You know what really grinds my gears? RAPE-UBLICANS

[Statler Waldorf]

[
in real life i would just start throwing things at you, but since were online i don't what to say too such a stupid fuckin statement.....im not sure how old you are or where u live but could i possibly beat the living shit out of you .....please???? if not it's ok

An appeal to violence eh? Just goes to show that irrational people respond to rational arguments…irrationally. It’s not surprising that someone who supports the systematic murder of millions of babies would also resort to committing violence against someone simply for refuting his argument.

Sounds like someone was using Republican logic.

What would “using democratic logic” look like? “Since his penis penetrated your vagina you may now go and kill your children but the state cannot kill him”?

Hey if you think we should have a civil war about it, to override democracy then fine. Sometimes people within a society make a drastic jump of self awareness. Like Lincoln did. There aren't going to be any drastic jumps, Statler, on abortion. It's got so many factors to it that it needs worked out with the medical and ethics departments to come to the civilized realization that you and I both share: aborting a fetus is aborting a person, in essence--and the best way to handle this issue isn't to abort the fetus but to prevent the fetus from being conceived in every way possible. With all the misinformation and bickering and state Republicans shutting down planned parenthood clinics: shit's going to get worse to the point that they'll have to re-assess their stoic position on *other peoples' rights* and compromise in order to make the progress they so desperately want.

It won’t require a civil war; we’re already winning this battle with states like the Dakotas and Texas passing tough abortion laws. The Left are so pre-occupied with same sex marriage that they have not realized they’re losing the abortion debate.

"Civilized" societies do whAT?! Wreallyyyyyyyy. Mmmk. I disagree but moving on.

You’re really going to argue for pragmatism over what is morally right? I’d love to see that.

Societies weren't existing just fine prior to abortion on demand. Be honest with us and yourself, here.

I am fairly sure that people existed in societies for thousands of years prior to abortion being available on demand. What did they do with all of their unwanted pregnancies? They had the babies.

Don't forget that I'm pro-life. Until alternatives to abortions are introduced, then the point of the laws are damage control. A Democratic process is the best way to decide, not just some backwater president Bush ramming a law through that goes against the very face of a century of abortion law.

Roe V. Wade was not established through democratic process, it was legislation by the judicial branch.

Damage control is needed Both for the medical implications of black market abortions/the ERs having to deal with the repurcussions: and also damage control regarding our society and the rising numbers of unemployed welfare mothers. The government has to do something, and it can't afford to force women to have babies nor is that its' right. Roe Vs Wade was decided not by a texas court or a washington court, but by the SUPREME COURT. That's sorta important.

So we just have to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V. Wade, I think we have the votes to do it. Or we can have states engage in the democratic process and outlaw abortions in their states, which is something we’re seeing happening.

As things are now, there's a lack in education amongst physicians on how to handle abortions. This means if your wife started having complications of a pregnancy and she goes to the ER: chances are there aren't going to be doctors to help her, and depending on what state she lives in they might not help her at all. She'll just die. In front of your eyes. That's injustice, not only for you or your wife but for the doctors who swore an oath to do everything they can to give us the chance to live. Say your daughter gets pregnant and doesn't want to tell you so she goes to some person who a friend told her about in a shady little office, and dies as a result of malpractice. These are reasons why blanketing the issue one way or the other is not going to work.

Or your daughter could get pregnant and give birth to your grandbaby rather than having a doctor (who has taken an oath to preserve life) kill your grandbaby. The baby didn’t do anything to get your daughter pregnant, what’s done is done.

A survey in 1998 revealed that first trimester abortion techniques are a routine part of training in only 46% of America's ob-gyn residency programs. About 34% offer this training only as an elective, and 7% provide no opportunity at all for young doctors to learn to provide safe abortions.1

Good! There’s no need to train people who are supposed to protect life on how to take life.

Scientific journals, studies, history.

What? Scientifically we know it’s a living human being.

Making Abortion Illegal
In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of "native" Anglo-Saxon women. [/quote]

And Planned Parenthood was originally created to oppress blacks, so your point is?

