizing a woman to not abort her baby but carry it to term? Instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers, make compensation available to the biological mother.
This might inadvertently start up a "side-hustle" business for some, where young woman are earning money by being surrogates, but as long as there are willing parents who want to adopt, I think it might solve more problens than it creates.
It's got to be a better option than the existing, well established industry where welfare mothers keep pumping out more babies so they can collect more welfare money from the taxpayers.
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Thats a good question but I dont think it can be proven scientifically.Fre3dombear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Most people dont call a fertilized egg a chicken.
Some people call a fertilized clump of cells a baby.
Many couples go to a specialist and develop 4 or 5 fertilized embryos. They choose the best and either dump the rest or freeze them for the future. Eventually the frozen embryos are destroyed. If human life starts at conception should they and the dr and the clinic be charged with murder?
Why do people use one definition to be used against women and let the others go? Surely murdering thousands of babies or 4 or 5 is worse than one?
When do you believe the clump of cells is outfitted with a soul? Is that an after market upgrade or when?
What is your stance on people that throw away or freeze fertile embryos? This is a planned procedure and involves hundreds of dead babies (if you consider a fertilized clump of cells a baby)?
I don't know the answer to that. My initial thought spiritually is it's a child and it has a soul and dies when "disposed of". The human emotion of me recognizes the desire of couples needing that process to conceive and i don't know how God would look upon it.
Would He say not to do it because it kills the unborn to have a child? Could it be done in a way where no prospects are fertilized without attempting to bring them to term? If that's possible I'd personally only attempt it that way, but would need to know more.
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Sure it happens. But the prisons are full of kids that had crappy parents that didnt want them. I was scared to death at 15 but I manned up to all three surprises. Abortion was legal in Texas in '75 but we chose a different path. Kids turned out great despite being raised by a single father.
I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hate to make it for anyone besides myself.
I'd say if "for convenience" it's more of a spiritual and moral decision.
Now many people are non believers. That's a different set of problems
I'd be hard pressed to think a believer could in their true heart believe that Jesus would say "go ahead, if that's what you want. It's ok"
No more than he'd say formication, adultery, murder, homosexuality, lying etc are ok
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Very ironic statement, considering that abortion is making a personal life or death decision for someone besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
....
I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hatw to make it for anyone besides myself.
I've often found that most everyone that is for abortion has already been born. Typically liberals "I got mine" and screw the rest of ya tyoe mentality it seems for them
BearN said:Only 1% of abortions are because of rape. Less than .5% because of incest. So it wouldn't move the needle at all.Forest Bueller_bf said:I think it would remove more like 98% of abortions.Fre3dombear said:
Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?
Would you accept this?
I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples
What say you?
Except that you'd have alot more guys getting accused of rape.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/24/rape-and-incest-account-few-abortions-so-why-all-attention/1211175001/
I agree with Nein and Redbrickbear where it is a compromise that should be considered, even though the others that have stated correctly, why should the child suffer? That's where the posters that have brought up the ridiculously high cost of adoption really comes in to play. There should be a better offramp for those that don't want the child, but would be willing to carry it to term so that adoption is possible.
I'm sure this could have unintended consequences, but what about incentivizing a woman to not abort her baby but carry it to term? Instead of paying tens of thousands of dollars to lawyers, make compensation available to the biological mother.
This might inadvertently start up a "side-hustle" business for some, where young woman are earning money by being surrogates, but as long as there are willing parents who want to adopt, I think it might solve more problens than it creates.
It's got to be a better option than the existing, well established industry where welfare mothers keep pumping out more babies so they can collect more welfare money from the taxpayers.
I have some questions
1) why is it so expensive to adopt when we tax payers are funding dudes cutting off their ducks etc?
2) why does it seem as I understand it near impossible for white people to adopt a white baby? Do black people have the same challenge adopting a black baby? Hispanics hispanics? I knew of people that had to go to Russia because they wanted to adopt white children. Guess they were racist.
3) I know of women that you pay for the service of impregnating them directly and surrogate the baby. I knew of a guy who's wife couldn't conceive and he did this later in life. It as well was a mixed race only option.
But wait a minute. Isnt God responsible for the couple having fertility problems?Fre3dombear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Thats a good question but I dont think it can be proven scientifically.Fre3dombear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Most people dont call a fertilized egg a chicken.
