On three Hannity programs, Corsi offered another falsehood: Obama supports abortion "[a]fter a child's born"
SUMMARY: Jerome Corsi, author of the book, The Obama Nation, falsely claimed on Hannity's America that Sen. Barack Obama said, "Even if a child was born ... the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion." Corsi similarly falsely asserted on Hannity & Colmes that "[a]fter a child's born, Obama ... in the [Illinois] state Senate, wanted the child killed if the mother desired an abortion," and on Sean Hannity's radio program, said that "Obama's on record as let's kill the baby if that's what the mother wants." In fact, Obama has never supported giving people the right to kill their children.
On the August 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, Jerome Corsi -- author of the book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions) -- falsely claimed of Sen. Barack Obama's time in the Illinois state legislature: "Even if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion." Similarly, during the July 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Corsi falsely claimed that "[a]fter a child's born, Obama ... in the [Illinois] state Senate, wanted the child killed if the mother desired an abortion." And on the July 31 edition of ABC Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show, Corsi claimed that Obama "support[ed] even late term, induced abortions where the baby lives. Obama's on record as let's kill the baby if that's what the mother wants." In making the false assertion about Obama's position -- Obama has of course never supported giving people the right to kill their children -- Corsi was also misrepresenting the legislation to which he was referring, a bill amending the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Opponents of the bill said the legislation was unnecessary as the Illinois criminal code unequivocally prohibits killing children, and said that it posed a threat to abortion rights.
Media Matters for America previously documented that the first reported allegation in Corsi's Obama attack book -- that he never revealed if or when he stopped using drugs -- is false. Obama wrote in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father (Crown, 1995), that he "stopped getting high" shortly after moving to New York City to attend Columbia University. Media Matters noted that in The Obama Nation, Corsi, who co-wrote Unfit for Command, the smear and falsehood-laden anti-John Kerry attack book, wrote that Obama's Global Poverty Act of 2007 "would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product on foreign aid," and basely describes Obama's views on nuclear weapons as an "antiwar, antimilitary posture that places him even further left than Senator George McGovern."
From the August 1 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: You go through every position that he has --
CORSI: Yes.
HANNITY: -- as on the fringe of the left wing --
CORSI: Even --
HANNITY: -- on the fringe of the Democratic Party.
CORSI: Exactly, even extensively looking back at his record when he was in the state legislature in Illinois. His completely pro-abortion position, his --
HANNITY: Even if a child was born.
CORSI: Even if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion.
HANNITY: Unbelievable.
From the July 31 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: You -- you go into Obama's far-left domestic policies --
CORSI: Yes.
HANNITY: -- income redistribution, his Global Poverty Act.
CORSI: His support of abortion --
HANNITY: Abortion.
HANNITY: After a child was born --
CORSI: After a child's born, Obama --
CORSI: -- in the state Senate, wanted the child killed if the mother desired an abortion.
HANNITY: But you talk about how this campaign is being run. The American people -- you call it the cult of personality.
CORSI: Cult of personality.
From the July 31 edition of ABC Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show:
HANNITY: So there's a media fascination, but there has been this steadfast commitment never to ask him the tough questions about his radical associations, his views, his positions, which are quite radical -- a trillion dollars in new spending, massive redistribution of wealth, et cetera. Why do you think he's getting away with this?
CORSI: I think because of this cult of personality and the attempt to say all these issues are off the table. As I point out in the book, presidential campaigns are about issues, and Obama's past is a character issue. And it shows that the leftist training and background that he had -- going back to Malcolm X and all the other associations that readings, studying that Obama tells us was formative -- this is what produces his radical anti-abortion position -- his radical pro-abortion position, anti-life, you know, supporting even late-term, induced abortions where the baby lives. Obama's on record as let's kill the baby if that's what the mother wants. Anti-Second Amendment, pro-taxes, leftist military -- anti-military policy, where Obama has been steadfastly anti-war.
How do you abort someone after they're born? That would be quite a trick.
Oh, I get it. Since abortion is murder, then murder is abortion. Isn't life simple when you're stupid and crazy?
The good thing: the MSM is ignoring this guy-- so far....
aborting a person after birth is normally called "the death penalty" ... something that Republicans wholly support ...
It's also called "sending them over to Iraq to fight and die in Bush's illegal war" - something ELSE that RepubliKKKans wholly support...
Us Democrats choose to think, Philib. You, on the other hand, stopped doing that years ago.....
Agreed...Is this guy for real? I can't wait for some of my Hannitized friends to start talking this trash..although, they have seen some ray of light into the nonsense and lies of Hannity. This guy is too over the top even for them. What kind of Doctor is this slimy sub-human?
And Seannie, leading the guy on the third clip, come on. As stated before, your mom, wife and kids must be proud of you. And I ask, Mr. Hannity, why do you hate America so much that you are blinded by these lies and hatred? Just to have it your way or are you paid to say these things? P.S. Little intern who reads this, tell Seannie that he is not a Great American...I believe he does not qualify to be an American, please inform him.
You know, there's another problem with this segment...
Why did FOX drop the "Colmes' part on Friday nights?
Isn't the 'Hannity' alone show on Saturdays? Is this a precedent, a receding Colmes....?
If so, proof positive of FOX's bias.
You're off base with your attacks on FoxNews.
Hannity's America is a different show than Hannity & Colmes. He didn't 'dump' Colmes. He has another show, and has had that other show for about 18 months or so.
You're also off with your depiction of the issues related to abortion and murder. They aren't claiming here (although others have at other times) that abortion is murder. What they're trying to claim is that there are fetuses that are aborted that are viable, and rather than the medical professionals trying to keep those viable fetuses alive after the abortion, they deny that baby medical attention and the babies die.
There's no evidence that it's ever happened. There have been non-viable fetuses born who have been allowed to die, but that's because they're non-viable. No medical intervention will keep them alive for any length of time, so even if they are born alive, the kind thing to do is to allow them to die rather than force them to have medicat treatment that won't work in the long run.
For some reason, some people think it's a good thing to force medical treatment even when there's no hope.
They also think it's a good thing to draft and pass a law to address a non-existent issue (doctors allowing viable fetuses to die is a non-existent issue) when there are negligent homicide laws that would already cover that crime if it were to be happening!
You're off base with your attacks on FoxNews.
Hannity's America is a different show than Hannity & Colmes. He didn't 'dump' Colmes. He has another show, and has had that other show for about 18 months or so.
Hannity and Colmes is always on Friday nights. This Friday it was not-- it was replaced by the hannity-solo show, which is always on Saturday and Sunday.
Why was Colmes-- or his fill-in-- dropped on Friday? Why didn't they have a Dem cross-examine Corsi? Simple question. Pushing hannity alone is evidence of bias and propaganda.
Why did FOX drop the "Colmes' part on Friday nights?
Just a theory on my part - Alan Colmes is Jewish, and he may have decided going to temple was a better use of his time than trying to counter Sean's countless lies.....
It would be nice if the Republicans would stand for principles instead of just being the party that defeats Democrats at any cost.
Didnt Fox or some other so called 'news' outlet go before the Supreme Court to agrue that they supposedly had the Constitutional right to lie, distort, or to basically bulls**t their listeners?
Under any other decent society, this guy Corsi and most of FoxNoise would be both flogged and banned from TV or radio for being so blatantly sick in their lying!
