DescentBB

Spidey wrote:No, a developing child is NOT a part of a woman’s body, that’s like saying the seed is part of the pot of dirt. The mother only provides a vessel, and nutrition for the growing child, the proof of that is the immune system.

If human’s laid eggs…would you still have the right to abort, using the same reasoning?

And, the problem I have with Jeff’s reasoning….you can’t be a fraction of a human. Just think if we applied that reasoning to retarded people.

Adult Human…100% right to live
Young Child…80% right to live
Retarded Person…maybe 50% right to live
Dog…25% right to live
Cat…KILL IT!

And yes, all life has the same right to exist, the right to life also cannot be fractionalized. The taking of life should only be done be done out of absolute need. (survival)

A fetus IS part of a woman's body for 9 months, because the placenta is physically ATTACHED to our womb INSIDE our bodies. It's part of our body no matter how you look at it. If you want to play semantics, I guess a fetus technically kind of fits the definition of a parasite, although it's really a same species parasite.

Par-a-site:

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

Don't get me wrong Spidey. I'd no more abort a fetus than I would kill a child. My ONLY gripe is that the decision to abort should be the mother's and the mother's alone, not the state, not the church. And it should remain a CHOICE. If you don't want abortions, make sure contraception and sex ed are available to ALL sexually active people so that they don't have unwanted pregnancies. All you boys here seem to think I'm for killing babies or something.

vision wrote:I just thought of an awesome solution to the abortion problem. We should change all the laws so women can give a baby up for adoption before it's born. All the people who want to save babies can take all the fetuses and raise them until parents are found. Everyone wins! No more abortions!

I have an idea too. All those men against abortion can volunteer to be surrogate mothers. The fetuses can be transferred to the male's abdominal cavity and the placenta will attach to the abdominal wall just fine. Come 9 months later, he can have that lovely C-section and give birth to a fine bouncing baby.

wow. just wow.
This was nowhere near where I thought this thread might be heading. I suppose the words above are correct. So much as touching
on abortion or the laws around it sends some folks to a whole 'nother level........

“Attached” is also part of my argument, not all things “attached” are part of something they are attached to. The examples are endless. Attached does not imply integral. (as in part) Nor does location. I can have a fuel nozzle “attached” to my gas tank, inside the trunk of my car…that doesn’t make the fuel nozzle part of the car.

But that aside, my argument is more based in the immune system, if not for a great deal of work by nature to protect that little “blob” of cells…the woman’s body would attack and destroy it. And that pretty much answers the question of whether a fetus is a body part, or not…for me anyway.

And I was really trying to avoid semantics in this discussion, but since you mentioned it…which definition of “part” applies to an embryo? I have looked at a half a dozen dictionaries, and can’t seem to find the one that applies. Not even this one…

Organic Constituent

An organ, system, or other discrete element of an organism. (which an embryo is not)

But Hey, don’t get me wrong either…I really don’t give a rat’s ass if women kill their children inside the womb, or outside for that matter. Just don’t use something like “a body part” to justify or make a legal basis for killing something.

I was certain this wasn't going to turn into an abortion debate.

callmeslick wrote:wow. just wow.
This was nowhere near where I thought this thread might be heading. I suppose the words above are correct. So much as touching
on abortion or the laws around it sends some folks to a whole 'nother level........

you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Zuruck wrote: ... Oh wait, let me guess, you guys are also for strict abstinence only education right?

Seems like a good idea. There would be:
1) a lot fewer instances of STD infections,
2) a lot fewer unwanted pregnancies,
3) a lot fewer High School drop outs because of pregnancies,
4) a lot fewer un-wed mothers,
5) fewer divorces (because of fewer people getting married for the wrong reasons),
6) higher chances for successfull marriages (successful marriage = marriage that lasts several years, for same reasons as #5),
7) more children growing up in happy homes (for same reasons as #5 and #6) which means fewer youth will end up in prison which in turn suggests lower crime rates may be possible.

Think it isn't possible? Think people cannot do that? Think it's ludicrous? If so, I feel very sorry for you because you are really missing out.

callmeslick wrote:wow. just wow.
This was nowhere near where I thought this thread might be heading. I suppose the words above are correct. So much as touching
on abortion or the laws around it sends some folks to a whole 'nother level........

You're new here aren't you....

TechPro wrote:Think it isn't possible? Think people cannot do that? Think it's ludicrous? If so, I feel very sorry for you because you are really missing out.

