(12-15-2013 06:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 05:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 05:00 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  It should really go without saying, but not everyone who questions or objects to abortion is a misogynist and/or religious zealot. Not even half. Maybe I'm too much of a (*ahem*) "bleeding heart," but it's tough to look at an ultrasound, especially one conducted after 10-12 weeks, and convince oneself that it's no more a human life than a rock or piece of furniture. Damn near impossible to look at one and not have your heart-strings tugged.

and it should go without saying that not everyone who is pro choice supports abortion but feels that it is not their call to make for someone else.

John, we finally agree on something. I can think of no larger government intrusion on someone than passing a law telling him/her what to do with their body. But that shouldn't be seen as giving some irresponsible person an out for their bad decisions.

well i am glad we agree on something

but i will ask

is rape a "bad decision" on the victims part? what about a doctor who is trying to save a life and a heartbeat law interferes with that decision? (Savita Halappanavar)

the truth is abortion issues come into play well beyond the traditional "someone looking for an easy way out" line of thought

(12-15-2013 07:37 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 06:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 05:03 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 05:00 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  It should really go without saying, but not everyone who questions or objects to abortion is a misogynist and/or religious zealot. Not even half. Maybe I'm too much of a (*ahem*) "bleeding heart," but it's tough to look at an ultrasound, especially one conducted after 10-12 weeks, and convince oneself that it's no more a human life than a rock or piece of furniture. Damn near impossible to look at one and not have your heart-strings tugged.

and it should go without saying that not everyone who is pro choice supports abortion but feels that it is not their call to make for someone else.

John, we finally agree on something. I can think of no larger government intrusion on someone than passing a law telling him/her what to do with their body. But that shouldn't be seen as giving some irresponsible person an out for their bad decisions.

well i am glad we agree on something

but i will ask

is rape a "bad decision" on the victims part? what about a doctor who is trying to save a life and a heartbeat law interferes with that decision? (Savita Halappanavar)

the truth is abortion issues come into play well beyond the traditional "someone looking for an easy way out" line of thought

The decision to have an abortion is on the shoulders of the woman, man, doctor, and, if applicable, priest, pastor, rabbi, or whatever. It's none of my business.

I was raised as a Baptist Christian and that is what I (mostly) consider myself today. Though I do not regularly go to church, I still follow principles learned and I do read the Bible.

Abortions are rare in the case of rape or saving the life of the Mother. Rare is what the pro choice people say they are for.

If only science could give us a clear answer to when life begins - at conception, at brainwave, at heartbeat, at viability (whenever that is), or at birth - then we could at least be a step closer to settled public policy. Of course the right-wingers could care less what science has to say on the subject. You'll all just think that scientists are in a grand conspiracy in favor of more abortion.

(12-15-2013 08:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  If only science could give us a clear answer to when life begins - at conception, at brainwave, at heartbeat, at viability (whenever that is), or at birth - then we could at least be a step closer to settled public policy. Of course the right-wingers could care less what science has to say on the subject. You'll all just think that scientists are in a grand conspiracy in favor of more abortion.

I agree with you on this. I have said for a long time this debate will go on until the time of conception is verified to everyone's satisfaction. I do however now think that science has shown enough evidence to draw back the time line in which an abortion can be done. The current time frame is too long IMO.

(12-15-2013 09:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 08:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  If only science could give us a clear answer to when life begins - at conception, at brainwave, at heartbeat, at viability (whenever that is), or at birth - then we could at least be a step closer to settled public policy. Of course the right-wingers could care less what science has to say on the subject. You'll all just think that scientists are in a grand conspiracy in favor of more abortion.

I agree with you on this. I have said for a long time this debate will go on until the time of conception is verified to everyone's satisfaction. I do however now think that science has shown enough evidence to draw back the time line in which an abortion can be done. The current time frame is too long IMO.

I think most Americans would agree with the viability point, but the anti-choice crowd isn't interested in that. They are interested in no abortion under any circumstances, so their extremism is met with extremism. That's how the system works.

