Abortion Medical Procedures

[lockmat]

No, I agree that generalizing it IS usually how it plays out, it is strange, how left wing pro-choicers, would love to abolish the death penalty, and vice versa for the right wing religious. I don't understand it myself how you can defend people that have made a choice to commit henious crimes against humanity and a thinning of the herd is sometimes neccessary in cases like that, but these like minded individuals don't seem to think twice about terminating a "possible life", like I said, it depends on where you think life begins, that really had no choice in the matter of being concieved or not.

Yeah, you're right. I think it does depend, "on where you think life begins."

[ricco67]

Yeah, you're right. I think it does depend, "on where you think life begins."

There is also the fact that people have these "absolute" rules which drives me crazy. The other thing is that when they are (in my personal experience) put in a position which they need to stand up to their own "moral" standards, they often balk at making the "right choice."

It kills me.

Everyone wants to play by the rules until it affects them and then they bend the rules to make it convenient for them.

As for what is moral, my moral compass is just fine, I don't judge other people by MY moral compass, just like I don't expect anyone to expect me to go by theirs.

[lockmat]

There is also the fact that people have these "absolute" rules which drives me crazy. The other thing is that when they are (in my personal experience) put in a position which they need to stand up to their own "moral" standards, they often balk at making the "right choice."

It kills me.

Everyone wants to play by the rules until it affects them and then they bend the rules to make it convenient for them.

As for what is moral, my moral compass is just fine, I don't judge other people by MY moral compass, just like I don't expect anyone to expect me to go by theirs.

Living without absolutes and instead by relativism is a slippery slope.

First it's ok to lie, then it's ok to steal, and the it's ok to murder. And why? Becasue these are "my" morals, and nobody can judge me. Who's to say I can't lie, cheat, murder and steal? I don't have to live by anyone elses rules. It's all relative, so I can do what I want.

And it's probably not fair to lump everyone who stands for something and then fails to carry out the "right choice" into one pot. Who here hasn't done that? I'm sure you're talking about the exceptions though, right?

Edited January 27, 2007 by lockmat

[TJones]

Living without absolutes and instead by relativism is a slippery slope.

First it's ok to lie, then it's ok to steal, and the it's ok to murder. And why? Becasue these are "my" morals, and nobody can judge me. Who's to say I can't lie, cheat, murder and steal? I don't have to live by anyone elses rules. It's all relative, so I can do what I want.

And it's probably not fair to lump everyone who stands for something and then fails to carry out the "right choice" into one pot. Who here hasn't done that? I'm sure you're talking about the exceptions though, right?

You may not have to live by the rules, but you most certainly have to live by the laws. The thing that these two have in common is that they both ultimately have consequences you will have to deal with when caught.

[ricco67]

I agree, but there is also the matter is if someone pronounces themselves holier than thou, they have to be ready to prove it.

Extreme Christians, Catholics, Mormons and baptists are just as bad as extremist followers of Islam and are just as lawless and immoral as the people they blame. History has a list of them such people.

[nmainguy]

There is also the fact that people have these "absolute" rules which drives me crazy. The other thing is that when they are (in my personal experience) put in a position which they need to stand up to their own "moral" standards, they often balk at making the "right choice."

It kills me.

Everyone wants to play by the rules until it affects them and then they bend the rules to make it convenient for them.

As for what is moral, my moral compass is just fine, I don't judge other people by MY moral compass, just like I don't expect anyone to expect me to go by theirs.

Well said.

[lockmat]

After talking to a friend over the weekend, I'm left to wonder if the abortion issue even matters. The friend brought to my attention that even if a candidate is against abortion, they never even do anything about it; something I haven't really realized.

Not to stir up another argument, but we all know it's there. Maybe the new abortion issue is embryonic stem-cell research? Which of course is a direct affect of abortion, isn't it? Is that the only way they're accumulated, by abortion?

It seems as though there are more supporters of embryonic stem-cell research regardless of party affiliate, although if there is a great divide, it mirrors the abortion issue. Anyone know where 2008's candidates stand?

[nmainguy]

Not to stir up another argument, but we all know it's there. Maybe the new abortion issue is embryonic stem-cell research? Which of course is a direct affect of abortion, isn't it? Is that the only way they're accumulated, by abortion?

Those are two different topics. Embyonic stem cells are derived from embryos-not aborted fetuses.

The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst

[ricco67]

After talking to a friend over the weekend, I'm left to wonder if the abortion issue even matters. The friend brought to my attention that even if a candidate is against abortion, they never even do anything about it; something I haven't really realized.

