Trooper Wrote:Then the government needs to stay out of it's citizens' private lives????????????

You can't have it both ways.

Apples and Oranges, and I think you know that.

My opinion is abortion is the killing of a human life. That is murder. It should be treated as such. Therefore government making a law against it is fine with me.

If I was pro-choice and regarded a fetus in the manner in which you do, your statement would be valid. I don't, so it's not.

I'm not libertarian in my views, I'm conservative. There is a difference.

Graybeard-

Is there a difference between a kid in a foster home than a mass of cells in a womb. I don't think it's too logical of a stretch to say that there is. Now, as I said earlier, I can respect the pro-life agenda. I can see the nobility of their cause, yet YOU do not provide me with the same courtesy in my arguments when it comes to education and socialized medicine. I think there is a quality of life argument that is very relative in this case. I choose to no longer to respond to you on this topic.

BTW- your nuking of half of America was a real knee slapper considering the times we are in. Your a ******* and the post you made about my grammatical errors pot meet kettle.

Quote:It's hard to read with all the gramatical errors, **(but I get what you are getting at). You wouldn't have an abortion yourself, but it is OK for everyone else to have an abortion (I know not ***your concern or problem with those other people having abortions). Also, you seem to be worried about ***all those kids in orphanages. I think you said it is better for them to not exist at all than to exist in an orphanage. So, do you support euthanasia for those that are subjected to orphanages? If not, can you give me a valid reason for why euthanasia is wrong but abortions are not? Hey, both options could alleviate the orphanage issue!  It's called foster homes *******

Quote:In areas where an influx of money came into a school district (ie. a power plant, a new factory, something along these line) without exception scores and the quality of education goes up drastically.

And how exactly was money from a private business put into these schools thus increasing test scores?

It is more logical to assume that those businesses brought with them workers with a work ethic particular to manufacturing. Thus a value system and work ethic passed on to kids.

Quote:Just by saying that you don't wish to throw money at the problem is a lame *** excuse for ignoring the problem.

Where did I advocate ignoring the problem. Never once have you asked what my view on fixing the problem would be.

Quote:The problem with our schools is that many of them are severely underfunded.

Education spending has increased exponentially over the last 2 decades, and no change has been seen. If recent history has shown anything, it has shown that throwing more money at schools is not solution. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Are some schools underfunded, of course. But money has not an overriding problem, nor is it an all fixing solution.

Quote:Now you can keep living in your world of denial and say you care about kids but you don't want to see good hard money being thrown after bad.  Just throwing it down the drain which many of the Republican crowd likes to bring up when they talk about accountability of schools.

What exactly am I denying?

Quote:Now the tone you take with me is much more condescendingand insulting  than I have ever taken with you.  To each their own.

Get over it. I take exception to any implication that I don't care about kids and don't want to see them succeed. You made that implication and I responded in kind.

Quote:All I said is that if you supported some of these things I have been arguing about for the past three months I could maybe see your side more.

So I have to agree with your point of view on some things in order for my point of view to have validity?

Quote:You never try to see the other side.

Yes I do, I just don't agree with it. And just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I don't listen to it or give it credence.

Quote:Your moral superiority complex almost sickens me.

I love how me not agreeing with you in turn means I have a moral superiority complex. Abortion IS an issue of morality for me. It is IMMORAL to kill a fetus because it is an innocent human life.

Quote:I bet you were beat up a lot as a kid.

LOL!! I know you'd like to think that, but I didn't. Guys my size don't get beat up. They play offensive and defensive line. However Leonard Little did ring my bell my sophomore year.

Quote:Your mouthy and you don't try to see anyone else's opinion

Wrong again. I see everyone's opinion, I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYONE'S opinion.

I don't agree with the pro-choice side because I feel it's wrong.

I don't agree with the Bush haters because I think they are wrong.

I don't agree that throwing more money into schools will fix them because I think that's wrong.

Do I see the arguments for the other side, yes. Do I see validity in the arguments, some. But I have yet to hear one that makes me change my mind. NOR have I seen you change your mind on any thread you've take a position in.

Quote:I do NOT support welfare and quit bringing it up when you respond to me.

Fine. But I'd say that's a lot more tame then me insinuating you don't care about kids.

Little- I remember him when he was at Tennesee. Definetly an impact player.

What exactly are you denying- If we lived in an utopian society where we could properly fund schools we would see drastic improvements. Niner- Give me one, one private enterprise where any company didn't drastically increase spending. Do you think Ford isn't spending more on R&D than they did 20 years ago. It's called inflation. What you really need to look at is the amount of money we spent on kids thirty years ago compared to the average salary of the community. I would gladly take that same percentage today!! Just take a civil tone and I can respond in the same way.

DrTorch Wrote:2. Saying it is a mass of cells may work for the first 8 weeks, but after seeing the BBC slideshow, it's tough to believe it's not a person after that point.

Can I infer, then, that you recognize as a reasonable point of view that, during the first two months we have something that -- while alive and human -- is not necessarily a baby or a person?