(12-15-2013 09:04 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 08:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  If only science could give us a clear answer to when life begins - at conception, at brainwave, at heartbeat, at viability (whenever that is), or at birth - then we could at least be a step closer to settled public policy. Of course the right-wingers could care less what science has to say on the subject. You'll all just think that scientists are in a grand conspiracy in favor of more abortion.

I agree with you on this. I have said for a long time this debate will go on until the time of conception is verified to everyone's satisfaction. I do however now think that science has shown enough evidence to draw back the time line in which an abortion can be done. The current time frame is too long IMO.

I think most Americans would agree with the viability point, but the anti-choice crowd isn't interested in that. They are interested in no abortion under any circumstances, so their extremism is met with extremism. That's how the system works.

Yep...Everyone is pretty much dug in on this.

Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

(12-15-2013 09:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

Simple thoughts from simple minds.

Your feeble mind disagrees?

(12-15-2013 09:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

Where do you find this sh!t? Science doesn't say anything about life starting at inception. Technically, sperm and egg are already living cells.

(12-15-2013 09:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

Where do you find this sh!t? Science doesn't say anything about life starting at inception. Technically, sperm and egg are already living cells.

Sure, they are already living cells. Don't know how anyone would argue that changes once they are combined.

(12-15-2013 09:04 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:00 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 08:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  If only science could give us a clear answer to when life begins - at conception, at brainwave, at heartbeat, at viability (whenever that is), or at birth - then we could at least be a step closer to settled public policy. Of course the right-wingers could care less what science has to say on the subject. You'll all just think that scientists are in a grand conspiracy in favor of more abortion.

I agree with you on this. I have said for a long time this debate will go on until the time of conception is verified to everyone's satisfaction. I do however now think that science has shown enough evidence to draw back the time line in which an abortion can be done. The current time frame is too long IMO.

I think most Americans would agree with the viability point, but the anti-choice crowd isn't interested in that. They are interested in no abortion under any circumstances, so their extremism is met with extremism. That's how the system works.

I think most Americans would agree with the viability point, but the anti-choice crowd isn't interested in that. They are interested in no abortion under except for just one circumstances, (interracial parents) so their extremism is met with extremism. That's how the system works.

fixed it for you

So you idiots are drinking buddies.

(12-15-2013 09:55 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:46 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

Where do you find this sh!t? Science doesn't say anything about life starting at inception. Technically, sperm and egg are already living cells.

Sure, they are already living cells. Don't know how anyone would argue that changes once they are combined.

So then is it evil for me to lose sperm in any other way than procreation? I'd be killing a bunch of living cells.

Yeah because that's exactly what I said. Jeez, is there a race going on to see who will be crowned Miss Construe?

(12-15-2013 09:11 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

Simple thoughts from simple minds.

Jesus Christ, he made a statement and instead of intelligently responding you reply with insults.

And since you're so big on science, Paul is most likely statistically more intelligent than you as shown by the very science you cling to...you know it as the black/white intelligence gap. Wait...due to your complete lack of anything intelligent, you probably don't know. Now go back to polar bearing. POS.

(12-15-2013 11:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:11 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

Simple thoughts from simple minds.

Jesus Christ, he made a statement and instead of intelligently responding you reply with insults.

And since you're so big on science, Paul is most likely statistically more intelligent than you as shown by the very science you cling to...you know it as the black/white intelligence gap. Wait...due to your complete lack of anything intelligent, you probably don't know. Now go back to polar bearing. POS.

Did you just call UM2001GRAD Jesus Christ?

(12-15-2013 11:42 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 11:36 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:11 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 09:09 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Science is pretty clear. Life has begun at inception. Don't see how anyone is arguing that. Viability is another matter.

Simple thoughts from simple minds.

Jesus Christ, he made a statement and instead of intelligently responding you reply with insults.

And since you're so big on science, Paul is most likely statistically more intelligent than you as shown by the very science you cling to...you know it as the black/white intelligence gap. Wait...due to your complete lack of anything intelligent, you probably don't know. Now go back to polar bearing. POS.

Did you just call UM2001GRAD Jesus Christ?

I wouldn't mind dropping him in the middle of the ocean and seeing if he could walk back.