Cool story. You can just look to the countries that legally forbid sex before marriage to see what an awesome culture we would have. Don't forget to add "8) More suicide bombers" to your list.

vision wrote:Cool story. You can just look to the countries that legally forbid sex before marriage to see what an awesome culture we would have. Don't forget to add "8) More suicide bombers" to your list.

Well, we can elect Rick Santorum, who doesn't believe in sex education, contraception or sex before marriage AND believes in sex ONLY for procreative purposes (that's right, no sex for pleasure under a Santorum Administration).

Spidey wrote:“Attached” is also part of my argument, not all things “attached” are part of something they are attached to. The examples are endless. Attached does not imply integral. (as in part) Nor does location. I can have a fuel nozzle “attached” to my gas tank, inside the trunk of my car…that doesn’t make the fuel nozzle part of the car.

Ah, but it is "integral". Remove the placenta from the uterine wall and everything from it down the line dies if it's not fully developed. It cannot survive without the blood supply and oxygen from the mother and the fetus can't survive without the placenta.

Spidey wrote:But that aside, my argument is more based in the immune system, if not for a great deal of work by nature to protect that little “blob” of cells…the woman’s body would attack and destroy it. And that pretty much answers the question of whether a fetus is a body part, or not…for me anyway.

There are cases where the woman's immune system will go into overdrive and attack the fetus. It's rare, but it does happen.

Spidey wrote:But Hey, don’t get me wrong either…I really don’t give a rat’s ass if women kill their children inside the womb, or outside for that matter. Just don’t use something like “a body part” to justify or make a legal basis for killing something.

No, I agree, the fetus is not a body part and I don't like the idea of "killing" it. Like I said though, the decision should be up to the mother, the father and the doctor. Maybe medical schools should start teaching, as medically necessary, that all pregnant women should have a sonogram during pregnancy screening as part of their normal treatment and make sure the mother sees the image. Don't make it a requirement by the state, but as part of a medical standard of treatment. Allow the woman to think she's got control over her body. You know how people like to resist government mandates, but they'll believe what a doctor says is medically necessary.

TechPro wrote: Think it isn't possible? Think people cannot do that? Think it's ludicrous? If so, I feel very sorry for you because you are really missing out.

Unfortunately, TechPro, the statistics I've seen suggest that abstinence-only education winds up leading to more unplanned pregnancies and STD outbreaks than a more comprehensive education program does. Regardless of your or my personal beliefs, the fact remains is that puberty creates some very strong hormonal urges in teens...and for better or worse, some of them are going to wind up acting on them. The danger comes when the kids who are acting on them aren't properly informed about the consequences of their actions, and about how to protect against said consequences. I certainly don't support a sex-ed curriculum that consisted of, "Sure, bang whoever you want whenever you want, so long as you wear a rubber/are on the Pill," but I don't think deliberately withholding information from teens is a particularly responsible choice either.

The problem, in my opinion, with sex education in schools, is that it makes an open/unsubtle topic of a subtle/delicate subject with young people who either haven't been given a proper perspective on relationships at home or have been given an out-and-out improper perspective on relationships at home and in popular culture and media. This is done, as I understand it, apart from any goal of conveying proper discipline/restraint/honor toward the opposite sex, aside from the simplistic, calculating desire to dissuading them from doing anything extreme to gutter their expected path to well-adjusted, fully-educated, adulthood. It is also done far too early, which I expect is an attempt to head off puberty--a poor excuse for introducing a topic that, in a civilized society, would best wait another 5 years, at least, for a greater degree of natural responsibility to set in. It's important that there be a degree of taboo about sex outside of its rightful place, which is in private between a man a woman who are committed to each other--married.

Sex only in marriage? What planet are you from ST? I'm guessing you're against contraception too. So much prudery. How do you plan to dictate your sexual morals to the rest of a free society? Reinstate some of those old blue laws? I'd have thought that the Victorian Age had long passed.

As for sex ed. I think most teenagers in high school are mature enough to understand the material responsibly. That's when it was taught to us in the 1970's.

tunnelcat wrote: As for sex ed. I think most teenagers in high school are mature enough to understand the material responsibly. That's when it was taught to us in the 1970's.

This is a joke, right? I've been in the wind all day, it's hard to tell.

