The Irony of Obama

[dross]

IMHO abortion is one of the most vile practices & should only be allowed to be preformed in the most drastic of scenarios, such as either to save the life of the mother or in case of rape or incest.

In all other cases the mother willingly chose to spread her legs w/out the use of contraceptive measures & created a human life and that unborn child should be protected by society even if it's being protected from it's own murderous mother.

It's not a parasite, it's not a cancer, it's not just a clump of cells, it's a child.

If it's a child, then your position is morally inconsistent, unless you also think that the children born of rape and incest should also be subject to being killed.

 

[cce1302]

You seem to have conveniently forgotten cases where contraceptives were in place & pregnancy still occurred. Does that change your mind? Is it ok for her to have an abortion if she gave it the ol' college try?

no. Doing everything possible to have a baby, then using contraceptives or a condom is a little like going target shooting, holding a target in front of your chest, wearing body armor, and hoping you don't get hurt. Sure, contraceptives work most of the time, but they're nowhere near a guarantee.

Are you willing to adopt & care for (aka...love, raise, & teach) the children you're so willing to force these women to have?

I didn't force them to go to the range and hold a target in front of their chest.

Or, are you just gonna stick with your own children

I planned for 2 of my children and ended up with a third one. I take responsibility for them, and, if crazy things happen, any more children that I might have. once conception occurs, the water is already under the bridge.

& let someone else take care of the product of your forced morality?

how is opposing abortion any more forced morality than, say, opposition to robbery, arson, or assault? Your conscience tells you those things are wrong. Mine tells me they are right. what right do you (and society) have to force your morality on me?

In my personal opinion, abortion (as well as euthanasia) is a family issue & you, the government, and everyone else needs to stay out of it.

Legislated morality never works...

Can you explain that statement? Is anybody trying to legislate that all have the same moral values, or are they just trying to legislate against certain actions (like abortion)? How is that different from any of the laws that are on the books now? Do you think that we should be rid of all laws that anybody opposes?

 

[Richard]

If it's a child, then your position is morally inconsistent, unless you also think that the children born of rape and incest should also be subject to being killed.

I am willing to allow those exceptions, IMHO no woman should be forced to carry the child of a rapist or family member.

 

[USMC_0311]

You seem to have conveniently forgotten cases where contraceptives were in place & pregnancy still occurred. Does that change your mind? Is it ok for her to have an abortion if she gave it the ol' college try?

No

Are you willing to adopt & care for (aka...love, raise, & teach) the children you're so willing to force these women to have? Or, are you just gonna stick with your own children & let someone else take care of the product of your forced morality?...

That’s a loaded question but we all pay taxes and I for one would much rather see that money going to save them then to have my tax money used to abort them. There are plenty of people wanting to adopt. Whats this "forced morality" crap, killing is killing. Tho shall not kill, tho shall not steal, ect..more "forced morality"?

In my personal opinion, abortion (as well as euthanasia) is a family issue & you, the government, and everyone else needs to stay out of it.

Killing is killing no matter how you want to paint it. Do you feel better by calling it a family issue? It is far from a "family issue".

Legislated morality never works...

It works better then letting it go unchecked.

Didn't Indiana just pass a law that states if a person kills a pregnant person they can be charged with 2 murders? Now I wonder what is considered "live" at conception? 1 week? 1 month? 2 months? Pro abortion people say it a matter of choice. Whos choice? The mother is the only one that gets to make that choice, not the child or the father. Paint it anyway you want, killing is killing.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

no. Doing everything possible to have a baby, then using contraceptives or a condom is a little like going target shooting, holding a target in front of your chest, wearing body armor, and hoping you don't get hurt. Sure, contraceptives work most of the time, but they're nowhere near a guarantee. I didn't force them to go to the range and hold a target in front of their chest. I planned for 2 of my children and ended up with a third one. I take responsibility for them, and, if crazy things happen, any more children that I might have. once conception occurs, the water is already under the bridge. how is opposing abortion any more forced morality than, say, opposition to robbery, arson, or assault? Your conscience tells you those things are wrong. Mine tells me they are right. what right do you (and society) have to force your morality on me?
Can you explain that statement? Is anybody trying to legislate that all have the same moral values, or are they just trying to legislate against certain actions (like abortion)? How is that different from any of the laws that are on the books now? Do you think that we should be rid of all laws that anybody opposes?