I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm not trying to change any minds here, either.*

This thread started with the idea that Kerry was some kind of waffler for stating his belief that life begins at conception.

My only point in entering this thread was to argue that it was not logically inconsistent to be prochoice and agree that life begins at conception.

I'll add this, though: I think a lot of reasonable people can come to a lot of different reasonable conclusions about what circumstances an abortion might be considered acceptable in the eyes of the law (if still distasteful).

It appears most American believe, in the abstract, that all late term abortions are unacceptable (which helps explain why they are so exceedingly rare).

But when we are talking RU482, embryos frozen in medical facilities, the first couple of months of a pregnancy -- I don't see a masses of Americans prepared to follow the lead of the hard religous right.

In between we have a sea of grey -- some dark, some not so dark.

And I'm very uncomfortable with the government placing bright lines in that sea of grey.

That makes me prochoice, I guess.

---

* I have news: Despite some unreasonably vicious posts in this thread, you haven't changed my mind, either.

GrayBeard Wrote:.

Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion

That's something like arguing everyone but the Quakers are pro war.

Quote:If we lived in an utopian society where we could properly fund schools we would see drastic improvements.

Exactly when did "utopian society" find it's way into this conversation? I have to admit you have me stumped as to where you're going with this.

If we lived in a utopian society you and I wouldn't be having this discussion. If we lived in a utopian society everyone would agree what is best for everyone else and no one would want for anything.

But, unfortuently, we don't. We live in the real world, with real problems. And honest people disagree in how to deal with them, as you and I do.

Quote:Give me one,  one private enterprise where any company didn't drastically increase spending.

None. And you know why, because the HAVE to spend it because of COMPETITION. Public schools don't have to compete for funds therefore they don't have to succeed. There is nothing forcing them to because people can't just pick up and go somewhere else.

That's why, to fix the problem schools need competition, hence voucher programs. If parents had the option to send their kids elsewhere public schools would have no choice but to shape up. The majority of schools aren't in disrepair and falling apart. The problem is many teachers don't teach worth a crap, and the one's that do aren't valued as they should be.

Competition forces people to get better, which is why corporations spends millions on R&D.

Quote:What you really need to look at is the amount of money we spent on kids thirty years ago compared to the average salary of the community.

If you have those numbers I'd be interested to see them. Without that I can't really answer the above point.

What is the controversy here?

Kerry said he believes that life begins at conception. Thats a viewpoint I happen to share, as do a lot of other people. But Kerry also believes that this opinion is an article of faith and is not scientifically provable or universally held, thus he supports choice.

I frankly don't see these positions as mutually exclusive. Would someone kindly explain to me how they view this as inconsistant?

To me, it is a grey area. And in grey areas, its perfectly sensible to have your perspective on reality while fully accepting that other perspectives exist and should be respected.

First off, I think the issue is that Kerry's a hypocrite. Secondly, I have NO problem with RU-486....besides it's name. Are you for 86? 86 is a slang term for taking someone out.

OUGwave Wrote:What is the controversy here?

Kerry said he believes that life begins at conception. Thats a viewpoint I happen to share, as do a lot of other people. But Kerry also believes that this opinion is an article of faith and is not scientifically provable or universally held, thus he supports choice.

I frankly don't see these positions as mutually exclusive. Would someone kindly explain to me how they view this as inconsistant?

To me, it is a grey area. And in grey areas, its perfectly sensible to have your perspective on reality while fully accepting that other perspectives exist and should be respected.

To the problem is this.

You are saying that LIFE begins at conception. Yet you say abortion, the taking of that life, is a matter of choice. So you're saying to each his own as to the murder of that human life. That's what it is.

The views are inconsistent because you acknowledge it's a life, yet have no problem with someone choosing to snuff that life out. To me it's exactly the same as someone standing by while another kills someone. Both involve the taking of a human life, yet one seems to be acceptable while the other isn't.

That is contradictory in my view.

<a href='http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/070904/edi_1410637.shtml' target='_blank'>Editorial</a>

Schadenfreude Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:2. Saying it is a mass of cells may work for the first 8 weeks, but after seeing the BBC slideshow, it's tough to believe it's not a person after that point.

Can I infer, then, that you recognize as a reasonable point of view that, during the first two months we have something that -- while alive and human -- is not necessarily a baby or a person?

I'm not trying to trip you up. I'm not trying to change any minds here, either.*

To be more specific, I'd take two tacts on this point.

First, I believe the pro-life movement should break its agenda into smaller steps, this being one of them. I think it's easier to convince people that it's a real human baby at 8 weeks (although that's a somewhat arbitrary number, I think we can agree this is a pretty good ballpark) and this is good progress.

Secondly, more toward answering your question, I believe it's fair to have a discussion about what's going on during those first 8 weeks. I have considered your point and Motown Bronco's point about lack of sentient capability...but it's very difficult to come up w/ a rigorous scientific definition that doesn't say it's a unique human life. In the end, the only POV I'll accept as "reasonable" is one that is rigorously logical and dutifully considers scientific and ethical evidence. At this point, I don't know w/ certainty what that position is.