As much as I might believe that most of FoxNoises listeners are not all that bright, even most of them can't posibly be stupid enough to put any credibility in this clown..... can they?
Waiting for the trolls to show up, foaming at the mouth with this new information about Obama. Ever notice that none of them concern themselves with the storyteller. If their lords amd masters say it, it must be true. At least the Dems argue with one another over different issues. For example, Obama is against reparations and he is not in line with many Black Groups. Of course, to the insane ones on the right, he is just doing that for election purposes.(Even though he said it in 2004).
I hope Seannie stays seated during all of these lies because I think this hatred of Obama is akin to Verbal Viagra for Seannie..and his excitement level is really high.
Mothers killing children?
I think it's time for Graham Chapman to march in and say that this is getting much too silly.
It's not just H. Half the country thinks that feelings are facts, and that motive is evidence enough. And everyone they hate has the motive to do anything they don't like.
It's a perfect recipe for madness.
I mean, is this even possible? To abort a child after it's been born? Isn't that infanticide, instead of abortion?
I believe Obama's with me on this
Abortions should be:
safe
legal
and RARE
That includes comprehensive sexual education (with an emphasis on abstinence.)
Comprehensive sexual education is key to solving many different issues, namely the prevalence of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.
"I mean, is this even possible? To abort a child after it's been born? Isn't that infanticide, instead of abortion?"
That is the argument used by oponents of what they call "partial birth abortion"...known in the real world as "dilation and extraction." In this procedure, to remove the foetus, they dilate the the uterus to extract the foetus. There's more to it than that, but I'll spare the squeamish the grusome details.
The procedure is used in those rare cases where an abortion is necessary and the foetus is too large for normal abortion procedures...and it's meant to be used only in such cases where inducing labor to extract the foetus might be a serious danger to the woman.
That is "abortion" after the "child" is "born" - to it's oponents.
-- The procedure is used in those rare cases where an abortion is necessary and the foetus is too large for normal abortion procedures...and it's meant to be used only in such cases where inducing labor to extract the foetus might be a serious danger to the woman. -- doggone
Other abortion doctors would disagree on the procedures you use at your abortion clinic.
Dr. Haskell, one of the founding fathers of partial birth abortion, called it "a quick, surgical outpatient method...and he "routinely performs this procedure on all patients 20 through 24 weeks". Citing over 1000 abortions, he stated that 80% were purely elective.
Dr. McMahon, another noted abortion doctor, testified to congress about a list of 2000 partial-birth abortions that he had performed. Of those, only 9% were for maternal health concerns. Of the 9% cited, over 1/3 of the maternal concern cases were for depression.
--In no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortions as described--you know, partial birth, and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born--is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can't be a necessity for the baby. -- Surgeon General, C. Everett Coop
I'll type this slowly so the troll named Wesley can understand it.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION."
Got it, Sparky?
Besides that, the quotes that Wesley provides are out of context, from biased sources, and don't accurately portray the real truth.
Other than that, everything he said made sense.
"A select panel convened by American College of Gynocologists could identify no circumstances under which this procedure...would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." They also determined that "an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision."
Doctors can choose to do a hysterectomy. They can choose to do a C-section. Both of those endanger the life of the woman and end up with a dead fetus. Or they can choose to do the D&X, and preserve the best health options and later reproductive chances for the woman.
It looks like Wesley got his "facts" from the National Right to Life Committee, a group of known liars. here's a link to real facts about so-called "partial-birth abortions":
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5081
Uhhhhhhh......this link is from a right to life group. Did you read this? It's saying that people should not object to legislature that bans partial birth abortion.
It begins:
Objections to a ban on partial-birth abortion fall into three categories: the silly, the false, and the inconsequential. Here are the facts on each one."Isn't that infanticide, instead of abortion?"
Abortion IS infanticide. Period. End of story.
In short, wingers are not pro-life. They are only pro-birth.
1. I'm not a member of the right wing or the left wing. Left wingers threw me out for my stance on abortion, right wingers threw me out for my stance on homosexuality.
2. This isn't "right vs. left" this is "right vs. wrong".
3. I see your point with the inconsistencies of the "neo-cons" seeing that their pro-life view contradicts their stance on other issues. (Likewise they value the individual's freedom to decide his own lifestyle yet God forbid they choose to be a homosexual). You'd think the left would be pro-life more than the right...
The left is pro-human rights.
That means that the human woman gets to control her own body, and not be forced to remain pregnant to satisfy your morality.
They aren't anti-fetus. There are choices that have to be made. You want to fetus to be able to control the woman's body. We want the woman to be able to control her own body.
If I cannot fully control my own body and the fetus gets to control my body, that's not my controlling my own body.
But, I understand, you cannot defeat that argument, so you have to try to avoid it at all costs.
Nope.
A woman has the right to control her own body even if she made a bad choice and got pregnant. The fetus doesn't have the right to control her body even if she made a stupid mistake. That mistake on her part doesn't cede her rights, and does not cost her the respect she deserves to control her own body.
Taking responsibility for getting pregnant for some women involves having an abortion rather than bringing an unwanted child into the world and having to maintain that pregnancy for nine months. For other women, they choose to have the child.
What a crazy thing to say! Not surprising, considering the way you've already been arguing, but crazy all the same!
A woman doesn't give up her right to control her body just because she made a mistake. The price for making a mistake doesn't involve satisfying your moral imperatives! Those are your's.
Because it's the law.
I don't force my morals on anyone.
No, it doesn't have a right to life if that will force a woman to give up her right to control her own body.
Haven't you gotten that yet? The non-viable fetus doesn't get the right to force the woman to continue a pregnancy she wants to end.
So lemme ask you this, when does life begin, and when does the fetus become a person?
This argument has nothing to do with when I think life begins. My feelings on this issue are irrelevant.
A non-viable fetus doesn't have the right to have the power over a woman's body.
A non-viable fetus cannot control a woman's body. She can choose to control her own body, and if that choice means that she'll end a pregnancy during the first 5 months, there's nothing that can be done about that, because it's her right to control her own body.
It's not my right to impose my morality, whatever that is, on anyone. It's not your right either. The US Constitution is the ruling authority here, and it says that a woman has the right to control her body, not a non-viable fetus.
1. "It's not my right to impose my morality, whatever that is, on anyone."
But that's exactly what you're doing with your argument.
2. The unborn is alive, growing, and human. In addition, a baby is dependent upon its mother for several months, even years, after he or she is born. You can't just leave a baby alone on the delivery table after he or she is born. The baby is still dependent upon its mother for survival.
"But that's exactly what you're doing with your argument."
If that's the case, then someone is being imposed upon either way. A woman's rights are dominant here.
"The unborn is alive, growing, and human. In addition, a baby is dependent upon its mother for several months, even years, after he or she is born. You can't just leave a baby alone on the delivery table after he or she is born. The baby is still dependent upon its mother for survival."
Is this supposed to have some relevance to the term "viable"? The point isn't that a non-viable fetus can survive on its own, it's that it can't survive at all.
She's not "imposing" her morality on anyone, unless you believe in your right to close off her right to control whether or not she wants to start a family, in which case you should be advocating legislation against all forms of birth control. I mean, if a fetus is a human life, why not any egg or sperm? Outlaw masturbation, if you're going to be consistent and follow your reasoning to it's logical and inevitable conclusion.