Not to stir up another argument, but we all know it's there. Maybe the new abortion issue is embryonic stem-cell research? Which of course is a direct affect of abortion, isn't it? Is that the only way they're accumulated, by abortion?

It seems as though there are more supporters of embryonic stem-cell research regardless of party affiliate, although if there is a great divide, it mirrors the abortion issue. Anyone know where 2008's candidates stand?

As I know, stem cells are not cultivated as a direct source from abortion. This article will explain it far better than I.

As far as abortion being an issue, I don't think it is anymore. No one wants to touch it, they just want to talk about it. It's almost like the 3rd rail of politics; you touch it, you die.

[lockmat]

Those are two different topics. Embyonic stem cells are derived from embryos-not aborted fetuses.

The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst

Ok. Thanks. You too Ricco.

Still highly controversial since life (whether it is or isn't)is involved and the weighing whether it's worth it for the "greater good."

[ricco67]

Well, when you consider that Polio and other vaccines have been made with the help of Animal testing along with Embryos, I would have to have to say "Yes."

Polio was a major, and common, disease in the early 1900's. Since then, polio has been virtually eliminated from the planet.

[editor]

Looks like the anti-choice crowd is zeroing in on Romney. Look for more slash and burn treatment for McCain and Giuliani in the near future.

Yet more trouble for Romney at the March for Life

By Liz Mair, Section News

Posted on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 10:55:20 AM EST

A source on the ground at the March for Life just phoned to say that several thousand leaflets that state that as late as 2005, Romney backed forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense RU-486, are also circulating.

The source of that story appears to be the AP, via the Massachusetts newspaper South Coast Today which wrote this on December 9, 2005:

Wow. One bad source quoting another bad source. Not exactly journalism there.

Millions of leaflets get distributed at campaign rallies across the country every campaign season. Because the sources are untracable most of them are fabrications.

[nmainguy]

Ok. Thanks. You too Ricco.

Still highly controversial since life (whether it is or isn't)is involved and the weighing whether it's worth it for the "greater good."

Well, good luck finding a candidate that opposes all abortion and favors saving all embryos and how he or she plans to pay for it.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Well, good luck finding a candidate that opposes all abortion and favors saving all embryos and how he or she plans to pay for it.

Isn't that more of a Supreme Court issue than executive?

[Guest Marty]

This is in relation to the 2008 presidential thread that got off topic < cough Guilty cough > I lean more towards the Right Wing but i don't like the Government telling me what to do with my body and my girlfriend's body. Next thing you know they will tell me to cut my radiant flowing mullet If the Moderators can merge the Abortion post from the 2008 Presidential thread with this one it would be much appreciated.

Thanks' Marty

Edited January 29, 2007 by Marty

[Subdude]

If the Moderators can merge the Abortion post from the 2008 Presidential thread with this one it would be much appreciated.

Thanks' Marty

Done

[CDeb]

Let me get this straight, CDeb. If all life is precious and murder is wrong.

Does that mean that you are against The Death Penalty?

Yes, I am.

And yes, I asked people to be civil, nice to know you took it too heart.

I think I have been much more civil than others. I do have a weakness that I tend to be flippant and curt at times, but I'm working on it.

[ricco67]

Yes, I am.

I think I have been much more civil than others. I do have a weakness that I tend to be flippant and curt at times, but I'm working on it.

At least your consistent, which is more than I can say for others.

Ideally, this is what I'd want in a candidate:

Pro-choice

is for the Death penalty

allow for hand guns, but is willing to ban assault rifles. (screw the NRA)

Continue with the war until it's won.

Knows how to maintain a budget.

Of course, I'm living in dream land. I know I won't agree with every candidate that's out there, but as long as he/she is able to do MOST of what I'd like.

[H-Town Man]

Internationally, most of the people against abortion are against the death penalty. The Catholic church is against both, and it accounts for the bulk of pro-lifers.

In America, many fundamentalist Protestants are against abortion but for the death penalty, owing to their literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible says "Thou shalt not kill," which is how most Christians perceive abortion, but it repeatedly countenances the death penalty (at least in the Old Testament) for those who have committed serious crimes. The difference is that while the victims of abortion are innocent, the victims of the death penalty are not.

[CDeb]

Just a friendly reminder of what the Supreme Court declared that states should be able to democratically decide if they will allow earlier this week:

Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby's legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby's body and the arms

[RedScare]

And yet, we have so many people worried about the CIA making known terrorists uncomfortable at Gitmo.