Finally, I am disappointed that you aren't somewhat influenced by the scienfitic evidence. And, since you addressed one of my points, I hope that I wasn't unreasonably vicious.

When I used the word "vicious," I didn't really mean you.

Trooper Wrote:"Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact.

Really? Makes me wonder why I spent all that time posting rigorous definitions of "human" and "life". Or perhaps you are indicating you didn't understand all of that. It's just easier to skip over those big words. Wouldn't surprise me.

Quote: Is the "morning after pill" an abortion?

Even I indicated that these issues are still open to question. Maybe you didn't even read my post. Nothing like chiming in when you don't know what your'e talking about!

Quote:Does a woman become pregnant during intercourse? How do you know when the sperm and egg unite during any pregnancy? It can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse.

Ah yes, the obligatory tangent that has nothing to do w/ the discussion. But, if it makes you feel smart, just keep asking these sorts of questions.

Quote:I said let's don't get into this because the interpretation of the Bible is far too ambiguous to argue in this sense.

Ambiguous? What part of the verses I cited were ambiguous? You used the cliche "playing God" in your failed analogy between abortion and capital punishment. I simply showed there's no reason to guess about playing God, there are clear answers. But, you might have to study. Furthermore, folks w/ F as part of their Myers-Briggs personality types don't do well w/ concrete answers...which is why they shouldn't be the ones to make laws.

Dogger Wrote:Graybeard-

Is there a difference between a kid in a foster home than a mass of cells in a womb. I don't think it's too logical of a stretch to say that there is.

I believe that you are wrong (and astonishingly, so does John F. Kerry). Life begins at conception, thus a "mass of cells" is essentially the same (just less developed) as a "kid in a foster home".

Quote:Now, as I said earlier, I can respect the pro-life agenda. I can see the nobility of their cause, yet YOU do not provide me with the same courtesy in my arguments when it comes to education and socialized medicine.

First of all, I have never argued education and socialized medicine with you, so you don't know wether or not I would see the "nobility of the cause". Way to speculate on how I would react to your thoughts there. As far as the nobility of the "Pro-Choice" side, I can find none. As I was holding my 2 week old last night, I could not understand why anyone would want to kill him, or even deserve the right to choose to kill him.

Quote:I think there is a quality of life argument that is very relative in this case.

How do we know in advance what someone's quality of life is going to be like? This is a very weak argument on your part. If we are going to eliminate people based on their perceived quality of life, does that mean that we should start considering whether or not homeless should be killed as well?

Quote:Your a ******* and the post you made about my grammatical errors pot meet kettle.

That, my friend, is a spin room AUP violation. You are allowed to attack my beliefs/views, but you are not allowed to attack me personally. I know that you realized that you had completely lost this argument and the only way to save face was to begin the personal attacks, but they will not be tolerated on this board. Clean it up in the future.

DrTorch Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:"Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact.

Really? Makes me wonder why I spent all that time posting rigorous definitions of "human" and "life". Or perhaps you are indicating you didn't understand all of that. It's just easier to skip over those big words. Wouldn't surprise me.

Quote: Is the "morning after pill" an abortion?

Even I indicated that these issues are still open to question. Maybe you didn't even read my post. Nothing like chiming in when you don't know what your'e talking about!

Quote:Does a woman become pregnant during intercourse? How do you know when the sperm and egg unite during any pregnancy? It can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse.

Ah yes, the obligatory tangent that has nothing to do w/ the discussion. But, if it makes you feel smart, just keep asking these sorts of questions.

Quote:I said let's don't get into this because the interpretation of the Bible is far too ambiguous to argue in this sense.

Ambiguous? What part of the verses I cited were ambiguous? You used the cliche "playing God" in your failed analogy between abortion and capital punishment. I simply showed there's no reason to guess about playing God, there are clear answers. But, you might have to study. Furthermore, folks w/ F as part of their Myers-Briggs personality types don't do well w/ concrete answers...which is why they shouldn't be the ones to make laws.

Quote: Is the "morning after pill" an abortion?

Even I indicated that these issues are still open to question. Maybe you didn't even read my post. Nothing like chiming in when you don't know what your'e talking about!

Was that the answer to that question?

Quote:Does a woman become pregnant during intercourse? How do you know when the sperm and egg unite during any pregnancy? It can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse.

Ah yes, the obligatory tangent that has nothing to do w/ the discussion. But, if it makes you feel smart, just keep asking these sorts of questions.

Again, are you having trouble with comrehension? But if it makes you feel better keep avoiding the question at hand, it seems to be a tactic that you cons are employing more and more as the water gets higher.

RebelKev Wrote:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Man, if Torch's brake lights ever go out you're gonna be in a world of sheet.

Quote:Is there a difference between a kid in a foster home than a mass of cells in a womb. I don't think it's too logical of a stretch to say that there is.

In your mind:

is the mass of cells that is a fetus developed?

and

is the mass of cells that is a 6 month old developed?