Interesting by fact on abortions

[kgun12]

The question of "what should government fund" has been debated since we became a country. Classical Liberalism says "as little as possible". The Founding Fathers were Classical Liberalists; as are present day Libertarians. The right wing wants government to pay for religion by giving 100% tax avoidance to any group claiming to be a church. Atheists like myself say not-for-profits should pay taxes like anyone else. The left says government should pay for social programs; much like Engels and Marx said "Each according to their need, each according to their ability". The right says that social programs are a bad thing. I say "some social programs are necessary when considering the bigger picture". That's why I would be considered a Centrist and Classical Liberalist. If PP goes away, 600,000 more unwanted children appear. Each with parents that didn't want them and therefore each with a definite money drain on the government. It's more expensive to get rid of PP than to keep it.

Social programs today are a bad thing, it has become a generational thing, learned behavior. When it was created it was supposed to be a temporary program to get on your feet. Now the libs use it as campaign a platform, how dare the big bad right want to cut social programs! I will agree that these programs can't go away all at once, that would be like taking an injured fawn, getting it heathy and putting it back in the wild without any training on how to survive, because too many of these people don't know how to survive without the government tit!

Same with tax reform, if the right could get a flat rate tax, where everyone pays at the same rate, the left would be fucked because they would lose their class warfare.

 

[kgun12]

Just let the women do what THEY want with THEIR bodies.

As much as I dislike abortion, I would be okay with this under two conditions:

1, The "woman" incurs ALL the cost, no cost to the government, hence the taxpayers. BTW this would make "the woman" more responsible and maybe not spread her legs without the safety net of what is equivalent to a government bailout.
2. "The father" has a say what happens to his child.

 

[Darth]

As much as I dislike abortion, I would be okay with this under two conditions:

1, The "woman" incurs ALL the cost, no cost to the government, hence the taxpayers. BTW this would make "the woman" more responsible and maybe not spread her legs without the safety net of what is equivalent to a government bailout.
2. "The father" has a say what happens to his child.

Hey, I'm halfway with you right here!

It's obviously not a "child", so that second point is a bit off. Men don't decide what happens to their wives in this country. What do you think this is, the Middle East?

 

[kgun12]

Hey, I'm halfway with you right here!

It's obviously not a "child", so that second point is a bit off. Men don't decide what happens to their wives in this country. What do you think this is, the Middle East?

I'm saying why can't she have the baby then let the father take legal custody if he wants the child, instead of aborting it, after all it's his child also?

We will just have to agree to disagree when it becomes a life. I believe when it has a heart beat it a human, your belief is your belief.

 

[Darth]

I'm saying why can't she have the baby then let the father take legal custody if he wants the child, instead of aborting it, after all it's his child also?

We will just have to agree to disagree when it becomes a life. I believe when it has a heart beat it a human, your belief is your belief.

Does life end when you don't have a heartbeat?

That typically ends that debate.

And, again, as it isn't a child, he has no say in it. If it IS a child, then it has no right to the body of the mother. Cut it out. There you go sir, have this "human" blob of Jello.

 

[kgun12]

Does life end when you don't have a heartbeat?

That typically ends that debate.

And, again, as it isn't a child, he has no say in it. If it IS a child, then it has no right to the body of the mother. Cut it out. There you go sir, have this "human" blob of Jello.

Without some form of artificial resuscitation, yes.

 

[Darth]

Without some form of artificial resuscitation, yes.

That's not true at face value, nor was that the question I asked.

 

[kgun12]

That's not true at face value, nor was that the question I asked.

Yes it was the question "Does life end when you don't have a heartbeat? At any value it's true, if the heart stops and some form of artificial resuscitation is not introduced you are death.

So without some form of stopping the heartbeat you are alive.

 

[Darth]

Yes it was the question "Does life end when you don't have a heartbeat? At any value it's true, if the heart stops and some form of artificial resuscitation is not introduced you are death.

So without some form of stopping the heartbeat you are alive.

Why the "and"?

Because your definition of "life/death" has nothing to do with the actual definition?

Long story short, life does not begin with a heartbeat, nor does it end with a lack thereof.

 

[GOPerfect]

I have never been a fan of the Abortion debate. Many reasons...

