Leading democrat contenders want to make it easier to kill babies

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I don't think you have to be religious to see the need to ban these. And it saddens me that so many democrats think they are OK.

Saddens? You're being far too kind. It's downright repulsive.

[RunInRed 16,486]

First of all, on the whole stabbing a person while on life support. If the family felt as if they wanted to stab the person a life support, than I would be okay with it, I would find it wierd and I personally would not choose that route, but I'd be okay with others, just as I would never want a girlfriend or wife of mine to have an abortion, but I won't say someone else cannot do it. As far as the consent, the family can make the decision without the consent of the patient, just like abortion, it is the families right.

I understand that some believe it is a human because their faith tells them it is a human at conception or even before conception. However, if I don't sure your faith than I obviously don't agree with you on that point. The government should not be based on what your faith tells you to do, well I do not think so. If we start basing our laws on our faith then it is no longer a free country. Some people may be fine with this, and thats okay. As long as there is the understanding that you cannot have both a free country and laws based on one set of beliefs.

^^^Gets it

[autiger4life 3]

It doesn't require religion to say that a living being with its own DNA is human life worthy of protection. You can't wiggle out of this argument by segregating this viewpoint into the realm of faith.

First of all, we throw away cells with its own DNA all the time, we have morning after pill, we have artificial insemenation(I might have spelled that wrong, matter of fact, I'd bet on it), both of these discard cells that have its own DNA, yet not many people seem to care about it.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

For the 1,203rd time...religion aside...please argue in defense of the partial birth abortion situation. The one this thread was based upon. As I have begged you pro-choice people 3 seperate times...we are discussing partial birth abortions. Abortions where, in many cases, the child could live at that point had it not been aborted.

The thread starts out talking about partial birth abortions...and everyone wants to immediately shift the focuse to the old talking points of religion and 1st trimester. Don't do that. Don't go to the old stand by. Either you are FOR partial birth abortions...and can defend them...or you are against them.

If you are going to plead and whine, and you always do, then at least get your facts straight. This thread did not start focused on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The article made one reference to the S.Ct. case allowing states to outlaw the procedure. This article is about a couple of Dems who said their proposed health care plan would include abortion services. That is the issue this article is about. In states that have outlawed the "partial-birth abortion" procedure, no health care plan, private or public, will pay for them because they won't be legal. You did the old stand-by and took this thread where you wanted then blamed others for doing what you did.

[BamaGrad03 0]

For the 1,203rd time...religion aside...please argue in defense of the partial birth abortion situation. The one this thread was based upon. As I have begged you pro-choice people 3 seperate times...we are discussing partial birth abortions. Abortions where, in many cases, the child could live at that point had it not been aborted.

The thread starts out talking about partial birth abortions...and everyone wants to immediately shift the focuse to the old talking points of religion and 1st trimester. Don't do that. Don't go to the old stand by. Either you are FOR partial birth abortions...and can defend them...or you are against them.

If you are going to plead and whine, and you always do, then at least get your facts straight. This thread did not start focused on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The article made one reference to the S.Ct. case allowing states to outlaw the procedure. This article is about a couple of Dems who said their proposed health care plan would include abortion services. That is the issue this article is about. In states that have outlawed the "partial-birth abortion" procedure, no health care plan, private or public, will pay for them because they won't be legal. You did the old stand-by and took this thread where you wanted then blamed others for doing what you did.

I'm sorry. I noticed either in the same post, or a couple of posts after that Obama basically stated that he was for making partial birth abortions legal.

And since we were getting into a theological discussion, I thought we could at least find an arguing point that should have no religion involved. Plenty of people can argue against PBAs without the need for bringing religion into it.

Either way, you've been awfully quiet in this thread.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

For the 1,203rd time...religion aside...please argue in defense of the partial birth abortion situation. The one this thread was based upon. As I have begged you pro-choice people 3 seperate times...we are discussing partial birth abortions. Abortions where, in many cases, the child could live at that point had it not been aborted.

The thread starts out talking about partial birth abortions...and everyone wants to immediately shift the focuse to the old talking points of religion and 1st trimester. Don't do that. Don't go to the old stand by. Either you are FOR partial birth abortions...and can defend them...or you are against them.

If you are going to plead and whine, and you always do, then at least get your facts straight. This thread did not start focused on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The article made one reference to the S.Ct. case allowing states to outlaw the procedure. This article is about a couple of Dems who said their proposed health care plan would include abortion services. That is the issue this article is about. In states that have outlawed the "partial-birth abortion" procedure, no health care plan, private or public, will pay for them because they won't be legal. You did the old stand-by and took this thread where you wanted then blamed others for doing what you did.

I'm sorry. I noticed either in the same post, or a couple of posts after that Obama basically stated that he was for making partial birth abortions legal.

And since we were getting into a theological discussion, I thought we could at least find an arguing point that should have no religion involved. Plenty of people can argue against PBAs without the need for bringing religion into it.

Either way, you've been awfully quiet in this thread.

I work during the day and my more substantive reply-- which is coming-- takes more time than I've had.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It doesn't require religion to say that a living being with its own DNA is human life worthy of protection. You can't wiggle out of this argument by segregating this viewpoint into the realm of faith.