It seems to me you want to legislate against libety, period, and in that case, you have a problem with the Founding Fathers. Why do you hate America?
It has a right to life - it is alive after all
But it has no rights. From the U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14, section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Since fetuses are not born, they are not persons or citizens, as defined by Amendment 14.
WZWRITER:
So all of a sudden the left-wing loons want to read the Constitution LITERALLY? Since when?
I'm all for that by the way..so certainly you will stipulate that there is NO RIGHT to have an abortion and thereby states can restrict or ban it under the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Just as an aside" I don't see illegal immigrants mentioned in the amendment you cited.
So all of a sudden the left-wing loons want to read the Constitution LITERALLY? Since when?
Since forever. It's been right-wing Republican administrations such as Nixon, Reagan, and the current idiot who try to subvert the Constitution, and right-wing wacko groups like the Christian Coalition, KKK, and Aryan Nation that try to deny others their rights.
I'm all for that by the way..so certainly you will stipulate that there is NO RIGHT to have an abortion and thereby states can restrict or ban it under the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Nope. The right to abortion comes from the Right to Privacy inferred by teh Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Just as an aside" I don't see illegal immigrants mentioned in the amendment you cited.
Is anyone sayng they're citizens? They're persons, but by definition they're not citizens.
Well since we can't base any of our laws on morals anybody should have the right to kill anybody.
OK. Let's start with RINO hunters. Open Season on RINO hunters, everybody!!!!! :-)
You really don't understand the argument too well. Let me use an argument from analogy.
It turns out there is a gang of people who sneak into people's houses at night and, while the victim is sleeping, bring in someone who has had a kidney failure, perform an operation, and hook them up to your kidney.
When you wake up you discover someone sharing your kidney. If you cut the cord they die. This was done without your consent.
Does their right override your own? Must you stay in bed for the next year so they can use your kidney until they get on the transplant list? After all, they are a person and, even though they were attached to you without your consent, they still have rights.
Are their rights greater than yours?
Just so you get the analogy I will make it simple for you. The analogy is that of a fetus when the mother was raped.
I would suspect that most people would argue that your right to your own body is greater than the other persons right to use your kidney.
Use this analogy and ask some of your friends and see what kind of answer they give.
"You can control your own body by deciding whether or not you want to have sex or whether or not you want to use protection."-RH
Even in rape and incest cases?
In right wing world, there's no such thing as rape or incest. It's just the female playing "hard to get".
I notice the vast amount of support you provided for your bullsh|t comment.
Oh wait, you didn't provide any. I thought you couldn't.
Heaven,
Do you agree with RH's statements that I posted?
You can do whatever you want to with your own body. Just don't damage the baby's body. They're two completely seperate entities. Have a little respect for life.
WITHOUT A WOMAN'S BODY THERE WILL BE NO BABY!
Stop with the stuck on stupid!
You can do whatever you want to with your own body. Just don't damage the baby's body. They're two completely seperate entities. Have a little respect for life.
Rino Hunter -
I adhere to the feminist rule concerning abortion: one penis - no vote.
It's easy for a guy like you to pontiifcate about abortion, because you can't get pregnant. And since you're either unwilling or unable to see things from the woman's point of view, this discussion is useless.
But then again, RinoHunter, you've been useless most of your life.....
I adhere to the feminist rule concerning abortion: one penis - no vote.
Yet there are numerous people who vote with that, especially when it comes to certain politicians..
Have a little respect for life.
Which is about as much respect as Rino Hunter has for those who disagree with him - and he's dead wrong on most issues. Including this one.
Now tell us about your outrage when SCHIP went down. How much anger you expressed to the responsible party. How much shrubs two vetos of extensions of that program made you ill.
RINO can join in with expressions of how much his anger at abortion was matched by anger at this unconcern about the health of actual living babies and children. How he'll work as hard to run those responsible to ground and make them pay.
I believe the subject of living breathing children is well within the topic. Our world wide rating on childrens health is on the bottom for developed countries. You might say nobody is opposed to the idea providing health for children.
Then follow with obligitory neocon talking points. Its just two expensive, and someone might cheat.
Your concern for the cost of this is duly noted.
Its strange that you reinforce the points I gave. Living children are of someone elses concern. Dam them if they fail to deliver viable foder for the war machine to sacrifice.
Human being do not exist in a vacuum for you to cherry pick the parts that are important.
Whats important is to accuse liberals of being baby killers. Anything else in off topic. Right understood ,say no more,nuge nuge, wink wink.
You believe it's more important to protect the rights of a fetus to control the woman's body than it is to protect the rights of a female to control her own body?
Why?
And don't even bother trying to claim that you aren't saying that, because it's undeniable.
How is that what our government is supposed to do - deny rights to a citizen and give those rights to a non-viable fetus to satisfy your moral stances?
Like health care, an unhealthy population helps nobody, not even them selves.
Keep dancin.
We all know it was the Demoncrats that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and it was a Republican who freed the slaves. So your statement is yet another liberal falsehood.
And all those Democrats were welcomed with open arms into today's Republican party after the Civil Rights Act passed with real Democratic support.
So your post is yet another conservative lie. Geez, you guys lie as easily as others breathe. And as often.
We all know it was the Demoncrats that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and it was a Republican who freed the slaves. So your statement is yet another liberal falsehood.
Once again, GET OFF THE STUCK ON STUPID!
Only the truly stupid think that the Repulsive party of today was the same Republican party that voted for the Civil Right Act!
I'm a traditional conservative...
Another way of saying "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about."
"Isn't that infanticide, instead of abortion?"
Abortion IS infanticide. Period. End of story.
No, it isn't. An infant is a viable fetus that was born. Abortion is done, almost exclusively, to non-viable fetuses. Not to infants.
You claim to not be a rightwinger, but everyone sees through that deceit. Not only are you are rightie, but you're lying about other things too, like that abortion is infantcide.
"You claim to not be a rightwinger, but everyone sees through that deceit. Not only are you are rightie, but you're lying about other things too, like that abortion is infantcide."
Just wait until we talk about gay rights. Then it's the right wing that tears me apart. This same right wing that I'm apparently apart of.
You can be a rightie who has seen the light on gay rights issues.
That happens when someone has a family member who's gay most often. Righties often have their eyes opened by personal experiences.
Liberals already have their eyes open. They're liberal. That requires keeping one's mind open.
"So if you're pro life but liberal on every other issue that somehow makes you a right winger?"
Exactly. If that's true, where do Catholics fall in? They're pro-life (right wing), and they're anti-capital punishment (left wing)
Abortion IS infanticide. Period. End of story.
DAWUSS is a narrow-minded, ignorant oaf. Period. End of story.
So while Obama may not want to give women the right to kill their baby after it's been born, he thinks that it's all right for doctors to let a baby that has survived a botched abortion die.
Rino that is far the biggest lie you have ever said on here. Obam does not thing it is all right for doctors to let a baby die. Your use of the word "Baby" is deceitful, insensitive and parsing.
Rino: Media Matters is being very deceitful here. Obama OPPOSED a bill that would protect babies that survived an abortion. If a baby survives a botched abortion, Obama simply wants the born baby to die on it's own.
Wait a second: Hannity and Corsi characterized Obama's position as supporting the killing of babies after they are born, and yet somehow MediaMatters is the one you think is being very deceitful?