Some people call a fertilized clump of cells a baby.
Many couples go to a specialist and develop 4 or 5 fertilized embryos. They choose the best and either dump the rest or freeze them for the future. Eventually the frozen embryos are destroyed. If human life starts at conception should they and the dr and the clinic be charged with murder?
Why do people use one definition to be used against women and let the others go? Surely murdering thousands of babies or 4 or 5 is worse than one?
When do you believe the clump of cells is outfitted with a soul? Is that an after market upgrade or when?
What is your stance on people that throw away or freeze fertile embryos? This is a planned procedure and involves hundreds of dead babies (if you consider a fertilized clump of cells a baby)?
I don't know the answer to that. My initial thought spiritually is it's a child and it has a soul and dies when "disposed of". The human emotion of me recognizes the desire of couples needing that process to conceive and i don't know how God would look upon it.
Would He say not to do it because it kills the unborn to have a child? Could it be done in a way where no prospects are fertilized without attempting to bring them to term? If that's possible I'd personally only attempt it that way, but would need to know more.
Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:But wait a minute. Isnt God responsible for the couple having fertility problems?Fre3dombear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:Thats a good question but I dont think it can be proven scientifically.Fre3dombear said:Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Most people dont call a fertilized egg a chicken.
Some people call a fertilized clump of cells a baby.
Many couples go to a specialist and develop 4 or 5 fertilized embryos. They choose the best and either dump the rest or freeze them for the future. Eventually the frozen embryos are destroyed. If human life starts at conception should they and the dr and the clinic be charged with murder?
Why do people use one definition to be used against women and let the others go? Surely murdering thousands of babies or 4 or 5 is worse than one?
When do you believe the clump of cells is outfitted with a soul? Is that an after market upgrade or when?
What is your stance on people that throw away or freeze fertile embryos? This is a planned procedure and involves hundreds of dead babies (if you consider a fertilized clump of cells a baby)?
I don't know the answer to that. My initial thought spiritually is it's a child and it has a soul and dies when "disposed of". The human emotion of me recognizes the desire of couples needing that process to conceive and i don't know how God would look upon it.
Would He say not to do it because it kills the unborn to have a child? Could it be done in a way where no prospects are fertilized without attempting to bring them to term? If that's possible I'd personally only attempt it that way, but would need to know more.
Yes or potentially yes. What's that have to do
With it? If you had a kidney disorder and could only save your life by pen knifing a kidney
Out of someone else but would kill them and you do it, is that ok?
Frozen embryos that are thrown away shows a lack of respect for human life and should be considered a serious matter.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Or a woman having a fertilized clump of cells removed.
Whats your take on fertilized embryos being frozen and later thrown away?
It seems the most of the complaints and laws are aimed at the poor getting abortions with no punishment for the rich that wanna be parents murdering 4 or 5 times the amount of aborted embryos. If any of your friends or family have gone this route they are more guilty than the regular aborters.
What about sperm? Arent they alive? Should they be protected? They certainly have a lot of potential. What does the Bible does say about it? Didnt God kill that one guy that pulled out and shot his wad on the floor to keep from knocking that woman up?
You're trying really hard to make this an issue about discrimination against women and the poor. It makes no difference who they are or how much money they make. This seems like a feeble attempt to find a bigotry angle because your argument by its own merits is too weak.
Yes, your sperm are alive, just as every single one of the 30+ trillion cells in your body are. What you're telling me here is that you don't understand the biology enough for your opinion to be taken seriously.
Harrison Bergeron said:Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.Fre3dombear said:
Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?
Would you accept this?
I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples
What say you?
Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.
I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.
If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.
Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.
(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).
The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.
The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.
That's exactly what I mean. You made a life or death decision for someone else besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:The only time i was faced with that decision i chose to be a father. Three times. It was our decision, not the states.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Very ironic statement, considering that abortion is making a personal life or death decision for someone besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
....
I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hatw to make it for anyone besides myself.
Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.Fre3dombear said:
Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?
Would you accept this?
I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples
What say you?
Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.
I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.
If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.
Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.
(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).
The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.
.
"Personhood" maybe
But when life begins is a scientific matter that is well established.
Once the egg is fertilized and begins to divide a unique human life has been created
[For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell. After 30 hours or so, it divides from one cell into two.]