I hate the entire idea of any abortion. I find it too be repulsive. Sucking a baby into a medical vacuum, or braking the body into many smaller pieces in order to pull them out of the mother. I equally hate the entire idea of the Government or strangers getting involved in the private affairs of another women. I hate the idea of Americans paying for Abortions as well.

I do not like the abortion debate, if you are anti-abortion, automatically one gets tossed into the religion mix. I know many who are against abortion and have nothing at to do with god, churches or religion. I also do not like the conversation that goes like this, "I am against abortion all the time, well, maybe not always. You know, Rape and incest, abortions are okay there".

I do not like the idea that gets thrown out there about the Father of the child, nope, sorry, it is not legally his child until born. He has no say on what the women does with her body.

I also hate all of the stats that go along with the discussion, any stat can be turned around to support an idea or to destroy it.

Stupid topic.

 

[kgun12]

Why the "and"?

Because your definition of "life/death" has nothing to do with the actual definition?

Long story short, life does not begin with a heartbeat, nor does it end with a lack thereof.

Come on stop playing stupid, you asked in post #65 "Does life end when you don't have a heartbeat?" and I replied "Without some form of artificial resuscitation, yes."

Period, life STOPS when there is no heartbeat. you can start it back up with some form of artificial means but if you don't your are dead.

So I'll ask this, if after the heartbeat starts, and not aborted what happens in about 7 1/2 months?

 

[kgun12]

I have never been a fan of the Abortion debate. Many reasons...

I hate the entire idea of any abortion. I find it too be repulsive. Sucking a baby into a medical vacuum, or braking the body into many smaller pieces in order to pull them out of the mother. I equally hate the entire idea of the Government or strangers getting involved in the private affairs of another women. I hate the idea of Americans paying for Abortions as well.

I do not like the abortion debate, if you are anti-abortion, automatically one gets tossed into the religion mix. I know many who are against abortion and have nothing at to do with god, churches or religion. I also do not like the conversation that goes like this, "I am against abortion all the time, well, maybe not always. You know, Rape and incest, abortions are okay there".

I do not like the idea that gets thrown out there about the Father of the child, nope, sorry, it is not legally his child until born. He has no say on what the women does with her body.

I also hate all of the stats that go along with the discussion, any stat can be turned around to support an idea or to destroy it.

Stupid topic.

Well said man, well said! I agree with all of this.

 

[Darth]

Come on stop playing stupid, you asked in post #65 "Does life end when you don't have a heartbeat?" and I replied "Without some form of artificial resuscitation, yes."

Period, life STOPS when there is no heartbeat. you can start it back up with some form of artificial means but if you don't your are dead.

So I'll ask this, if after the heartbeat starts, and not aborted what happens in about 7 1/2 months?

Playing stupid is not really needed when a stupid, made up, definition of life is provided.

Are plants alive? Do they have a heartbeat? So you can drop that nonsense.

"So I'll ask this, if after the heartbeat starts, and not aborted what happens in about 7 1/2 months?"

Gunshot wound to the mother? Very tragic. Fetus has o either make it or not on it's own.

 

[Darth]

I have never been a fan of the Abortion debate. Many reasons...

I hate the entire idea of any abortion. I find it too be repulsive. Sucking a baby into a medical vacuum, or braking the body into many smaller pieces in order to pull them out of the mother. I equally hate the entire idea of the Government or strangers getting involved in the private affairs of another women. I hate the idea of Americans paying for Abortions as well.

I do not like the abortion debate, if you are anti-abortion, automatically one gets tossed into the religion mix. I know many who are against abortion and have nothing at to do with god, churches or religion. I also do not like the conversation that goes like this, "I am against abortion all the time, well, maybe not always. You know, Rape and incest, abortions are okay there".

I do not like the idea that gets thrown out there about the Father of the child, nope, sorry, it is not legally his child until born. He has no say on what the women does with her body.

I also hate all of the stats that go along with the discussion, any stat can be turned around to support an idea or to destroy it.

Stupid topic.

I agree as well. Keep the gubmnt out of it.

But where did I stray for this stance?

(Not a Q for you GP, just for others...)

 

[kgun12]

Playing stupid is not really needed when a stupid, made up, definition of life is provided.

Are plants alive? Do they have a heartbeat? So you can drop that nonsense.

"So I'll ask this, if after the heartbeat starts, and not aborted what happens in about 7 1/2 months?"

Gunshot wound to the mother? Very tragic. Fetus has o either make it or not on it's own.

