This commercial really hits the message right on target. Obama should be used as the Anti-abortion poster success story. Not more I can relate on my view of abortion as you all have heard it but just thought I would post this video.
I think what he's implying is every time you don't abort a child, you invite sending 30,000 more republicans to war. On the one hand you're getting rid of republicans, on the other hand most of the world doesn't know about the USA's party insanity, and war is just not good. I have mixed feelings.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-03-2009 14:48
quote: jade said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vDQCv0yYaQThis commercial really hits the message right on target. Obama should be used as the Anti-abortion poster success story. Not more I can relate on my view of abortion as you all have heard it but just thought I would post this video.
So all the babies that die before, during, and after birth should be used as the Anti-God story?
After all, HE had them killed, right?
That is how totally inane your example is, Jade.
You keep wanting to distort the issue, and refuse to confront the main issue here - a woman's choice and right to her own body.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:You keep wanting to distort the issue, and refuse to confront the main issue here - a woman's choice and right to her own body.
Webshaman....
But there is also another body inside of the woman"s body..how come that person does not have a right to choose? What if its a woman in the making. Either if it a male or female...they should have rights too. When should it be determined that rights should be taken away from a person? When they are out of the womb?
I wonder how long it will be before we need a license to breed, and abortion (even sterilisation) becomes the default method of dealing with a parasite that is fast outgrowing its environment and resources.
On a different note - why should Obama be a poster boy for anti-abortion campaigners? what the flying-blue-thing has he actually done to deserve some 'extra special person' award? Why is his life any more valuable or laudable than the average Joe?
I can see why someone like Hitler could be a poster boy for pro-choicers, but as far as I can tell, Obama is an eloquent and charming but decidedly normal and average person whose major achievement was to be president while black (a feat that apparently deserves a Nobel prize). Any number of other people would better fit the bill whose actions, inventions, or influence have altered the world for the better.
Wow. The world would be soooo much worse off if B.O's mother had downed a bottle of whisky while taking a very hot bath.
For the record, I'm pro-choice. Not that it would make any difference to this post.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-04-2009 15:30
quote: jade said:
quote:You keep wanting to distort the issue, and refuse to confront the main issue here - a woman's choice and right to her own body.
Webshaman....
But there is also another body inside of the woman"s body..how come that person does not have a right to choose? What if its a woman in the making. Either if it a male or female...they should have rights too. When should it be determined that rights should be taken away from a person? When they are out of the womb?
That has been answered here before, many times Jade. And my answer is already on the record.
It is not an individual, living being until it can survive outside of the body's environment on it's own, of course.
You know, we can keep a limb "alive" for a long time outside of the body, but left to itself, it will quickly die.
This is where the right of a person over their own body and the right to life comes into play, and where the defining line is, IMHO. As long as we are talking about one's own body, then that right has precedence. The moment we are talking about the rights of an individual, that is where the line is crossed.
So in order to decide which right has precedence, we have to establish which situation is present.
To do that, we fall back on Nature (and I would tend to think that the Church should actually support this, because isn't Nature supposed to be God's Will?). When a living being can survive in an environment, then I think we can safely say that it is an individual. When it is absolutely reliant and unable to survive in an environment without a support system, then it is actually a part of that support system.
In that case, the right that includes the support system and all attached to it has precedence.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:It is not an individual, living being until it can survive outside of the body's environment on it's own, of course
.
This is not the full truth....if you pull out an infant from the womb before its term(middle to late) in most cases, it can still live/survive on its own with proper care or sometimes even improper care.
If something happens to a pregnant woman where the baby must be taken for health reasons of the mother, who determines if it should live or die?? The mother or the doctors?
In many health situations, doctors override the wishes of the parents in regard to the health of the child. And which ones are doing the will of God?
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-04-2009 21:25
quote:This is not the full truth....if you pull out an infant from the womb before its term(middle to late) in most cases, it can still live/survive on its own with proper care or sometimes even improper care.
No Jade, you are still ignoring what I posted here to slant things.
A limb can also be kept "alive" with the proper care and equipment, yadda yadda yadda.
Does that mean that it is a living individual with full rights?
Stay focused here.
Now, there is a point where one could cut out the unborn and it will still survive on it's own. And I would consider that from that point, we should consider such an individual. There is even moral argument to say as long as it is possible to somehow keep the unborn alive, that one should and that should be the point of individuality.
But to say that something like an unborn child that is around 16 weeks along is an individual is not something I think is supportable. It is a part of the woman's body who is carrying the unborn child.
If and when science is far enough along to the point that conception to being born can be done outside the body, I think we will have this conflict of rights and in such cases, one has to set precedence on which right has priority here and why.
I am normally against late abortions (where the unborn is capable of surviving outside of the body) UNLESS it is to save the life of the mother here.
Here is a question to you Jade - when do you consider the unborn to be an individual, and why?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
You keep wanting to distort the issue, and refuse to confront the main issue here - a woman's choice and right to her own body.
Is it fair to say you support a suicide bomber's rights to choice and their own body, regardless of how many innocent people die because of their "rights"?
I tend to think supporters have very little interest in a person's choice or their rights to their own body and this is just the best rational they can come up with to support an issue driven by political ideology. If we can accept a woman has these rights to her own body regardless of the effect it has on other living beings, should we not also accept a person has these rights to their own body if they choose to hijack passenger plans and crash them into buildings? Or to strap dynamite across their torso and blow themselves up in a school or hospital?