You obviously have a Jihaddist-like conviction in this matter. If you truly believe that egg+sperm=human/citizen, then there is absolutely no discussion to be had with you.

A lot of us believe that egg+sperm+time=human/citizen. Everyone varies on the "time" part of that equation. Obama apparently thinks it's 9 months or more, you seem to believe it's 0 seconds.

You're more than entitled to your belief. The definition of a human regarding conception is very difficult & there are as many opinions as there are humans. I believe that for a very short period of time after conception, the mother-to-be should be able to choose to safely stop the development of the fetus.

It's not an easy issue. Because of that, I don't think legislation should be created one way or the other. Leave it up to the individuals.

Back on topic though, I think we all agree that Obama doesn't represent any of us in the abortion debate.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

No

That’s a loaded question but we all pay taxes and I for one would much rather see that money going to save them then to have my tax money used to abort them. There are plenty of people wanting to adopt. Whats this "forced morality" crap, killing is killing. Tho shall not kill, tho shall not steal, ect..more "forced morality"?


Killing is killing no matter how you want to paint it. Do you feel better by calling it a family issue? It is far from a "family issue".

It works better then letting it go unchecked.

Didn't Indiana just pass a law that states if a person kills a pregnant person they can be charged with 2 murders? Now I wonder what is considered "live" at conception? 1 week? 1 month? 2 months? Pro abortion people say it a matter of choice. Whos choice? The mother is the only one that gets to make that choice, not the child or the father. Paint it anyway you want, killing is killing.

I'll reply to you because of your unthinking single-mindedness. One simple question: do you think US Military soldiers & commanders should be tried for murder when their negligence is the cause of a wartime noncombatant casualty (example: accidental bombing of an entire Afghanni wedding party)? Or, would you maybe like to re-word some of what you've written?

 

[Serial Crusher]

Respectfully, I think your statement demonstrates that you are idealistic about how our government actually works.

Writing a politician isn't going to make them change their stance on any but the most neutral issues. They have extensive information about what their constituents believe, based on the pollsters they hire who tell them a great deal more about that than any protest or writing campaign will. The way voting districts are gerrrymandered, most seats are not in contention anyway. Those people in secure districts are elected because they believe whatever their constiuents believe. In the close contested districts, you're going to have either a candidate who is firmly for abortion or firmly against, or two candidates with the same views, depending on the district.

They've rigged the system so we have very little control over our politicians. The best way to control them is with money. Groups like the NRA, where your money can be pooled with other like-minded people's money and used to win elections.

I guess you're right, it's much easier to sink into apathy than it is to make your voice heard, even if you feel it is to no effect. But why post here? We all know the outcome of an argument on the internet.

A poll is a statistic, and an email is something very concrete. In the end politicians are yes-men and they're going to say yes to what has the biggest involvement or occupies the most of their mind. You can be sure that a rep will not read your email, but they all have an intern or secretary telling them they received X number of emails in favor of issue Y. We're still the ones that vote, and no amount of lobbying can get around that.

It's pretty easy to sit back and say "we have no control" and not even make a modicum of effort to exercise control. This discussion has gotten nowhere, no one was suddenly persuaded. The time used by even reading this discussion could have been better spent on a few well directed emails. Even if you lose, at least you went down swinging.

 

[cce1302]

You obviously have a Jihaddist-like conviction in this matter. If you truly believe that egg+sperm=human/citizen, then there is absolutely no discussion to be had with you.

A lot of us believe that egg+sperm+time=human/citizen. Everyone varies on the "time" part of that equation. Obama apparently thinks it's 9 months or more, you seem to believe it's 0 seconds.

You're more than entitled to your belief. The definition of a human regarding conception is very difficult & there are as many opinions as there are humans. I believe that for a very short period of time after conception, the mother-to-be should be able to choose to safely stop the development of the fetus.

It's not an easy issue. Because of that, I don't think legislation should be created one way or the other. Leave it up to the individuals.

Back on topic though, I think we all agree that Obama doesn't represent any of us in the abortion debate.

Unless you can tell me scientifically, EXACTLY, no ifs, ands, maybe or probably, when human life starts, then you, sir, have no grounds to stand on with your argument.