We can debate whether or not Obama's opposition to the bill in question is right or wrong, but that's a different subject. Your own description of Obama's position contradicts that of Hannity and Corsi. So how do you find fault with MMFA?
Did you even read what Media Matters posted?
The type of behavior you describe is already prohibited by Illinois law. There was no reason to have an additional law on the books that potentially could prohibit legitimate late term abortions in order to stop what you claim this bill would stop. The law already exists.
The law that Obama voted against refined the previous law and made it more clear. Obama had no reason to vote against it except to appeal to the extremist pro abortion special interest groups. Obama has a 100% pro abortion rights record. He has never voted for a pro life bill, including popular common sense bills requiring parental notification for minors who get abortions and a ban on partial birth abortions.
Nope. You lie. There was already a perfectly good law on the books that didn't need any refinement that criminalized this behavior.
Obama had every reason to not vote up or down on it (and that's what actually happened - he didn't vote up or down on it because it never came to a vote in the Illinois Senate!) because it was an unnecessary law that was simply put up there to be a litmus test to unfairly indict Democrats, just like Corsi did. If there's one law that already criminalized that behavior, there's no need for another one! If an aborted fetus was viable, and a doctor or medical professional didn't try to keep it alive, then they would be guilty of murder. There's no evidence that a viable fetus has ever been left to die, and even if there was, there's no reason for a special law to criminalize negligent homicide of a newborn baby since it's already illegal under existing law!
I totally disagree with you that bills requiring parental notification in all cases are required, or that bills banning partial birth abortion are a good idea, so they aren't common sense bills. They're your bigoted idea of good bills to force your moral stances on everyone else, regardless of our US Constitution that denies you the right to force your moral stances on another person! That's why we have the Bill of Rights. That's why we became a nation, to disallow people to force others to follow one set of moral standards!
Just when I thought you couldn't be more stupid or illogical, you come up with this.
Now I know that in your case, RINO means "Reason Is No Option."
EASY...
Why don't you try JUST ONCE to actually make an argument instead of claiming things are stupid or lies. Please try to make a case for what you believe in.
So my opposition to a procedure in which a pair of scissors is stabbed in a baby's head is me "imposing my morals on others?" Are you kidding me? Even animals don't resort to this kind of barbarianism. We base our laws in this country on morals all the time. Democrats base many of their laws on morals as well. They don't have any problem legislating their twisted form of morality, but they're up in arms any time Republicans try to defend defenseless, innocent unborn babies.
Let's start with your last comment then work my way up.
There's no such thing as unborn babies. In the womb, fetus. Out of the womb, baby.
A woman's body is her body. If she chooses to have an abortion before the fetus would be viable outside the womb, that's her choice. If your morals say that you wouldn't do that, don't do it. No liberal will force you to have an abortion. Conservatives will try to force women to not choose what to do with their own bodies, however. Forcing someone else to live up to or down to your moral standards is not okay. Conservatives think they have the right to force others to live up to their moral standards. They don't have that right. Women have the right to privacy, which allows them the right to control their own bodies. Conservatives want to violate that right women have.
It would be barbaric if we sacrificed a woman's health or life for the potential life growing inside of her.
That's what you want. You want to be barbaric. I want to be humane.
Your opposition to a medical procedure where a non-viable fetus, not ready to be delivered naturally, is reduced in size to allow the medical professional to protect the health and well-being of the mother is barbaric. You would force the woman to undergo a physical operation to remove that fetus from her womb, rather than doing what is a better, safer option? That's barbaric. Forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term without regard to the effect that doing so might have on that woman's physical or mental health is an unfair forcing of your morality on the woman, yes.
I bet you've heard all this before though. If only you would open your ears and your eyes and welcome the knowledge into your brain. People like you need to stop thinking that you're 'thinking' and get new 'thinkers'!
Seeing that the life threatening pregnancy occurred before the fact, some precautions should have been recommended by the doctor. Such instances are rare anyway.
What abortion is is someone who doesn't feel like bringing a baby into this earth, so they decide to murder this voiceless victim - that's right, only the impacted has no voice. There are thousands of couples who would have loved to have that child for their own, many who can't even bear their own children.
And how many die from premature births and complicated pregnancies? We have enough dying involuntarily, we don't need more dying voluntarily.
Heck, in the past half hour, we probably aborted the individual who would have broken Tom Brady's single-season TD record, the individual who would have become Miss West Virginia, the individual who would have been the person who breaks the speed of light, the individual who would have become US President and carried the highest approval ratings in history, the individual who would have been a future generation's equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, the individual who would have been the future face of liberalism in America...
But instead they're a bunch of unborn corpses and statistics.
If you have a child, would you have aborted that child if you were given the chance to second-guess that pregnancy?
So your plan requires god-like powers like seeing the future in our doctors. How rational. No wonder you believe like you do. You are far from reality-based
So if such instances are rare, just let the woman die. No big deal since the numbers are low. How is that "pro-life?" Yet another inconsistency.
Try answering with some semblance of rational thought and consistency.
"So your plan requires god-like powers like seeing the future in our doctors. How rational. No wonder you believe like you do. You are far from reality-based"
No, not god-like powers, just an intelligent prediction based upon solid medical information.
"So if such instances are rare, just let the woman die. No big deal since the numbers are low. How is that "pro-life?" Yet another inconsistency."
If there's no risk to the baby's life it shouldn't have to die.
Also, if you want to talk about choosing between mother and baby, take a look at the animal kindgom and note to what a mother will do to protect the well-being of her children.
There are no babies dying from abortions. Removed from the womb before birth = fetus.
Before it's viable, yes, it's not a person, or a baby.
Before it's viable, it shouldn't get more respect and more rights to control the woman's body than the woman herself gets.
The fact that it has a beating heart doesn't change the fact that it's not viable outside of the womb.
But again, I bet you've heard all of this before, but are simply ignoring that your argument has been refuted countless times before.
There are children in this country who are physically handicapped and cannot take care of themselves. Does that mean that their mother should have the right to kill them since they can't survive on their own? The fact that a fetus can't survive outside the womb doesn't mean anything. We should be protecting the most vulnerable among us. After all, isn't that what liberals supposedly want?
There's a big difference, that I bet you've heard before, between a non-viable fetus and a handicapped child. Viability relates to surviving with medical intervention. With food and shelter. With love and attention. A non-viable fetus cannot survive outside the womb!
We should not protect fetuses if it means that we have to deny the woman the right to control her own body! The woman gets the right and the respect to control her own body, and the non-viable fetus doesn't get to control her body!
But the fetus can survive.
And also, last I checked, the fetus does get love and attention, and the fetus does get food as well. And some fetuses receive medical intervention.
No, a non-viable fetus can't survive outside the womb.
That's why it's called a non-viable fetus.
Compare that to a viable fetus, or a handicapped child. With love, and food, and medical attention (maybe a lot of that), a viable fetus or a handicapped child can survive outside the womb. A non-viable fetus can't.
But you want to give that non-viable fetus the right to control a woman's body instead of giving that living, breathing, viable woman the right to control her own body!
There are children in this country who are physically handicapped and cannot take care of themselves. Does that mean that their mother should have the right to kill them since they can't survive on their own?
There are RINO Hunters on this forum who are mentally constrained and cannot think for themselves. Does that mean that we as posters should have the right to kill their lies because they cannot reason on their own?