How does a doctor pronounce someone dead, when there is no pulse and without a heart beating you don't have a pulse?

Also if someone takes out your heart can you stay alive?

 

[Darth]

How does a doctor pronounce someone dead, when there is no pulse and without a heart beating you don't have a pulse?

Also if someone takes out your heart can you stay alive?

Q1: Not at all. Pulse has nothing to do with determination of life.

Q2: Yes.

 

[Defilade]

Just let the women do what THEY want with THEIR bodies.

Not if we have to pay for it! Pay for your own mistake!

 

[Snappo]

Social programs today are a bad thing, it has become a generational thing, learned behavior. When it was created it was supposed to be a temporary program to get on your feet. Now the libs use it as campaign a platform, how dare the big bad right want to cut social programs! I will agree that these programs can't go away all at once, that would be like taking an injured fawn, getting it heathy and putting it back in the wild without any training on how to survive, because too many of these people don't know how to survive without the government tit!

Same with tax reform, if the right could get a flat rate tax, where everyone pays at the same rate, the left would be fucked because they would lose their class warfare.

Not everyone that is poor is a Democrat, and not everyone that is middle class or above is Republican. Additionally, both DNC and GOP want social programs. Money is spent needlessly however. Churches do not pay taxes; which is just under $100 billion a year in lost revenue. That should get fixed. Corporate welfare should go away. Super PAC's should go away. Government should not spend a dime on campaigns. 1040 should not even ask if you want money to go to the POTUS election fund. Government should not be allowed to take money from Medicare / Social Security and replace it with bonds that can be defaulted on. Within all these major issues; both GOP and DNC equally steal from one group to give to another.

 

[Defilade]

Q1: Not at all. Pulse has nothing to do with determination of life.

Q2: Yes.

The fetus has its own DNA, your argument is invalid.

 

[Darth]

The fetus has its own DNA, your argument is invalid.

As does a blade of grass.

Your deceleration that my argument is invalid is invalid.

 

[holdover]

""A 14 year old carrying a baby will destroy her body and mind""

Your so full of shit it stinks ,14 year olds used to be the normal parenting age for thousands of years. Nature provided them with everything they need to have children. Changeing social ideas and difficulty of living in a ""civilized society""at that age changed the status from 14 to 18 . They fully ready to be able to have kids without destroying their bodies .

Our culture deems them far to young to provide for their kids and have a family which is true in our society, but nature has its own laws , They arnt going to destroy their bodies, that's a load of bullshit. like most other things you post

 

[Robin]

I'd say the left had done their jobs admirably. Not that I agree with any of it but, damn.
Robin

 

[kgun12]

""A 14 year old carrying a baby will destroy her body and mind""

Your so full of shit it stinks ,14 year olds used to be the normal parenting age for thousands of years. Nature provided them with everything they need to have children. Changeing social ideas and difficulty of living in a ""civilized society""at that age changed the status from 14 to 18 . They fully ready to be able to have kids without destroying their bodies .

Our culture deems them far to young to provide for their kids and have a family which is true in our society, but nature has its own laws , They arnt going to destroy their bodies, that's a load of bullshit. like most other things you post

Like your post but would like to correct one thing, girls were having babies at 14 in the late 1800's.

 

[holdover]

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”3
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Its simply a stage of development. just like babies are not adults .

 

[Burzum]

So, then, you agree that FUAC has the ability to infringe on your Second Amendment Rights? You agree that, if you don't like it, you have to pack up your belongings, and your family, and flee your home?

Good point except the 2nd Amendment is specifically called out in the original Bill of Rights, you will not find "abortion" in the US Constitution it was a "right" created with a "penumbra theory" based on the rights of privacy (also vastly expanded since Colonial times) in Roe. it is an example of justices legislating from the bench.

Thus we are back to the 10th as the Founders intended, all rights not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and their citizens.

By the way Grimscale your avatar rocks, JEEPs Rule................

 

[kgun12]

Not everyone that is poor is a Democrat, and not everyone that is middle class or above is Republican. Additionally, both DNC and GOP want social programs. Money is spent needlessly however. Churches do not pay taxes; which is just under $100 billion a year in lost revenue. That should get fixed. Corporate welfare should go away. Super PAC's should go away. Government should not spend a dime on campaigns. 1040 should not even ask if you want money to go to the POTUS election fund. Government should not be allowed to take money from Medicare / Social Security and replace it with bonds that can be defaulted on. Within all these major issues; both GOP and DNC equally steal from one group to give to another.