SilverFJ wrote:

tunnelcat wrote: As for sex ed. I think most teenagers in high school are mature enough to understand the material responsibly. That's when it was taught to us in the 1970's.

This is a joke, right? I've been in the wind all day, it's hard to tell.

Nope. Actually, I have a correction. It was in Junior High when we hit the teen years. The girls were taught one little session in Home Ec, the boys in Shop Class. Kind of a stupid way to do it, wasn't it? At least it was somewhat informative. I would have appreciated a more formal lesson instead of some impromptu, prudish, hush, hush short lesson like it was something dirty. And my parents were worthless telling me anything about sex. I'll bet your parents didn't tell you anything either.

tunnelcat wrote:Nope. Actually, I have a correction. It was in Junior High when we hit the teen years. ... And my parents were worthless telling me anything about sex. I'll bet your parents didn't tell you anything either.

I think kids should be taught about responsible sex as soon as they ask "where babies come from." It's hard to put a time frame on when exactly when sex-ed should be introduced since kids develop at such different rates. Junior high seems about right, maybe a little earlier. Kids aren't stupid. Being fatherless and having a bad relationship with my mother didn't make for a comfortable "facts of life" environment. But my mother at least realized I was smart about stuff and bought me a book on the subject long before I learned it in school. And besides, I knew about everything in the book before I read it; I was an inquisitive kid. So definitely sex-ed, and as early as possible. I attribute all the totally awesome pregnancy and disease-free sex I've had over the past twenty-five years to good sex education.

Also, you guys do realize that kids are hitting puberty earlier than ever before, right? It's not uncommon now for girls to have their first period around the age of 10, or even a bit younger. (The jury's still out as to why exactly this is occurring, but it occurs nonetheless.) Thorne, you would propose that we not even mention sex to children until years after their hormones started going haywire? And you think teen pregnancy and STDs are problems now...

It's ok...Thorne and those guys live in fantasy land. Hell, Sarah Palin probably thought her daughter was all nice and not ★■◆●ing the football team, but she was wrong. Kids have sex, there is no way around it. Only in this country is the subject so taboo and parents don't want to tell their kids about what to do to protect themselves. Should a 15 year old be having sex? Probably not, but you're blind if you think it isn't happening.

Access to condoms + birth control = less abortions. Pick your poison.

Knew that would resonate with Zuruck. I never said anything about dictating morals, TC. Where do you come up with that? In a free society you "dictate" morals by reasoned persuasion.

I never suggested that the subject be hidden from young people. An impromptu introduction is the parent's responsibility, in my mind, when the situation calls for it. But there's no need, in an ideal scenario, to get them thinking about it at such a young age. That's another fault of popular culture. Young people can be prepared for sexuality without being introduced to the concept of sex in their early (pre?) teens. But if you're going to have a problem with what I said, don't take it out of context.

TopGun wrote:(The jury's still out as to why exactly this is occurring, but it occurs nonetheless.)

It's been demonstrated that it has to do with diet. I don't remember whether it was hormones in the food or chemicals introduced into the water supply. The jury will be out as long as somebody stands to lose from the conclusion. But that's another topic.

Top Gun wrote:

TechPro wrote: Think it isn't possible? Think people cannot do that? Think it's ludicrous? If so, I feel very sorry for you because you are really missing out.

Unfortunately, TechPro, the statistics I've seen suggest that abstinence-only education winds up leading to more unplanned pregnancies and STD outbreaks than a more comprehensive education program does. Regardless of your or my personal beliefs, the fact remains is that puberty creates some very strong hormonal urges in teens...and for better or worse, some of them are going to wind up acting on them. The danger comes when the kids who are acting on them aren't properly informed about the consequences of their actions, and about how to protect against said consequences. I certainly don't support a sex-ed curriculum that consisted of, "Sure, bang whoever you want whenever you want, so long as you wear a rubber/are on the Pill," but I don't think deliberately withholding information from teens is a particularly responsible choice either.

I don't think I said there shouldn't be any education about sex, there should be education about sex but it needs to be done correctly to properly teach about what to do and what not to do in order to stay safe and healthy while at the same time encouraging the enjoy,ent of sex ... Wait for it ... At the right times.

Sex at the right times is really what most of this debate is about and people's different opinions about when and how is acceptable to have sex.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Knew that would resonate with Zuruck. I never said anything about dictating morals, TC. Where do you come up with that? In a free society you "dictate" morals by reasoned persuasion.