I have mentioned fact after fact after fact, with a little bit of emotion for some flourish of the facts that I mention. The bottom line is that abortion = infanticide = murder. Baby's right to life > Mother's freedoms with her body.
If it were actually a baby, you'd be right. You haven't been right though, and you haven't been mentioning 'facts' either.
But it's not a baby. It's a fetus. How can you have not gotten that message yet? Because you're a rightie who doesn't have an open mind, that's how. So you aren't open to arguments and learning new things, that's how.
A non-viable fetus cannot survive outside the womb no matter how much love, food or medical intervention it gets. It's not the same as a handicapped child or a person in ICU. A born person has rights. A non-viable fetus does not. If you want to protect the right of a fetus to stay alive, feel free to do so, but you cannot force another person to give up their rights to control their own body and force them to allow a non-viable fetus to control their body instead!
A baby is not a living person. A non-viable fetus can't survive outside the womb, even with medical intervention. That's the difference between keeping a person in the ICU alive and forcing a woman to keep a fetus alive in her womb. It's not okay to force a woman to remain pregnant. It's her body!
And yet I'm forced to sit here and see numerous mothers killing their children.
And yes, a fetus DOES HAVE LIFE. If it didn't have life, how would it be able to grow inside a mother's body?
And yet I'm forced to sit here and see numerous mothers killing their children.
And yes, a fetus DOES HAVE LIFE. If it didn't have life, how would it be able to grow inside a mother's body?
You aren't seeing mothers killing their babies. You lie. A woman making a choice over whether or not she will continue a pregnancy is not killing a baby. She's not even a mother until that viable fetus leaves her womb.
And I never said that a fetus didn't exhibit signs of life. I didn't say it didn't "have life".
I said it's not a living person and I said that because it's not.
You said you had been contributing facts to this discussion. You haven't been.
Yeah, there's a big, huge, undeniable difference between a non-viable fetus and a person.
The non-viable fetus cannot survive outside the womb, even with food and love and unlimited medical intervention.
A pregnant woman can't be forced to continue to keep a non-viable fetus inside her womb, and can't be punished for choosing to end that pregnancy because she has the right to control her own body and choose to stop being pregnant.
A person can be restricted from murdering another person, and can be punished for taking that life because that person doesn't have the right to control whether or not that other person lives. A non-viable fetus isn't a person. It doesn't have the same rights to survive that a born person has.
How come you can't grasp this fact? You claimed you've brought facts to this argument. You haven't. Why can't you get a handle on the facts we've brought?
"How come you can't grasp this fact? You claimed you've brought facts to this argument. You haven't. Why can't you get a handle on the facts we've brought?"
I could ask you the same question. :)
I'm not someone who has shown an inability to understand simple concepts repeatedly explained to him.
That would be your failing.
You're the one who seems to not be able to understand that there's a significant difference between a baby and a non-viable fetus, even after it's explained to you about 16 different ways.
You're also the one who after having it explained how wrong you are, and how the facts are different than what you've described, fail to acknowledge your multiple errors.
When a man and a woman conceive a child, that child has life and it has a right to life. Simple concept.
When you abort an unborn baby, you are denying it to it's right to life. Simple concept.
Abortion is infanticide. Simple concept.
A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body as long as it does not violate that child's right to life. Simple concept.
A woman does not have to raise her child if she does not want to. Adoption is an option. Simple concept.
"When a man and a woman conceive a child, that child has life and it has a right to life. Simple concept."
Baseless assertion. Rights are defined by society, not nature. If you don't like it, then that's something for you to share with anyone who know who wants your advice. It doesn't go beyond that. It's not some universal concept that anyone else is beholden to.
When a man and a woman conceive a child, that child has life and it has a right to life. Simple concept.
Nope. That life growing inside that woman doesn't have the right to force that woman to carry that life to term. That's the simple concept you refuse to acknowledge. That fetus has no right to life, because if that fetus did have a right to life, it would mean that the fetus had control over that woman's body and the woman did not have control. Again, a non-viable fetus is not a child. Why are you so dense that you can't understand the difference between a child and a non-viable fetus?
When you abort an unborn baby, you are denying it to it's right to life. Simple concept.
No one aborts an unborn baby though. They abort non-viable fetuses almost exclusively. When you abort a non-viable fetus, you do deny it life, because it's more imperative to give the woman the right to control her own body than it is to give that non-viable fetus a place to develop for 6-8 months. That non-viable fetus doesn't have a right to life. Another very simple concept that you are demonstrating you can't understand.
Abortion is infanticide. Simple concept.
Nope. It's not, and that's been proven in this discussion today. You saying it's so, considering your inept arguments, is almost proof that it isn't so - if you said the sky was blue, I'd have to look outside, that's how inept your arguments have been!
A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body as long as it does not violate that child's right to life. Simple concept.
Nope. A woman has no obligation to keep a non-viable fetus in her body if she doesn't want to. She gets to control her own body even if her choice is to end a pregnancy. The fetus doesn't have a right to life. Again, another simple concept. You are the one having trouble with simple concepts, not I.
A woman does not have to raise her child if she does not want to. Adoption is an option. Simple concept.
That's true, and if a woman wants to choose that option, she can. See, I am willing to allow a woman to choose how to control her own body. I don't need this explained to me. It is you who has demonstrated a lack of understanding her, not I.
When a man and a woman conceive a child, that child has life and it has a right to life. Simple concept.
Nope. That life growing inside that woman doesn't have the right to force that woman to carry that life to term. That's the simple concept you refuse to acknowledge. That fetus has no right to life, because if that fetus did have a right to life, it would mean that the fetus had control over that woman's body and the woman did not have control. Again, a non-viable fetus is not a child. Why are you so dense that you can't understand the difference between a child and a non-viable fetus?
A fetus is a child. There's no difference. That fetus is the child of the mother bearing it. The only time anyone has a "right to kill" is for food or self-defense. The mother isn't going to eat that aborted fetus, and that fetus isn't killing its mother.
When you abort an unborn baby, you are denying it to it's right to life. Simple concept.
No one aborts an unborn baby though. They abort non-viable fetuses almost exclusively. When you abort a non-viable fetus, you do deny it life, because it's more imperative to give the woman the right to control her own body than it is to give that non-viable fetus a place to develop for 6-8 months. That non-viable fetus doesn't have a right to life. Another very simple concept that you are demonstrating you can't understand.
No one wants to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her own body. What we are telling her is she can't kill her own child because that child has a right to life.
Abortion is infanticide. Simple concept.
Nope. It's not, and that's been proven in this discussion today. You saying it's so, considering your inept arguments, is almost proof that it isn't so - if you said the sky was blue, I'd have to look outside, that's how inept your arguments have been!
When abortion happens an infant gets killed. An unborn infant is still an infant. When an infant gets killed that's called infanticide.
A woman has the right to do what she wants with her body as long as it does not violate that child's right to life. Simple concept.
Nope. A woman has no obligation to keep a non-viable fetus in her body if she doesn't want to. She gets to control her own body even if her choice is to end a pregnancy. The fetus doesn't have a right to life. Again, another simple concept. You are the one having trouble with simple concepts, not I.
Already covered
A woman does not have to raise her child if she does not want to. Adoption is an option. Simple concept.