If will keep on developing naturally until the baby human is fully formed and ready to leave the woman's womb.
["development of the embryo begins at stage one, when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." A zygote is the scientific term for a fertilized egg. In plain English, at the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized, a new human life is formed, complete with its own genetically unique DNA]
Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.Fre3dombear said:
Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?
Would you accept this?
I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples
What say you?
Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.
I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.
If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.
Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.
(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).
The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.
.
"Personhood" maybe
But when life begins is a scientific matter that is well established.
Once the egg is fertilized and begins to divide a unique human life has been created
[For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell. After 30 hours or so, it divides from one cell into two.]
If will keep on developing naturally until the baby human is fully formed and ready to leave the woman's womb.
["development of the embryo begins at stage one, when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." A zygote is the scientific term for a fertilized egg. In plain English, at the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized, a new human life is formed, complete with its own genetically unique DNA]
Any person has the right to life, would be the common understanding of the natural right. So when is a person a person is the only legal question that matters.
That's an immature response.Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.Fre3dombear said:
Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?
Would you accept this?
I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples
What say you?
Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.
I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.
If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.
Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.
(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).
The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.
The real question for anyone who can acknowledge that they don't actually know for certain, is whether the victim of rape should be forced to bear the child of their rapist because of someone else's belief.
All societal laws are based upon the morality of that society, and that society stems from its moral beliefs,
This is not complicated.
Maybe a better way to answer the question is: "Why shouldn't they carry the child of their rapist?"
Porteroso said:Redbrickbear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Definitely not an expert, but I would imagine the number of abortions related to incest is probably miniscule, but I could easily be proven wrong.Fre3dombear said:
Horrific horrific examples of the cruel ness of humanity, but for purpose of debate, that would remove what, probably 99% of abortions?
Would you accept this?
I believe if Jesus had the scalpel, hammer and vacuum cleaner in his hands he would not perform the abortion in these 2 examples
What say you?
Not sure how many are due to rape, but doubt it is 99%. As I understand, most are out of convenience and elective.
I try to be consistent, and I think as difficult it is to acknowledge the rape and incest exceptions are not intellectually honest.
If one believes life begins at conception and thus opposes abortion, then a life is a life independent of how it is conceived.
Otherwise, the rape and incest exception is just a more limited - and arguably more justifiable - abortion for convenience.
(I fully appreciate the situation and the pain, etc. Not being heartless but making an intellectual argument).
The thing is, all anyone has is their belief, of when life begins, or a person acquires personhood.
.
"Personhood" maybe
But when life begins is a scientific matter that is well established.
Once the egg is fertilized and begins to divide a unique human life has been created
[For the first 12 hours after conception, the fertilized egg remains a single cell. After 30 hours or so, it divides from one cell into two.]
If will keep on developing naturally until the baby human is fully formed and ready to leave the woman's womb.
["development of the embryo begins at stage one, when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote." A zygote is the scientific term for a fertilized egg. In plain English, at the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized, a new human life is formed, complete with its own genetically unique DNA]
Any person has the right to life, would be the common understanding of the natural right. So when is a person a person is the only legal question that matters.
Then it's conception (or at least 30 hours after that point)
It's a unique human with a special DNA profile and the law should recognize its personhood
The only intellectual honest positions are on the poles. I base that on the stated believe of the two main sides:
- Pro-Life: only acceptable abortion is medical necessity (life of the baby or mother at risk)
- Pro-abortion: abortion acceptable up until the child leaves the birth canal
Anything in-between is non-moral or non-scientific. There is no scientific definition of Life. So anything in between either compromises Life or choice.
Like every other issue, the Democrats have moved to the radical extreme and actively promote birth up to the point of birth while the Republican position has moved largely to the Clinton position of 1992.
- Pro-Life: only acceptable abortion is medical necessity (life of the baby or mother at risk)
- Pro-abortion: abortion acceptable up until the child leaves the birth canal
Anything in-between is non-moral or non-scientific. There is no scientific definition of Life. So anything in between either compromises Life or choice.
Like every other issue, the Democrats have moved to the radical extreme and actively promote birth up to the point of birth while the Republican position has moved largely to the Clinton position of 1992.
