Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 2:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:22:00 PM (view original):
Bah, you're overgeneralizing. I'm a social moderate and a fiscal conservative.

And a Republican.

Maybe. I just have little faith in either party to do the right thing. I'm not saying that everyone in that party are bad people. Hell, I think Dino and B_L are good people and they are as far from me on the political spectrum as they come. I don't think supporting abortion makes them bad people. I think that view is bad, but I don't think they are bad people. Just like I think George Washington was a good man despite the fact that he owned slaves which was bad.

thank you for the affirmation......although i support abortion rights im far from a supporter of abortion generally speaking.
i believe up to a certain point it must remain a personal decision of the pregnant woman and what is or is not a human being up to a certain point is debatable and is not to be a moral decision to be forced upon the pregnant woman.

i do not understand why the term innocent life is only applied to a fetus and never any live person.

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 3:00:00 PM (view original):
i do not understand why the term innocent life is only applied to a fetus and never any live person.

(IMHO) It refers to a child rather than a fetus. To many, a fetus is an unborn child...and historically, children are regarded as being innocent until they reach the age of ascension (adulthood.)

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 3:00:00 PM (view original):
i do not understand why the term innocent life is only applied to a fetus and never any live person.

I'm not sure I have ever met someone who didn't apply that term to a person already out of the womb. Innocent life is innocent life. I will say it's usually used in regards to children. I'm not sure many people use it in reference to adults much, but it should be applied to ALL innocent life (born or unborn). Compassion should not have boundaries.

Sorry, wasn't trying to repeat you, Miami. Didn't read past Dino's post before replying.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 3:14:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, wasn't trying to repeat you, Miami. Didn't read past Dino's post before replying.

lol, no problem. Great minds think alike...as they say.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/6/2019 1:43:00 PM (view original):
There is nothing accurate about your post.

In both slavery and the killing of unborn children, you are making life or death decisions for someone else who doesn't have a say. It's morally abhorrent. I am saying nothing to inflame the argument. The truth is the truth. People talk about pregnancy as if the baby was a tumor that needs to be removed. It is a living, breathing human life. You know this. I know this.

My argument has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. If I were an atheist, I would feel the same way. It is wrong to kill the innocent. It is sickening that people try so hard to rationalize this. We should all stand up to protect those that can't defend themselves.

You keep bringing my religion into this. Show me one place where I have used religion to make this argument.

The problem with your argument is that young foolish girl is making the decision to kill an innocent child. To say otherwise is flat out wrong.

I just don't understand why as a country we have decided that killing the innocent is wrong and we talk about how we need to protect the children, but if it only applies if it fits our agenda. Screw the kids if it doesn't. It is extremely hypocritical. You can't call yourselves the party of compassion and then have no drive to actually protect the innocent and be compassionate.

The problem with this argument Coach is that you are trying to equate a fetus with "an innocent child". It is No such thing.
Until some point it is essentially a parasite. It survives at the behest of the host's body. You know this. In my opinion there is no such thing as "an unborn child".

THAT is a term used (once again) by the extreme right to inflame the situation.
Until a live delivery occurs and that fetus takes it's 1st breath it isn't a child. In fact it isn't even a baby until it's alive OUT of the womb.
Most folks think "child" comes later------- AFTER Baby.
Thus the term "unborn child" is extremist rhetoric.
I'm surprised you fell for that one.

There isn't a non divisive middle ground for our citizens IF we employ bullshit phrases like unborn child. That's inflammatory and biased.
I repeat, a fetus is not a baby NOR an unborn child.
Not until (at the very least!) viability.

Try to be objective.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/5/2019 10:12:00 PM (view original):
By the way Wylie, it is confusing to me as to why you identify as a democrat. You seem WAY too logical to be associated with them. I understand why you wouldn't want to be a republican. They are a bunch of idiots as well, but a democrat? Seriously? Doesn't make sense to me.

well, truthfully, I am registered as a democrat, but I don't necessarily identify myself as one. I rarely identify myself politically anyway. I despise politics and I'm not a big fan of any politician (some less than others). I do feel that my views are more in line with the democratic party than the republicans, although less and less lately. Lately I don't think my views are more in line with either party.

I am objective in this. Science tells us that it is a human being.

By 12 weeks, which is still in the first trimester, a fetus has a heartbeat, limbs, genitalia, all other vital organs and much more. This is a child. There is nothing inflammatory about calling it what it is. I didn't fall for anything. I respect science. This is what biology tells us.