That's true, and if a woman wants to choose that option, she can. See, I am willing to allow a woman to choose how to control her own body. I don't need this explained to me. It is you who has demonstrated a lack of understanding her, not I.
I allow a woman to choose what she does with her body too - BUT not at the expense of a child's life. There are certain limits to what freedoms one is allowed - and those limits are based where someone else's rights exist.
The fetus doesn't have any rights. There's no killing happening since there's no person.
Thanks for proving that no argument you've ever made on this site makes the least little bit of sense.
Well, how big of you to 'allow' a woman to do what she wants with HER body. How progressive of you.
<sarcasm off>
Who died and made you G-d?
"If that fetus isn't a living person, then what is it?"
It is a symbiote to it's female parent, and it dependent on her for all it's developing needs. It is not something SHE needs to survive, but she is EVERYTHING it needs to survive.
"Because, outside of their location, there isn't anything to differentiate a unborn baby and a born one."
Quite true. And "unborn baby" is a foetus at viability that has not yet been born. A baby is a viable foetus that HAS been born. An abortion, however, is usually applied to a non-viable foetus still in the symbiotic stage to the women and is not an "unborn" anything.
If it didn't have life, how would it be able to grow inside a mother's body?
So you are pro-cancer as well? How can it grow inside anyone's body if it doesn't have life?
Gross distortion: "I" should be "You". I don't think anyone has presented much facts. It's mostly opinion.
GRAFTON - Last year, an all-time high of 24,000 international adoptions were completed in the United States. Yet, it is estimated that only 1 percent of the world’s orphan population was adopted.
That was written in 2006...
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2006/May_06/05232006_08.asp
What's the difference between an unborn baby and someone in ICU? Both are living people who are dependent on something else for their physical survival, be it the mother or a machine.
First, there is no such thing as an "unborn baby" It is a fetus, and as stated in Amendment 14 of the US Constitution, it has to be BORN before it is considered a citizen or a person.
The person in the ICU has already been born, and is a person in the eyes of the law. The fetus is not. Period.
So does a baby, yet wingers abandon all government concern once it is born. They'll kill it by denying food, shelter, and medical attention, whatever it takes, if the parent cannot provide. They could give a damn after birth, their voting record and rhetoric shows. Get 'em outta the womb and then let Jesus sort it out after you've washed your hands of the matter.
To repeat, you are pro-birth, not pro-life. You might get some respect and even more votes if you had a consistent position. But I doubt you (collectively) don't even realize your inconsistency. Until you show babies the same concern as fetuses, I'm not in the least interested in your position as it is illogical and inconsistent, like most winger positions.
With posts you've made on this thread as well as others, it's been documented that you're either a really ignorant rightie or you're a liberal trying to portray a really stupid rightie.
You claim that you have liberal views on homosexuality. If that's the case, that's great. That doesn't change the fact that your overall attitude is that of those on the right. You are unwilling to have an open mind, and listen to other arguments. You've demonstrated that unwillingness repeatedly today and at other times too. When you've been proven wrong, you've never acknowledged any error.
You've posted on this thread as well as on others I've seen. You don't have to admit you're a rightie before we all know you are.
But again, who said I was a "winger"?
You showed us you were a "winger." No one had to say it, your postings were enough.
BOTTLE:
Ever seen an ultrasound at about 12 weeks? That is a human being that if aborted has been MURDERED. Plain and Simple.
BOTTLE: Ever seen an ultrasound at about 12 weeks? That is a human being that if aborted has been MURDERED. Plain and Simple.
Nope. Since abortion is legal, it would be an aborted fetus. Plain and simple.
It's a non-viable fetus. It can't live outside the mother's womb.
It's not a person, or a citizen, or an individual. Or a human being.
BOTTLE:
Ever seen an ultrasound at about 12 weeks? That is a human being that if aborted has been MURDERED. Plain and Simple.
"take a look at the animal kindgom and note to what a mother will do to protect the well-being of her children"
Her CHILDREN. AFTER they are BORN. More than a few pregnant animals will, under stress, spontaneously ABORT their pregnancies. NO animal goes to extremes to preserve the "right" of their foetus(es) to "live." "Mother Nature" always, and forever, considers the living, adult animals to be more important than the non-producing age offspring.
I refer you, as a single example, to lions...which will allow their offspring to starve to death when food is low. Adults eat first, youngsters afterwards...if there's anything left to eat. Nothing left often enough, the young lions die...but the parents live to have an opportunity to produce new offspring in better times.
"What difference does it make if the child is born yet? It's still her child"
Gee. Over and over and over. If it's not born yet it's still a foetus. It's not a baby, it's not a child, it's not a person - or in this case an animal - it's ONLY a foetus. Nature does not protect the foetus at the expense of the female carrying it. In circumstances where the female is in danger and the foetus increases that danger it will be ABORTED to save the viable female carrying it.
In your world, would the doctor also not have to have some kind of future vision of, say, a car wreck that led to massive bleeding in the uterus? Does your doctor have that "solid medical information?" If so, please give us his number.
You are not reality-based so everything you counter with can be easily dismissed. You live in a fantasy world of your own creation. Doctors who can see into the future would be nice, but so far, it ain't happenin'. Except in your head.
Dawuss, RINO, et al.:
I respect your viewpoint on abortion. I understand that you're coming from an angle of protecting those who cannot protect themselves. I'm with you on that. It should be everyone's goal (not just the government's) to help protect those who cannot protect themselves.
That being said, there's more to it than your black and white thinking. I will speak for all Democrats (if I may) and say that no one on the Left "supports" abortion. No one on the Left is screaming "Abortions for all women, come one, come all, get your abortions here!!" Stop with the disingenuous insinuations. Libs support the freedom of choice - you know, leaving the decision to the one whom it affects the most.
For personal reasons, I'm against abortion. Yep, a lib who doesn't like abortion. However, I could never tell Bottleblonde or any of the other women in the world that they cannot have an abortion because I said so. My morals aren't their morals. Your morals aren't my morals. Women have a right to do with their bodies as they please. They are guaranteed this right by our Constitution. You must admit, Bottleblonde's argument re: a foetus doesn't have the right to control the body of it's host, is spot on. The host controls the body. Women have the right to control their own bodies. If you don't allow that, what good is personal freedom, for anyone?
Again, I don't like abortion, but if I had to vote on it, I would vote to keep it safe and legal, versus unsanitary, in back alleys and illegal. I cannot imagine anyone who "likes" abortion. Senator Obama has said that abortions should be safe, legal and rare. I can get on board with that. If you're so interested in making sure that women carry a foetus to term, get on the education side of the issue. Help make abortions rare - without legislating YOUR morality. Volunteer where it will make the most difference, without forcing YOUR morality on others. Do your part, in a compassionate way, without forcing YOUR morality on others, to make abortion rare. Instead of pushing for legislation to support your viewpoints, come up with alternatives to abortion. Work to allow more people to adopt children. Work for social justice, so that those born to poorer families have access to the health care that they and their newborn child deserve. I believe that if enough people work hard, abortions will become rare on their own (but still legal). Education and alternatives to abortion are key.
Force, even through legislation, gets you nowhere. I know you Authoritarian types like to force others to follow your morals, but please, let it be. You'll never win. There will always be people like me who despise Authoritarianism and legislation of a certain morality.