Religion has always dictated morals in any society. We're no different. Most Christians oppose any form of sex ed in public school, so they actively fight politically to keep it out. That's not any different than in a Muslim Society where they force their women to cover their heads and faces.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I never suggested that the subject be hidden from young people. An impromptu introduction is the parent's responsibility, in my mind, when the situation calls for it. But there's no need, in an ideal scenario, to get them thinking about it at such a young age. That's another fault of popular culture. Young people can be prepared for sexuality without being introduced to the concept of sex in their early (pre?) teens. But if you're going to have a problem with what I said, don't take it out of context.

Well, Top Gun just pointed out that many girls are now entering puberty at the age of ten, pre-teen. Ten is young. When do you propose that some form of sex ed be taught?

You'd like to defer to the parents, but even the sexually liberated boomers seem to come down with a case of prudery when it comes to teaching the birds and bees to their OWN children. My parents were so inhibited, they refused to be seen naked in front of one another. My husband and I think nothing of it. So if the parents don't do their job, then society has to pay for the results, like teen pregnancies, abortion and SDI's. The only other place that has children as a captive audience is at school, where biology is being taught anyway. So why don't we all quit being so inhibited about a natural human function and teach our children about the nature and consequences of having sex before they're ready to have a family?

wow. just wow.
This was nowhere near where I thought this thread might be heading

bull★■◆●. When you can find no fault in a man, then you have to attack his ideals and fundamental beliefs. It's insanely obvious, yet it works most times. It's an earmark of fear towards a man that everyone was saying 2-3 weeks ago had no chance.

The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

EDIT: I also think you will find that all those happy go lucky liberals y'all yank around by the nose, will start caring less and less about abortion when their bank accounts run dry.

flip wrote:****. When you can find no fault in a man, then you have to attack his ideals and fundamental beliefs. It's insanely obvious, yet it works most times. It's an earmark of fear towards a man that everyone was saying 2-3 weeks ago had no chance.

if the last part is about Ron Paul, I will GUARANTEE that he has ZERO chance of EVER becoming President. ZERO.
The first sentence is utter nonsense. If I choose to attack Ron Paul's 'ideals and fundamental beliefs', obviously I find fault with the man. Much fault, in my case. I think he's a hypocritical, somewhat old-school Southern racist, and most of all a complete loon with no clue about the outcome of his 'ideals' in a real world situation.

EDIT: I also think you will find that all those happy go lucky liberals y'all yank around by the nose, will start caring less and less about abortion when their bank accounts run dry.

so, in other words, some people will stick to their morals, but others will abandon them, and you are sure you know which ones will do which?

Yeah, I think the ones who value life the least would probably fold first. I hope Ron Paul's popularity, which runs right down the center of middle America, continues to grow. If he has no chance then, at least the bull★■◆● becomes more evident. If Ron Paul gets on the ballot, he has great chances of winning, but your right, the dark forces that run the world probably won't let him get that far.

EDIT: Erp, I meant caucuses

New DBB Topic: "Is Ron Paul a Southern Racist?"

Here's a couple racist statements

Romney is the white Obama, Obama is the black Romney. That's the only difference I see

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/ar ... ead=210931

I would like Slick to explain how any of this makes Ron Paul a loon?

sorry, Flip, not worth responding to a Paul shill's video clips. Over that past decade, ample words have been written, by Paul and others, regarding the details of his position. It would be a flat-out disaster for the future of the nation, in many respects. I stand by that statement. One can start with pulling all overseas troops back home, immediately, in one wishes, or perhaps wonder what he plans to do after he closes the Federal Reserve. Perhaps, some thought might be given to how he transitions from entitlements, or rather, how folks current receiving same make the transition. I could go on, but why bother? You seem to find Paul your 'flavor of the month' , so why don't YOU explain what YOU think he would accomplish and how that would be a good thing.

Everything he says is true. I say you could immediately remove the Federal Reserve just as quickly as it was built and relinquish sole regulation of commerce back into the hands of our government and elected officials. Is that not a step in the right direction? I imagine if the idea to restore the power of regulating commerce back to the government was to catch on, the transistion could be made easily and gently enough. Fear-mongering only works with those liberals.