Medical Practice
During the 1800s, all surgical procedures, including abortion, were extremely risky. Hospitals were not common, antiseptics were unknown, and even the most respected doctors had only primitive medical educations. Without today's current technology, maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth were extraordinarily high. The dangers from abortion were similar to the dangers from other surgeries that were not outlawed.

And?

As scientific methods began to dominate medical practice, and technologies were developed to prevent infection, medical care on the whole became much safer and more effective. But by this time, the vast majority of women who needed abortions had no choice but to get them from illegal practitioners without these medical advances at their disposal. The "back alley" abortion remained a dangerous, often deadly procedure, while areas of legally sanctioned medicine improved dramatically.

Again, this is a logically absurd argument. We do not provide safe environments for people to commit murder in.

The Medical Establishment
The strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent "untrained" practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees.

That’s the genetic fallacy.

Criminalization of abortion did not reduce the numbers of women who sought abortionsIn the years before Roe v. Wade, the estimates of illegal abortions ranged as high as 1.2 million per year.

Estimates by whom? I thought illegal abortions were dangerous, where were all of the women dying from the 1.2 million of them conducted per year? People still murder even though murder is illegal, that’s not an argument for legalizing murder.

Roe v. Wade
The 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade made it possible for women to get safe, legal abortions from well-trained medical practitioners. This led to dramatic decreases in pregnancy-related injury and death.

So? We do not legalize murder in order to protect murderers. Not to mention this is completely contradictory to what was stated above, apparently 1.2 million women a year were able to access abortions prior to Roe safely without dying.

The Roe case arose out of a Texas law that prohibited legal abortion except to save a woman's life. At that time, most other states had laws similar to the one in Texas. Those laws forced large numbers of women to resort to illegal abortions.

I thought you were for supporting the democratic process? Apparently not.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, reproductive health clinics and health care providers across the United States and Canada have become the targets of violence by anti-abortion extremists. Physicians and clinic workers have been murdered; clinics have been bombed, burned down, invaded, and blockaded; and patients have been harassed and intimidated.

And over 50 million babies have been murdered. 50,000,000. Over eight times as many people as in the Holocaust.

1976: Congress adopts the first Hyde Amendment barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to provide abortions to low-income women.

Good, tax dollars should never fund genocide.

1991: Rust v. Sullivan upholds the constitutionality of the 1988 "gag rule" which prohibits doctors and counselors at clinics which receive federal funding from providing their patients with information about and referrals for abortion.

Good, tax dollars should never be used to promote genocide.

Comparison is non-sequiter. Because look into your daughters eyes and imagine if she got an abortion and tell me you see a MURDERER.

Fallacious appeal to emotion. If my daughter killed her baby, she’d be a murderer. Definitions of terms matter.

The fetus is a part of her body, yes.

No, the fetus has it’s own unique DNA, it’s in her body but it is a completely separate Human.

Without her it would not survive not unlike a pancreas or a kidney being cut off from blood supply.

The pancreas and kidney’s share her DNA, the fetus does not so that’s a faulty analogy.

An embryo is a glob of goo up until oh about 10wks.

No, the view that cells are merely globs of goo is a 19th Century viewpoint; cells are immensely complex life systems.

It can't even feel pain, doesn't have a brain, it's just cells forming together bit by bit.

That’s irrelevant, we believe that killing innocent Humans is wrong regardless of whether or not they feel the death blow.

In my personal opinion a person is a person when the genes from the mom and the dad are combined to form a new genome.

Yes, and that’s the only logically defensible position to adhere to.

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” [Exodus 21:22-25 NASB]

I have seen you misuse this verse before. The term mistranslated as “miscarriage” by the NASB (which conveniently enough is one of the only translations to translate it that way) simply means to come forth or come out (the same term is used when describing the birth of Jacob and Esau, who were not miscarried). So if the men fighting induce a pregnancy but mother and child are fine, then a fine is to be paid by the man responsible. If the men cause the baby to come out and mother or child is injured or dies then the man responsible is injured or killed.

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” (ESV)