A majority of the "known terrorists" were found to have no ties to terrorism whatsoever, and have been released. Further the discomfort you reference was so "uncomfortable" in many interrogations as to result in death. The ability to distinguish so easily between acceptable death and unacceptable death is the primary reason I no longer debate with anti-abortionists.

[WesternGulf]

I am pro choice but late term abortions have always made my stomach almost literally turn.

BTW, here is an interesting map:

Edited April 20, 2007 by WesternGulf

[CDeb]

A majority of the "known terrorists" were found to have no ties to terrorism whatsoever, and have been released. Further the discomfort you reference was so "uncomfortable" in many interrogations as to result in death.

These are the methods I was referring to which cause so much consternation for folks:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

If these methods led to death in "many interrogations", I stand corrected. But I won't accept the premise that those methods are less humane than something that was not only legal last week, but that many people feel will bring about the downfall of society should it become illegal.

The ability to distinguish so easily between acceptable death and unacceptable death is the primary reason I no longer debate with anti-abortionists.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to have to defend what is described in post 50 on its merits, either.

Edited April 20, 2007 by CDeb

[nmainguy]

All the five SCOTUS judges have done is drive the wealthy abroad for safe abortions and the poor to the back alley for coat-hanger jobs. Too bad they and others still cling to the fantasy that they can ultimatly stop all abortion.

[westguy76]

anyone here have personal experiance with an abortion choice?

[CDeb]

All the five SCOTUS judges have done is drive the wealthy abroad for safe abortions and the poor to the back alley for coat-hanger jobs.

They've done nothing of the sort. All they've said is that the democratically-elected leaders of this country should be able to do their jobs on this issue.

And all the law they upheld says is that if you MUST murder your child, you can't do it by delivering everything except for the head and then suck its brains out and crush its skull, causing her great amounts of pain and suffering in the process.

Too bad they and others still cling to the fantasy that they can ultimatly stop all abortion.

Kinda' like how supporters of hate crimes legislation cling to the fantasy that they can ultimately make everyone treat everyone else with respect?

anyone here have personal experiance with an abortion choice?

As I posted earlier, I only know a couple of folks who have. No one in my extended family has ever considered one.

Edited April 20, 2007 by CDeb

[musicman]

The ability to distinguish so easily between acceptable death and unacceptable death is the primary reason I no longer debate with anti-abortionists.

and your definitions are?

[ProHouston]

It has been my personal experience that most people who are anti-choice are pro death penalty. I can never figure out how thet can justify it.

Must be something in the koolaid.

It's made clear in the Bible, Koolaid is optional.

[ProHouston]

...apparently with yourself.

Perhaps you could tell me what is your compulsion to tell one of my sisters what she can and cannot do with her body? Is it a Stalinistic upbringing? An uncontrolable urge to control another's life? A feeling of moralistic superiority? A need to "rescue" a woman you deem inadequate to make her own decisions in a city of over two million people and over 100 non-profit services to help her through her difficult decision?

I'll chime in, it's murder. Murder is illegal. I'm not sure why this doesn't make sense to everyone. Life starts at conception.

I'm really not confused because many people on the anti-choice side are adamant that the government should have complete control over a woman's right to choose whether to have a baby by rape, incest or to save her life.

I would prefer you and the government to mind your own buisness and definatly keep out of mine.

You don't think the government should have a problem with killing?

That is why I will continue to vote FOR pro-choice candidates like Guiliani, Clinton, Edwards, etc and AGAINST anti-choice blowhards who can't run their own lives much less mine.

Please do, that's your right.

Oh wait...I won't be able to vote for Guliani because you guys won't let him be the nominee. Too bad. He would have had a good chance at winning in 2008. Now you're stuck with Brownback who was pro-choice before he was anti-choice. What a wacky world.

Great arguments CDeb and Lockmat!

[NDtexan]

At least your consistent, which is more than I can say for others.

Ideally, this is what I'd want in a candidate:

Pro-choice

is for the Death penalty

allow for hand guns, but is willing to ban assault rifles. (screw the NRA)

Continue with the war until it's won.

Knows how to maintain a budget.

Of course, I'm living in dream land. I know I won't agree with every candidate that's out there, but as long as he/she is able to do MOST of what I'd like.

My ideal candidate:

Pro-life, in every sense of the word

Anti death penalty

Strong gun control

Environmentally conscious

Fiscally conservative

....so...I'm kinda screwed, cuz I don't ever see anyone like that comin along