Today our city made it very clear that your hard earned tax dollars aren't going to you, but are going to fund out of state abortions. I will always stand for life, but let me be clear-- regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, this is not a city issue. pic.twitter.com/JuQr3H7pK4
— Councilman Marc Whyte (@cosa_cd10) April 11, 2024
Which of these options below best represents your honest, anonymous position on abortion?
— Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) April 10, 2024
It is a sacrament to the radical left fundamentalists. They care more about killing babies than their citizens.Redbrickbear said:Today our city made it very clear that your hard earned tax dollars aren't going to you, but are going to fund out of state abortions. I will always stand for life, but let me be clear-- regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, this is not a city issue. pic.twitter.com/JuQr3H7pK4
— Councilman Marc Whyte (@cosa_cd10) April 11, 2024
If god doesn't care about a fetus why should we?
Why do you say this?ron.reagan said:
If god doesn't care about a fetus why should we?
Coke Bear said:Why do you say this?ron.reagan said:
If god doesn't care about a fetus why should we?
Because is he a rock-ribbed "conservative"
He cares about the important things like starting proxy wars with nuclear armed states like Russia.
Protecting the lives of children here at home is just a distraction from the important stuff of being a Ron "conservative"
Embryos that are fertilized and have unique DNA and characteristics that no other human being will ever have are a pre-born human, that is my take. For this reason, even if wealthy enough, I would have never considered this method of trying to have a child. If embryos are destroyed intentionally that is killing them.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
Or a woman having a fertilized clump of cells removed.
Whats your take on fertilized embryos being frozen and later thrown away?
It seems the most of the complaints and laws are aimed at the poor getting abortions with no punishment for the rich that wanna be parents murdering 4 or 5 times the amount of aborted embryos. If any of your friends or family have gone this route they are more guilty than the regular aborters.
What about sperm? Arent they alive? Should they be protected? They certainly have a lot of potential. What does the Bible does say about it? Didnt God kill that one guy that pulled out and shot his wad on the floor to keep from knocking that woman up?
Sperm otoh, not the same at all. Every time you have sex millions upon million of them die. every time you have a successful pregnancy millions upon millions die. A sperm alone does not have the potential to become a child. It has the potential to fertilize an egg, once that happens the fertilzed egg has the potential to develop into a child.
The guy in the Bible disobeyed his duty to have children with his deceased brothers widow. So, he was intentionally disobeying God. That is why he was toast.
Quote:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." 9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
Clinton was a crafty politician wasn't he. The legal but rare argument got a lot of support. He even spoke about American having a change of heart about abortion. Bush One, otoh, when questioned about abortion if one of his granddaughters ever had a future unplanned pregnacy, waffled hemmed and hawed and said something like, she should be able to chose what she wants to do if pressed with this decision.Harrison Bergeron said:
The only intellectual honest positions are on the poles. I base that on the stated believe of the two main sides:
- Pro-Life: only acceptable abortion is medical necessity (life of the baby or mother at risk)
- Pro-abortion: abortion acceptable up until the child leaves the birth canal
Anything in-between is non-moral or non-scientific. There is no scientific definition of Life. So anything in between either compromises Life or choice.
Like every other issue, the Democrats have moved to the radical extreme and actively promote birth up to the point of birth while the Republican position has moved largely to the Clinton position of 1992.
Clinton was a master at the political game. The best I have ever seen. Nobody has come close to him in my lifetime.
I'm not saying he was the greatest president, but his skill was unparelleled. Now we have idiots like Harris one heart beat away from the presidency.
Yes. If the GOP was smart, it would co-opt the "Safe, Legal, and Rare" position.Forest Bueller_bf said:Clinton was a crafty politician wasn't he. The legal but rare argument got a lot of support. He even spoke about American having a change of heart about abortion. Bush One, otoh, when questioned about abortion if one of his granddaughters ever had a future unplanned pregnacy, waffled hemmed and hawed and said something like, she should be able to chose what she wants to do if pressed with this decision.Harrison Bergeron said:
The only intellectual honest positions are on the poles. I base that on the stated believe of the two main sides:
- Pro-Life: only acceptable abortion is medical necessity (life of the baby or mother at risk)
- Pro-abortion: abortion acceptable up until the child leaves the birth canal
Anything in-between is non-moral or non-scientific. There is no scientific definition of Life. So anything in between either compromises Life or choice.