I agree with a lot of this post, except the beginning. The first sentence is absolutely a dem/lib assumption, why would I think that. Being prior military and in my current profession, there are many democrats making more than I am and who the hell would be silly enough to make the statement that the middle class or above are republican, that is just plain ignorant, the sad part is, that's what the left believe. I don't think there are many in the GOPer's who believe in social programs as defined by todays standard!

The reason churches didn't pay taxes was because they were in the business of helping people in need and the priest and sisters only took what was necessary to live. I'm not sure that is the case. The left has made religion a bad word, which is what's wrong with this country to include the black community.

I agree with government not spending money on campaigns, POTUS election funds, take money from any other government program (which btw in a left staple) check it out. I am 56 years old and all but about 6-8 of those years the left has had control of Congress, the last time we had control of both the House and Senate, we had a balanced budget, under Speaker N. Gingrich. When the left has had it, they rob Peter to pay Paul, i.e, take from one fund to save another like social security.

BTW it was the Right that forced Johnson into signing the Civil Rights Bill, the KKK was the lefts hit squad to scare civil right republicans and black people from standing up for the rights of blacks and MLK was a Right Wing Republican!

 

[Darth]

A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:

“I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception…. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life….
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty…is not a human being. This is human life at every stage.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris, was the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down syndrome. Dr. LeJeune testified to the Judiciary Subcommittee, “after fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.” He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion,” and “not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” He added, “Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic: “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…. It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…. Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, University of Colorado Medical School: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals.”

A prominent physician points out that at these Senate hearings, “Pro-abortionists, though invited to do so, failed to produce even a single expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any point other than conception or implantation. Only one witness said no one can tell when life begins.”

Ashley Montague, a geneticist and professor at Harvard and Rutgers, is unsympathetic to the prolife cause. Nevertheless, he affirms unequivocally, “The basic fact is simple: life begins not at birth, but conception.”3
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a cofounder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.

Dr. Nathanson’s study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his “increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Its simply a stage of development. just like babies are not adults .

That's a, rather stupid, appeal to authority, but beyond that, it addresses the point being made in a manner of exactly 0%.

"Life begins at conception."

Life begins way before that bro.

Now, where does "personhood" begin? Where do you begin being a human?

I say X, you say Y, not for either of us to decide either way.

 

[Darth]

I didn't click the underline tab!?

 

[Darth]

This formatting is pissing me off.

 

[Snappo]

I agree with a lot of this post, except the beginning. The first sentence is absolutely a dem/lib assumption, why would I think that. Being prior military and in my current profession, there are many democrats making more than I am and who the hell would be silly enough to make the statement that the middle class or above are republican, that is just plain ignorant, the sad part is, that's what the left believe. I don't think there are many in the GOPer's who believe in social programs as defined by todays standard!

The reason churches didn't pay taxes was because they were in the business of helping people in need and the priest and sisters only took what was necessary to live. I'm not sure that is the case. The left has made religion a bad word, which is what's wrong with this country to include the black community.

I agree with government not spending money on campaigns, POTUS election funds, take money from any other government program (which btw in a left staple) check it out. I am 56 years old and all but about 6-8 of those years the left has had control of Congress, the last time we had control of both the House and Senate, we had a balanced budget, under Speaker N. Gingrich. When the left has had it, they rob Peter to pay Paul, i.e, take from one fund to save another like social security.

BTW it was the Right that forced Johnson into signing the Civil Rights Bill, the KKK was the lefts hit squad to scare civil right republicans and black people from standing up for the rights of blacks and MLK was a Right Wing Republican!

Every year there is a budget. Ever year the DNC, GOP, and Independents have to vote for it. State and Federal budgets work that way too I believe. Every year some budget or another gets passed; and ever year it has social programs. So unless GOP doesn't actually exist; they are half the people voting for these budgets. And it goes up every year. I would like to see the appropriations bills laid out year by year with a vote tally, whether the bill was more money or less money than the year before, if there was a deficit or surplus that year, and would like to see the tally broken out by party. I'm not sure where to look for that though. I found the website Congress posts for it - but I don't see who voted or the money numbers.

Appropriations and Budget - Congress.gov Resources -