My argument is that because of the uncertainty that some have, it is better to err on the side of caution than to possibly murder some children. We're not trading baseball cards; we're talking about human life.

 

[USMC_0311]

I'll reply to you because of your unthinking single-mindedness. One simple question: do you think US Military soldiers & commanders should be tried for murder when their negligence is the cause of a wartime noncombatant casualty (example: accidental bombing of an entire Afghanni wedding party)? Or, would you maybe like to re-word some of what you've written?

I will not re-word anything I have written as matter of fact I would love to shout it out. Your example is flawed; you are comparing apples to oranges. Unthinking single-mindedness and forced morality, some pretty big concepts. You might want to re-think before you write. What exaclty in my post are you having trouble with? The fact that I don't agree with your position is not single-mindeness. It is a carefully formulated opinion that I base on my own beliefs and actual facts. Tread lightly on calling me names Paco.

 

[rambone]

Liberals wrongly claim it is a Human Right to have "free" health care all your life paid for by taxpayers.

The same Liberals claim that being born is not a Human Right (and by the way, taxpayers can pay for everyone's abortions too).

You've gotta love the irony.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I will not re-word anything I have written as matter of fact I would love to shout it out. Your example is flawed; you are comparing apples to oranges. Unthinking single-mindedness and forced morality, some pretty big concepts. You might want to re-think before you write. What exaclty in my post are you having trouble with? The fact that I don't agree with your position is not single-mindeness. It is a carefully formulated opinion that I base on my own beliefs and actual facts. Tread lightly on calling me names Paco.

I just wanted to make sure you thought "killing was killing", no matter what the circumstances ("no matter how you want to paint it", in your words). So you're obviously against our nation's foreign & domestic wars, capital punishment, self-defense, etc. That's fine. I had assumed it was unlikely that you held those beliefs, what with your USMC screen name & membership on a gun owners forum. Because of my assumption, I thought you'd perhaps want to restate your position. I apologize.

However, I did really enjoy this quote of yours:

That’s a loaded question but we all pay taxes and I for one would much rather see that money going to save them then to have my tax money used to abort them. There are plenty of people wanting to adopt.

It appears that you're saying money will, in fact, raise a child on it's own. That, coupled with your assertion that "there are plenty of people wanting to adopt" tells me that you believe there are currently zero children being neglected/abused in the foster care system. One question: how much did they cost, and where can I get a set of blinders which are that effective?

I'm not trying to upset anyone here. I'm trying to provoke thought beyond gut-reaction in what I view to be a very important topic for our generations.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Liberals wrongly claim it is a Human Right to have "free" health care all your life paid for by taxpayers.

The same Liberals claim that being born is not a Human Right (and by the way, taxpayers can pay for everyone's abortions too).

You've gotta love the irony.

And these same liberals don't support the death penalty.

So it's ok to kill an innocent child, but don't you dare try to execute a convicted serial killer.

 

[ATM]

Just like law enforcement have an exception to some handgun laws, it seems like pregnant women have an exception to some murder laws. The exception is based on the definition of life. Redefine life and the exception goes away.

 

[rambone]

Paco said earlier that a human fetus is analogous to a cancer or a parasite growing on the mother.

I wouldn't count on swaying him anytime soon. I think we can see what Paco's view of human life is. I'm sure I'm being narrow minded in saying that his views are irrelevant to me and his liberal insight - much like a baby - is sucking the life out of this thread faster than I can say "infanticide."

 

[homeless]

par·a·site (pr-st)
n.
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Yes a fetus is a parasite, it is a human parasite, but it feeds off of the mother while providing no belifit to her. Pregnancy is actually dangerous and can be very detrimental to the host. The fetus is alive, even from the time that it is a single cell organism. However when that life becomes sentient, and when it can survive on its own is what needs to be looked at. In my view those are the qualifiing factors in this debate.

In a perfect world only people who have a stable home, mental health, and who can afford a child would become pregnant. But that would not stop abortions. Some times the pregnancy becomes dangerous to the mother and should be ended. And what about cases of disabilities or medical conditions. A family that may have been able to provide a stable healthy home for a healthy baby may not be able to provide one for a disabled baby. There are very few options in this instance, and none of them are good. Sick and disabled babies do not get adopted. The parents know that they will not be able to provide the proper level of care.