Furthermore, the politicians you guys on the Right like to elect will NEVER, EVER tackle the abortion issue, and abortion will NEVER, EVER be outlawed. It's a wedge issue that the Right needs to ensure that they are favored with the religious wing of your party.
One example, and I'll shut up for a few: Personally, I'm against capitol punishment. IMHO, It's wrong, pure and simple. I don't care who the person is. However, CP is legal in the U.S., both on a State (in many states) and Federal level. I disagree wholeheartedly with CP. I don't scream and yell at people who don't have the power to stop it. I do, however, in the course of my employment, work on matters where we defend those who are on death row, usually in the appellate phase. We do what we can (legally) to keep a person from the needle. Every inmate spared the needle is a victory - without forcing our personal morals and values through legislation.
Would you agree that as time goes by, and the fetus becomes viable at an earlier and earlier stage of development, through medical advancements which are bound to occur, that abortions should be restricted to earlier and earlier timeframes correspionding to viability?
Because that's where the rubber meets the road on this issue, the "viability" question.
Personally, if women got pregnant in the same fashion that you catch a cold, ie you just wake up pregnant one day....I would have a lot more sympathy for the pro choice position. But we all know that pregnancy doesn't happen that way. There are plenty of choices made to protect or not protect yourself, to play or not to play, and with few exceptions, unwanted pregnancies occur because of negligence.
I would do the trade off in a minute, the trade off that I hear the left throw out there about conservatives only caring about the unborn but not the born. Guess what, I'll meet your demands on how to care for the living if you meet mine on getting them out of the womb alive.
That's what I thought...
There is a point at which no fetus's lungs will be able to support life. That's not going to change. We've reached that point. Medical professionals will tell you that we can't keep babies alive before about the 5th month, and don't think we ever will.
Non-viable fetuses are a whole different story than viable fetuses. Until they're viable, there's no way that non-viable fetus can control the woman's body!
I do agree with you that it is a violation of the woman's right to privacy to force her to carry her pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to.
However, as you agree, once the fetus is viable the woman is then forced to carry the pregnancy to term even if she doesn't want to (with the life and health exceptions). So, in that case she is being denied her right to privacy. It's simply that the viable fetus has earned rights in the eyes of the general public that should override the womans rights at that point.
You do acknowledge that abortion is correctly not legal up until the end of the pregnancy. So what we have is a societal determination that the viable fetus inside the womb cannot be aborted. It's a societal determination that the viable fetus have rights.
So, if society in the future determines that the definition of a "person" be changed to include the nonviable fetus, then my assumption must be that you would be okay with that since society decided that it should be this way. Abortion at that point would cease to be legal. It will be here one day, perhaps past our lifetime.
A person can survive on their own. Some people need significant help to do that, others are pretty independent.
A non-viable fetus can't survive on its own. Even with lots of help, including intensive medical intervention.
That's not going to change, and the definition of a person will never include them.
Human life is not equivalent to a human being. If they were ever to open that door, it would mean that no fertilized eggs could ever be destroyed in in-vitro clinics. It would mean that all women would have to be monitored 24/7 to see if they had become pregnant, and then their actions would have to be subjected to constant monitoring, just like we monitor parents for abuse and report that abuse.
It's a ridiculous thought. Non-viable fetuses will never be considered people.
There are thousands of couples who would have loved to have that child for their own, many who can't even bear their own children.
There are thousands of children available for adoption. There are thousands of children in foster care in need of a loving family. Unfortunately a lot of couples only want to adopt white newborns or are happy to go to china to adopt.
Excellent response.
The "where would you be" argument is ludicrous anyway. If there is no God, no souls, no afterlife, then you wouldn't know the difference. Your existence would be exclusive to our tangible world. So it's a religious argument in the first place, and has absolutely no merit in discussing public policy.
Even if there is a God, souls, and an afterlife, there's not much of an issue here. God's going to send a soul that didn't even enter the world to Hell for all eternity? If that's the case, what happens to the souls of miscarriages, and why would it be any different? If such a soul doesn't go to Hell, it goes to Heaven or gets reincarnated, which isn't a concern.
Something else to consider here is that people who are emotionally and financially capable of having children aren't as likely to have abortions. The question doesn't make a lot of sense posed to someone whose parents had no reason whatsoever to have an abortion, since their upbringing was probably fairly healthy. On the other hand, I know of a boy who was raised under horrific conditions of sexual and physical abuse, and who will never be a functional member of society because of that. What if his mother had an abortion? Of course that's an extreme example, but obviously the scenario of that child never being born at all isn't much of an argument against abortion.
"The 'where would you be' argument is ludicrous anyway. If there is no God, no souls, no afterlife, then you wouldn't know the difference. Your existence would be exclusive to our tangible world. So it's a religious argument in the first place, and has absolutely no merit in discussing public policy."
But the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do.
And besides, where did I mention anything about an afterlife? All I asked is where you would be if your mother decided to have an abortion while pregnant with you, which no one still has been able to answer - all I've seen is question dodging by asking me another question.
And besides, if I was coming at this from a religious point I would have quoted the Bible, Pat Robertson, Pope Benny, and Rod Parsley.
"Even if there is a God, souls, and an afterlife, there's not much of an issue here. God's going to send a soul that didn't even enter the world to Hell for all eternity? If that's the case, what happens to the souls of miscarriages, and why would it be any different? If such a soul doesn't go to Hell, it goes to Heaven or gets reincarnated, which isn't a concern."
There's a big difference between VOLUNTARY and INVOLUNTARY. If that was the case, you could go murder someone and have your defense be "well he was going to die anyway" or "what about people with cancer?". See the difference?
"Something else to consider here is that people who are emotionally and financially capable of having children aren't as likely to have abortions. The question doesn't make a lot of sense posed to someone whose parents had no reason whatsoever to have an abortion, since their upbringing was probably fairly healthy. On the other hand, I know of a boy who was raised under horrific conditions of sexual and physical abuse, and who will never be a functional member of society because of that. What if his mother had an abortion? Of course that's an extreme example, but obviously the scenario of that child never being born at all isn't much of an argument against abortion."
Still no excuse to abort him.
"But the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do."
That applies to citizens. A fetus is not a citizen.
"And besides, where did I mention anything about an afterlife? All I asked is where you would be if your mother decided to have an abortion while pregnant with you, which no one still has been able to answer - all I've seen is question dodging by asking me another question."
So let me get this straight. You're asking about where one would be if one was aborted, and the afterlife has no relevance there? That's odd, to say the least. I think I covered all the bases as to where one would be if one was aborted, so the charge of "dodging" seems rather weak.
"And besides, if I was coming at this from a religious point I would have quoted the Bible, Pat Robertson, Pope Benny, and Rod Parsley."
Nonsense. The only thing that makes a fetus an entity unto itself is the notion that it has a soul that is destined to be born into the world. There are no societal rights bestowed, therefore the basis is religious.
"There's a big difference between VOLUNTARY and INVOLUNTARY. If that was the case, you could go murder someone and have your defense be "well he was going to die anyway" or "what about people with cancer?". See the difference?"
You're talking about people now. People have rights because the act of birth is a promise from both the parents and society to protect and provide for them. People also have established lives where what happens to them affects others. See the difference? There are societal reasons to stop people from killing each other which go far beyond concerns of where you would be if you were killed.
"Still no excuse to abort him."