The flavor of the month bit was a pathetic cheap shot. I can't help but feel you're not being totally open with us, callmeslick. You seem like you're smarter than to just buy some of the B.S. and fear-mongering aimed at the Ron Paul campaign. It's not that it can't possibly work, truthfully it's just not at all what you want. It has occurred to me that our country isn't facing the difficulties we face because no one can figure out how to avoid or prevent it--I believe the difficulties we "face" are collateral damage at best. The incredible inability to match solutions to the problems in our country (and perhaps others) is a sign that the problems themselves are not the focus at all, they are either a means to an end, or an unfortunate side-effect of a focus that is indeed elsewhere. By God if it is at all possible when it comes time to vote the buck stops here. ★■◆● the media and their games, and to hell with the useless politicians who aren't even talking about the real problems.

You know how when you watch a TV show, if you've seen enough of them, you can know how they're supposed to end because all of the events and dialog are just fabricated support material for the storyline the show is following? A lot of times, unless you're too engrossed in what's happening you can see a pattern leading to a predictable conclusion. Let's just say I'm not happy about the way our foreign policy is being conducted.

I've never been proud to be an American before, but now that an old-School southern racist has a shot at the white house I am! [/Thorne channeling Michelle Obama]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-melin ... d=15162257

Hurry! Kill it before it becomes human!!!!!

flip wrote:you could immediately remove the Federal Reserve just as quickly as it was built and relinquish sole regulation of commerce back into the hands of our government and elected officials

.

the same bought and paid for hacks that most folks despise? Seriously? Dude, my fears are borne not of some 'liberal' thinking, as you go on to suggest(actually, the Occupy folks are big on the 'get rid of the Fed' thing), but out of a view of modern economics which suggests that the Fed has saved the USA's economic ass more than once.

Thorne, the guy is about to finish, at best, THIRD in the South Carolina GOP primary. Where does this, in any way, shape or form, translate into 'on the verge of the White House'? Get a grip on yourself, Paul has been on this goofy crusade for years. Many, many economists and other experts have dissected his plans to death. He never gets any real support, except from college students, who find the thought of no drug laws or likelihood of military service enticing. Beyond that, he draws the hardcore libertarian crowd, who would have us return to the US of 1800(pre-industrial, agrarian economy), and that's about it. Sorry, if I am ruining your burst of 'pride', but those are the facts. And, those facts will NEVER get him close to becoming President.

callmeslick wrote:Where does this, in any way, shape or form, translate into 'on the verge of the White House'? Get a grip on yourself

That part was a joke.

That would have to be the first step to moving back towards a government by the people and for the people and away from the direction we're taking now. That idea is offensive to some I guess.

I think your statistics on who supports him may be outdated, though. He seems to be getting a lot more support from your everyday conservative. People like myself, my family, my friends, who fall under neither category you just mentioned, see a real problem with the way our currency is being inflated/devalued, with the way America is conducting itself overseas, with the loss of liberties at home in the name of keeping us safe, with the income tax, with increased and unconstitutional federal control--the centralization of power in America (which looks like it may increase significantly, even before the elections). Not quite sure what to think about ending the drug war (we're very much against drug use). A lot of people may buy what the media says about him, and what folks like yourself have to say about his policies not working, but a lot of people are waking up to the issues that I've listed above, and no one else is addressing these with any significant level of competence.

4th in a field of 4......what a juggernaut! Hell, damn near a movement!

77,993 in a state where he got 15,773 last election cycle.

2nd in NH, and a close 3rd in Iowa according to this great setup on the New York TImes.

flip wrote:That would have to be the first step to moving back towards a government by the people and for the people and away from the direction we're taking now. That idea is offensive to some I guess.

when 5 times as many of the 'people' can identify Survivor cast members or American Idol finalists than can name their elected officials or Supreme Court justices, yes, it could be viewed as both offensive and frighteningly stupid. This never was a nation run by the common man, it wasn't set up by ordinary citizens, it wasn't set up to be responsive to ordinary citizens. Remember, the original pool of voters was limited to white, male property owners for the most part.

Interesting aside, a detour for any of you who like to get worked up over 'privileges' for immigrants: For quite some time, anyone who emigrated to the US, so long as they were light-skinned males, could vote. The privilege was not limited to citizens at all, until after World War I.

You act like these guys have some inherent claim to rule this country. It's no wonder the noose is closing around our necks with people like you thinking you have some kind of God-given right to rule the masses in whatever manner you choose. The difference from now and then, is then they were doing everything they could for the good of the country, now they are just whoring us out. This world has 7 billion people on it now, good luck!!