There's really just no logical reason to support one and not the others.
In all the time I've wandered these orange halls, Jestah, that is the greatest load of shit I have ever seen you post - and that really IS saying something.
That would depend an awfully lot on the circumstances, would it not?
If my wife and I conceived then she decided to have an abortion, would that not affect me?
I don't see why it even matters whether I'm effected. If virtually all crime committed throughout history has had any effect on me, certainly it's been very negligible. Are you now suggesting we lift all laws?
I think 30% of all babies in the U.S. should be aborted. The selection should be random, like a lottery.
Additionally, I think anyone who uses religious pretense for "rationalizing" an argument against something that doesn't directly affect them should be beaten to death based on their religious practices. For example, a Christian can be crucified, or a Jew can be choked with ham.
My point is this: What you do with your uterus, ladies, is your own goddamn business. Gentlemen, what you do with your penises is your own goddamn business. When your uterus or your penis show up on my newsfeed, suddenly you've gone too fucking far. That means if you're out there protesting the rights (these are rights, people, as determined by our Supreme Court, which we all must hold to the highest standard) you're putting your uterus or penis in my newsfeed. If you're out there raping people, you're putting your uterus or penis in my newsfeed. Quit it. Your uterus isn't that special, your penis isn't that impressive.
That's right. I compared people who protest abortion to rapists. And I stand by the comparison insofar as I have described it here.
Stop trying to ban shit that doesn't affect you. If you're worried about your wife or child having an abortion without you knowing it, stop turning to the state to do your goddamn job as partner/parent.
Is it fair to say you support a suicide bomber's rights to choice and their own body, regardless of how many innocent people die because of their "rights"?
I tend to think supporters have very little interest in a person's choice or their rights to their own body and this is just the best rational they can come up with to support an issue driven by political ideology. If we can accept a woman has these rights to her own body regardless of the effect it has on other living beings, should we not also accept a person has these rights to their own body if they choose to hijack passenger plans and crash them into buildings? Or to strap dynamite across their torso and blow themselves up in a school or hospital?
There's really just no logical reason to support one and not the others.
no logical reason to think of abortion and suicide bombing/hijacking as completely different things?
That's a little off the deep end, Jestah.
One event involves one person and something growing inside of her, whose status as a living 'innocent person' is highly debatable to say the least.
The other scenarios involve large numbers of people being killed by the one (or more often many) person's actions.
I can't see any level on which they actually relate, in real terms.
If so, that's only because you're purposely attaching negative connotations to one but not the other. Forget the actual medium, lets assume:
- You decide to do something to your body with the sole purpose of killing a child to be born 24 hours later.
- You decide to do something to your body with the sole purpose of killing a child born 24 hours earlier.
What exactly is the logical difference between these two actions?
Maybe I have gone off the deep end but I fail to see the real differences here.
I think 30% of all babies in the U.S. should be aborted.
I can't believe you would advocate such a thing. What a terrible waste.
Great thinkers like Jonathan Swift, have thankfully made much more useful and modest proposals:
quote:?I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...?
If my wife and I conceived then she decided to have an abortion, would that not affect me?
I don't see why it even matters whether I'm effected. If virtually all crime committed throughout history has had any effect on me, certainly it's been very negligible. Are you now suggesting we lift all laws?
Ok, I'm glad you brought that up;
As with every other decision in a relationship it does effect you, I would agree, and a woman in a healthy relationship should consult her partner if an abortion is the right thing to do. But ultimately the decision is hers, because it is her body.
It is her final decision that puts the abortion in action, a partner can't force a woman to do it or not, just as they can't force their wife to make them coffee in the morning, it's ultimately the woman's choice. That's just a fact of life.
I won't talk about your second statement, I want to see what your opinion is on what i've just said.
I believe there are two things really going on here, whether or not it's the Woman's choice, and whether or not abortion should be a crime. So let's hit these one at a time.
If so, that's only because you're purposely attaching negative connotations to one but not the other
No, it's not. It's because one, as I said, involves something growing inside of you, which may or may not constitute a living person.
Keep in mind that abortions are not performed 24 hours before birth...they are done far earlier in the development of the fetus.
There is, of course, plenty of room for debate as to when a fetus can be considered a life in the true sense, and I really don't wish to delve into that debate at the moment.
Any way you look at it, it is still a very far cry from suicide bombings and mass murders, which are done to kill as many people as possible.
Such claims are purely sensationalist.
From: The Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-09-2009 15:10
quote: Jestah said:
If so, that's only because you're purposely attaching negative connotations to one but not the other. Forget the actual medium, lets assume:- You decide to do something to your body with the sole purpose of killing a child to be born 24 hours later.- You decide to do something to your body with the sole purpose of killing a child born 24 hours earlier.What exactly is the logical difference between these two actions?Maybe I have gone off the deep end but I fail to see the real differences here.(Edited by Jestah on 12-08-2009 21:45)
And what, pray tell, does that have to do with the topic at hand?
You think that abortion is about "killing" (re: aborting) a "child"?
For the record, abortions are not performed 24 hours before birth and certainly not on children.
I think you need to inform yourself about the terms you are using.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
posted 12-02-2009 21:41