Let me ask you a question. You have a guy who is in a coma and on a breathing machine. There is a strong likelihood that he will come out of that coma and be able to breathe on his own in, let's throw out a random time, 9 months. Does anyone have the right to kill this person? Why or why not?

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/5/2019 10:38:00 PM (view original):
When I think of the democratic party, I see a party who really doesn't care about people. They care about power. The more support they have from each "group", the more power they have. They enslave people through their policies instead of preaching freedom of choice and self-accountability. I don't believe that all democrats feel this way. I feel that people such as Tang truly feel compassion for people, but the leaders of the party most certainly only care about power.

To say that they are the party of science is very misleading. They, like the republicans, only care about science when it suits their agenda.

Neither party gives a **** about people. They just care about getting power and once they get it, not losing it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a bit naive.

Posted by wylie715 on 2/6/2019 3:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/5/2019 10:12:00 PM (view original):
By the way Wylie, it is confusing to me as to why you identify as a democrat. You seem WAY too logical to be associated with them. I understand why you wouldn't want to be a republican. They are a bunch of idiots as well, but a democrat? Seriously? Doesn't make sense to me.

well, truthfully, I am registered as a democrat, but I don't necessarily identify myself as one. I rarely identify myself politically anyway. I despise politics and I'm not a big fan of any politician (some less than others). I do feel that my views are more in line with the democratic party than the republicans, although less and less lately. Lately I don't think my views are more in line with either party.

Lol. So we are in the same boat it sounds like. I think a large percentage of Americans are like us, but they have nowhere to turn because both parties have so much wealth and power.

Posted by wylie715 on 2/6/2019 3:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/5/2019 10:38:00 PM (view original):
When I think of the democratic party, I see a party who really doesn't care about people. They care about power. The more support they have from each "group", the more power they have. They enslave people through their policies instead of preaching freedom of choice and self-accountability. I don't believe that all democrats feel this way. I feel that people such as Tang truly feel compassion for people, but the leaders of the party most certainly only care about power.

To say that they are the party of science is very misleading. They, like the republicans, only care about science when it suits their agenda.

Neither party gives a **** about people. They just care about getting power and once they get it, not losing it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is probably a bit naive.

Wow! We think way too much alike.

just as a matter of interest in the bible if a man was in a fight with another man and a pregnant woman accidentally got injured and lost her pregnancy the man at fault had to pay a penalty... it was not considered murder o or manslaughter or even a crime.... just a civil penalty....i just mention it for the interest of it.

Posted by tangplay on 2/5/2019 11:10:00 PM (view original):
I am a bit more pessimistic, or, realistic, about humans than you, strikeout, but I am less pessimistic about government.

really? well, government is made up of people, so why would you be more or less pessimistic about one or the other. In my view, the people in politics are ussualy not the best of the breed, either.

Posted by The Taint on 2/6/2019 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 2/6/2019 2:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dino27 on 2/6/2019 1:54:00 PM (view original):
i agree with the supreme court about viability.
i agree that the mother's life comes first.
i believe that the mother can decide to have a late term abortion if her life is in danger or she will suffer significant life changing problems.
i believe the mother should be able to have late term abortion if the baby will have horrible defects.
i dont belive a fetus is a human life until viability.

For a change, I agree with Dino here.

I also think that 1st trimester non-health-related abortions should include Norplant installation. If you don't want this baby, you shouldn't be able to get pregnant for a few years.

Hey, three of us in agreement. I think we have a quorum.

I can also endorse Dino's list.

I sure wish we had some women/Mothers to weigh in here. For me, one of the BIG problems is this issue it's that deciding it by Law has always (historically) been about MEN and control of women's sexuality and reproductive rights. Any feminist worth their salt can explain all about the historical control of women's reproductive rights. Doesn't anybody remember what the 60's (and the women's movement) was all about? It's that uncomfortable word FREEDOM.

Why should us men have the supreme say so (as if WE were Gods!) over when and how a woman becomes a Mother? That's what we've done for about a thousand years and I had thought that we'd evolved and freed our ******* up. But, hey who am I to argue? If the majority wants to treat women as "handwomen" waiting to be told when to deliver in childbirth then go for it. As for me, I'll try to help my daughters avoid your saddle and stay free.