So many of you cry for Darwin to thin out the stupid, and yet you wont let the stupid thin themselves. Even a cat will leave abandon a kitten if it is sick.
"unborn child should be protected by society" any of you that agree with that line of thinking must also support welfare, and oppose the death penalty right?



Abortion is something that people love to scream and make stands about. When it becomes real to you is when it isn't cut and dry anymore. It is not always wrong to take life, no matter the stage of that life. Different circumstances dictate different actions. And none of you can say how it will play out until you are there or have been there. Terminating a pregnancy is a ****** option that no one walks away from happy, however it is a tool that needs to be available. I would prefer if the when and whys were decided by doctors and patients behind closed doors, not the courthouse lawn, not in a voting booth, and not on the internet.

I would like to see a greater increase in adoption. Give homes to the unwanted children. But adoption isn't fool proof. Some kids are a huge burden, and there is also a greater demand on others. This is a problem that will not go away, because it is a legitimate medical proceedure that can and has been exploited for a number of reasons. Those reasons need to be addressed before we can change the way abortions are used.

----

Adoption isn't all that expensive, especially when compared to Live Birth, but insurance companies don't pick up the tab when you buy a baby. You are also paying for allot of foot work that has to be done months and years before you ever get the kid.

 

[ATF Consumer]

It appears that you're saying money will, in fact, raise a child on it's own. That, coupled with your assertion that "there are plenty of people wanting to adopt" tells me that you believe there are currently zero children being neglected/abused in the foster care system. One question: how much did they cost, and where can I get a set of blinders which are that effective?

I'm not trying to upset anyone here. I'm trying to provoke thought beyond gut-reaction in what I view to be a very important topic for our generations.

You are making assumptions...

That does not tell you anything of the sort, unless you want to read into that when it clearly is not so. So, how many children that have been brought up by their naturalized parents have been neglected/abused?

Between the two choices...negected/abused or death by scapel...I'd choose the prior...how about you?

Looks like you already own blinders of your own kind.

 

[ATM]

Another definition of parasite with a not-so-subtle distinction:

an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

 

[Fletch]

Another definition of parasite with a not-so-subtle distinction:

an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

I always wondered why you never saw a tick attached to another tick.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Paco said earlier that a human fetus is analogous to a cancer or a parasite growing on the mother.

I wouldn't count on swaying him anytime soon. I think we can see what Paco's view of human life is. I'm sure I'm being narrow minded in saying that his views are irrelevant to me and his liberal insight - much like a baby - is sucking the life out of this thread faster than I can say "infanticide."

Rambone, I'm far from being a liberal. If you don't like the definition of the word parasite, then petition Webster's. A parasite can be an unborn child, or it can be a botfly. It's a word. Quit putting emotion into it.

I and a lot of others from all walks believe that conception does not instantly create a human. Our opinions matter as much as yours.

If sperm+egg=human/citizen, then you're looking at an awful lot of big brother laws & regulations to ensure no women are having covert abortions in the 1st trimester. Make no mistake about it. The government's role is to protect the liberties of it's citizens. If we extend the same rights to a 4 celled organism & expect proper protection of those rights, then you can kiss women's liberties good-bye.

 

[ATF Consumer]

So many of you cry for Darwin to thin out the stupid, and yet you wont let the stupid thin themselves. Even a cat will leave abandon a kitten if it is sick.
"unborn child should be protected by society" any of you that agree with that line of thinking must also support welfare, and oppose the death penalty right? .

Wrong. Welfare is a completely other discussion, but yes...a temporary solution.
I do not oppose the death penalty, as these are convicted felons, and have met their fate by a jury of their peers...
If the same process for the convicted would be placed on the unborn, then that would put them on a level playing field, as an unborn child has not committed any crime and therefore would be free to live, whereas a felon is found guilty and thus, life expiration will commence.

Adoption isn't all that expensive, especially when compared to Live Birth, but insurance companies don't pick up the tab when you buy a baby. You are also paying for allot of foot work that has to be done months and years before you ever get the kid.

That is because the government is involved...they aren't involved when a couple decides to procreate, so why should they be involved in adoption?