First of all, we throw away cells with its own DNA all the time, we have morning after pill,

Which I also oppose because it's an abortifacient that doesn't allow implantation. It's also why many pharmacies and pharmacists refuse to dispense it for reasons of conscience.

we have artificial insemenation(I might have spelled that wrong, matter of fact, I'd bet on it), both of these discard cells that have its own DNA, yet not many people seem to care about it.

That's a poverty of ethics, not a reason to excuse things that are even worse. I don't care for in vitro fertilization if it involves discarding embryos for this reason. In fact, it took me and my wife almost 2 years to get pregnant. We weren't sure we would ever be able to and the doctors weren't encouraging. Had it gone much longer, we would have given up and pursued adoption. There isn't some God-given right to bear children and thus pursue any means we feel like to make it happen.

Just telling you what I think and pointing out that it doesn't require a faith-based reason to justify it, which you never addressed. But I will say this...there are politicians out there that say they oppose abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the life or permanent and serious physical health of the mother is at stake. While in principle I still believe it's not the baby's fault as to the circumstances of its conception, less than 4% of women get abortions for all those reasons combined. So if we can get to where we stop aborting children for convenience purposes or to run from responsibility for our prior choices, that will save over 96% of the millions being slaughtered. I'd take it.

[autiger4life 3]

There isn't some God-given right to bear children and thus pursue any means we feel like to make it happen.

There may be not God given right or ability, but that does not mean that people don't have the right to do it as Americans, whether is a God given right or not.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

There isn't some God-given right to bear children and thus pursue any means we feel like to make it happen.

There may be not God given right or ability, but that does not mean that people don't have the right to do it as Americans, whether is a God given right or not.

So long as that pursuit doesn't harm others. Our current technology harms others. As I said, it's our own poverty of ethics that allows this and considers the loss collateral damage.

[BamaGrad03 0]

There isn't some God-given right to bear children and thus pursue any means we feel like to make it happen.

There may be not God given right or ability, but that does not mean that people don't have the right to do it as Americans, whether is a God given right or not.

I don't think by saying "God given" he was bringing religion back into it. More of a common phrasing really.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

There isn't some God-given right to bear children and thus pursue any means we feel like to make it happen.

There may be not God given right or ability, but that does not mean that people don't have the right to do it as Americans, whether is a God given right or not.

I don't think by saying "God given" he was bringing religion back into it. More of a common phrasing really.

Thank you.

Let me rephrase. There is not some inalienable, intrinsic human right to bear children no matter the means we use to make it happen.

That's not to diminish those who were born through this method or the parents who used it. At least they were pursuing a noble goal (creating life) as opposed to abortion which is merely a method of destruction of life.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

The positions taken by Thompson in the 90s are consistent with where most Americans are on this issue—they don’t want a Constitutional amendment banning all abortion, but they support more restrictions on it. Abortion makes most Americans uneasy, but so does outlawing it in all circumstances. Most don’t want Roe v. Wade overturned, but don’t like how much it has been extended.

There are pro-life Dems. Harry Reid, for one. David Bonior for another. Bob Casey is a pro-life Dem elected Senator of PA in 2006. Ironically, the Republican from PA is pro-choice. For the most part, Dems that run for President feel they have to appease NARAL—this is to the Dems what the NRA is to Republicans. This is unfortunate, in my opinion. An abortion isn’t merely another procedure and it is not without moral implications, in my opinion. But as Fred Thompson once said, "I do not believe abortion should be criminalized. This battle will be won in the hearts and souls of the American people." Many Christians are more interested in legislation than people’s souls. I can’t imagine Christ as a political activist or a single issue voter. Years ago, the Arthur DeMoss foundation had an ad series, “Life: What a beautiful choice.” I believe that this was the way to go.

Most elected Republicans use this issue as a wedge and are not sincerely interested in it. If they truly believed, as many of their supporters do, that abortion is murder, they would have introduced a Constitutional amendment on the issue—they didn’t because it is a net political loser. They introduce flag burning amendments and gay marriage amendments, but can’t do the same to protect the unborn? They know these voters have no where else to go. And if you believe abortion is murder, whether the fetus was created through rape or incest is irrelevant. But most politicians don’t have the guts to take this position.

Many Dems would say they would support a ban on late-term abortion—as long as there was an exception for the health and life of the woman. But critics say “health” is defined too broadly and essentially leaves it wide open. Republicans in Congress don’t support these exceptions. Both sides use the issue politically.

If Thompson held to those previous positions he’d be a stronger general election candidate, but might not get the nomination. Frankly, I question the sincerity of his “conversion.” As I do Romney’s and GHW Bush’s in 1980. I’m no Rudy fan, and he’s nuanced his position as much as possible without changing it, but he hasn’t changed his basic position. I think a Dem that was willing to take a more moderate stance on the issue could survive the primaries—I don’t think “purity” on this issue is primary for most Dems.

I frankly don’t see a Roberts' Court overruling the basic holding of Roe. I do see the approval of far more restrictions.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Either way, you've been awfully quiet in this thread.

Well...