Like every other issue, the Democrats have moved to the radical extreme and actively promote birth up to the point of birth while the Republican position has moved largely to the Clinton position of 1992.
Clinton was a master at the political game. The best I have ever seen. Nobody has come close to him in my lifetime.
I'm not saying he was the greatest president, but his skill was unparelleled. Now we have idiots like Harris one heart beat away from the presidency.
I think 99% of conservatives are hypocrites on the issue. They will talk Pro Life but likely advise an abortion if their daughter was in certain situations.
To your point, Clinton may be among the best politicians every. Especially after 1994 he worked with Gingrich and co-opted his agenda. I appreciated how he was less partisan and willing to work with the GOP, which was something a Democrat had not needed to do for decades.
Obama broke the U.S. government.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that sperm all on it's own, is the same as a baby.Mitch Blood Green said:
By making pornhub illegal, Texas has stopped the murder of millions of babies by the hand sock.
ShooterTX
I, or really we, made a decision about something we had created. Therefore it was our decision. It was not the states decision, not our parents decision and not your decision.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's exactly what I mean. You made a life or death decision for someone else besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:The only time i was faced with that decision i chose to be a father. Three times. It was our decision, not the states.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Very ironic statement, considering that abortion is making a personal life or death decision for someone besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
....
I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hatw to make it for anyone besides myself.
But its perfectly fine to call a fertilized cluster of cells a baby. What about a zygote? Is that a baby?ShooterTX said:You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that sperm all on it's own, is the same as a baby.Mitch Blood Green said:
By making pornhub illegal, Texas has stopped the murder of millions of babies by the hand sock.
So if you get tired of your five-year-old you can just shoot her?Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:I, or really we, made a decision about something we had created. Therefore it was our decision. It was not the states decision, not our parents decision and not your decision.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's exactly what I mean. You made a life or death decision for someone else besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:The only time i was faced with that decision i chose to be a father. Three times. It was our decision, not the states.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Very ironic statement, considering that abortion is making a personal life or death decision for someone besides yourself.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:
....
I believe abortion is a personal medical decision and would hatw to make it for anyone besides myself.
The reality is that very few people would be in favor of restricting abortion to cases of rape & incest. This is something that the pro-death cult uses to defeat abortion restrictions. The pro-death cult is actually opposed to ANY restrictions on abortion.nein51 said:
The reasons Republicans lose this issue is that we are too GD stupid to advance the ball. We want to take it to the EZ and spike it but literally refuse to take a 99 yard gain.
Yes, of course, you agree to that deal.
Abortion in the case of rape or incest may be abhorrent to you (which is a nearly insane stance but, whatever, to each their own) but it's a 99 yard gain.
1% of abortion is due to rape
.5% is due to incest
There are between 500,000 and a million abortions performed each year depending on whose numbers you believe.
Also, how would this work out. A pregnant lady claims to have been raped. She gets an abortion, and her boyfriend gets arrested. A few months later, it is proven that she was not raped. The boyfriend is finally exonerated, but his life is ruined. The girl has had her abortion, and now she goes free. It is extremely rare for someone who has made a false rape claim, to receive any kind of punishment.... extremely rare.
So now the pro-life groups and those in favor of ACTUAL justice start lobbying for harsh penalties for anyone who makes a false rape claim, in order to get an emergency abortion. That will have no chance of passing.
So the end result is a TON of false rape claims. We all know that there are a lot of women out there who will do anything necessary to kill their babies. So if they have to get an innocent guy locked up, and ruin his career/life... so what?
The rape & incest exception may seem reasonable, but when you look down the road... it will create a ton of new problems.
ShooterTX
Yes.Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:But its perfectly fine to call a fertilized cluster of cells a baby. What about a zygote? Is that a baby?ShooterTX said:You have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that sperm all on it's own, is the same as a baby.Mitch Blood Green said:
By making pornhub illegal, Texas has stopped the murder of millions of babies by the hand sock.
It is basic biology. What distinguishes a one human from another is a unique set of 23 chromosome pairs.
Sperm has 23 individual chromosomes and the egg has another 23. When they combine, the 46 chromosomes form a unique set of 23 chromosome pairs... a unique human being.
If you knew basic biology, you would know that science PROVES that human life begins at conception.
ShooterTX