If it's about the morality of the mother's actions, that's a different argument. What I'm saying is that the argument of "where would you be" is not valid.
"But the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do."
That applies to citizens. A fetus is not a citizen.
OK, the fetus isn't a citizen, but it is an individual, and therefore it has basic rights granted to it by Natural Law.
So let me get this straight. You're asking about where one would be if one was aborted, and the afterlife has no relevance there? That's odd, to say the least. I think I covered all the bases as to where one would be if one was aborted, so the charge of "dodging" seems rather weak.
Even people who don't believe in an afterlife have some sort of concept for "dead".
"There's a big difference between VOLUNTARY and INVOLUNTARY. If that was the case, you could go murder someone and have your defense be "well he was going to die anyway" or "what about people with cancer?". See the difference?"
You're talking about people now. People have rights because the act of birth is a promise from both the parents and society to protect and provide for them. People also have established lives where what happens to them affects others. See the difference? There are societal reasons to stop people from killing each other which go far beyond concerns of where you would be if you were killed.
And an unborn baby isn't a person? It has everything a born baby has.
"Still no excuse to abort him."
If it's about the morality of the mother's actions, that's a different argument. What I'm saying is that the argument of "where would you be" is not valid.
Time for the legal+philosophical cliché - where does law come from?
No, a non-viable fetus is not a person.
They don't get the same rights. And they certainly don't get the right to control a female's body!
OK, the fetus isn't a citizen, but it is an individual, and therefore it has basic rights granted to it by Natural Law.
It's not an individual either.
Even people who don't believe in an afterlife have some sort of concept for "dead".
And this means what exactly?
And an unborn baby isn't a person? It has everything a born baby has.
A fetus is inside of a women while a baby is not. This makes a big difference when it comes to rights.
"OK, the fetus isn't a citizen, but it is an individual, and therefore it has basic rights granted to it by Natural Law."
Its rights are determined by societal interests. If "Natural Law" trumps that, then you're making a religious argument, as it goes beyond the realm of the secular.
"Even people who don't believe in an afterlife have some sort of concept for "dead"."
Which was addressed.
"And an unborn baby isn't a person? It has everything a born baby has."
Really? When's the last time you saw an obituary for a miscarriage? Obviously there's a major difference in how these things are perceived.
"Time for the legal+philosophical cliché - where does law come from?"
Societal needs and interests.
OK, so if laws come from societal needs and interests, wouldn't it be one of society's biggest interests to keep its population alive? If all women aborted their children, what would happen to a society? That's right, that society would die out!
(Which may have been one of the original intentions of abortion [getting minorities to abort all their babies so there would be only one ethnic group remaining], but that's going from ethical to political)
OK, so if laws come from societal needs and interests, wouldn't it be one of society's biggest interests to keep its population alive?
Not necessarily.
And our population continues to grow even though women have abortion rights.
If all women aborted their children, what would happen to a society?
Why would all women began aborting fetuses? Do you have a realistic scenario?
Why would any woman want to abort a fetus? Dawuss
Because they don't want to be pregnant, and they aren't willing to allow a non-viable fetus to control their body.
If all women of childbearing age determined that they preferred to abort their fetuses, and no woman ever changed their mind, eventually the human population would die off.
But since that has nothing to do with this discussion and would never happen anyway, why are you being such a jerk-off to bring it up?
It wouldn't change the fact that women have the right to control their own bodies, and we don't have the right to force them to remain pregnant before viability.
"OK, so if laws come from societal needs and interests, wouldn't it be one of society's biggest interests to keep its population alive? If all women aborted their children, what would happen to a society? That's right, that society would die out!"
Wow. OK, let's try to understand how bizarre the notion is that all women (or even anywhere near all women) would get abortions. First off, there's a pretty sizable percentage of women who want babies in general. Second, religious influences assure that even many young women who accidentally get pregnant will give birth. Unless maternal instincts die out along with religious morality, the notion is utterly preposterous. You can't very well argue that there's an obvious moral concern with abortion and then suggest everyone will somehow ignore that.
We're nowhere near any danger of dying out. If we were, you can be damn sure that there would be much more motivation for people to be having children.
"Where would you be if your mother had had a life-threatening pregnancy before you were conceived and your doctor just let her die, which is what wingers just love to see happen"
That's unbelievably ridiculous. All of us pro lifers believe that there should be an exception for the life of the mother. We're just against abortion on demand for any reason at all. Try again.
It's no more ridiculous that the example Dawuss gave.
If my mom had had an abortion, rather than having me, I wouldn't be here.
If my mom had a reason to have an abortion, and wasn't allowed to do so, and therefore both she and I didn't exist anymore, that would be worse from virtually anyone's perspective!
Baloney. There are lots of people that reject any abortions.
If an abortion was truly infantcide, like Dawuss said, for example, then any abortion would be rejected. Unless, of course, he's a hypocrite.
Hey, that's a thought!
You're saying that he supports infantcide in some cases?
That's the rub, you see. There are always choices to be made. Either you respect the right of women to control their own bodies, or you give those rights to the unborn, non-viable fetus.
You don't know what my position is, so shove it.
There have been lots of bills pushed that have not made any exception for the life of the mother.
Dawuss said that abortion is infantcide. That doesn't allow for any compromise. Many feel that way.
For you to suggest that is is I who has a problematic argument is disingenuous. It is you who cannot refute my argument that a woman's right to control her own body cannot be superseded by a non-viable fetus's right to control her body.
It doesn't matter that a fetus is not part of a woman like her arm and her leg though. That is 100% irrelevant.
Either you let her control her own body, and choose to have that body be pregnant or not pregnant, or you don't let her control her own body, and you give that right to a non-viable fetus!
Like I said, you can't refute that argument. It's her body. You don't have the right to force her to remain pregnant, even if she's pregnant because she made a mistake. It's her body that's pregnant. The non-viable fetus can't control her body without her losing right to control her own body!
Oh, and I would say that a woman has the right to disallow anyone to park in her garage.
Even if her husband bought a car only because he knew he could park it in his wife's garage, if they split up, she would be under no obligation to continue to allow him to park in her garage. It's her garage.
The issue is control of the woman's body. It doesn't matter that the fetus is in a temporary home, and could be a separate individual. She can't be obligated to house that non-viable fetus, because if she is, then she doesn't get the fundamental right to control her own body!
The child was intending on being born too, BTW.
And that is true 100% of the time.
So you're telling me that an unborn child doesn't have plans on being born? If that wasn't true then why does every child develop in the womb and then leave the womb via childbirth? (In most cases - obviously the aborted babies never have that chance)
So you're telling me that an unborn child doesn't have plans on being born?
A fetus has no plans at all. It just goes with the flow.
Let's assume [again ] that it has plans, why didn't the fetus find a women who wouldn't about it?
"A fetus has no plans at all. It just goes with the flow."
As dictated by NATURE!
Because it's a mother's role to nurture a child. The child has a right to life, something it developed the second it became a living being. The mother has no right to take that person's right away.
If a woman doesn't want that responsibility, don't get pregnant. Once you do, then you have that responsibility. You can forfeit that responsibility once the child is born via adoption, but in no way does she have a right to murder a child, even if it is her own.
It's not murdering her child to choose to end a pregnancy with an abortion.
Being pregnant doesn't force a woman to remain pregnant. If it did, then that pregnancy and that fetus would gain control of that woman's body. The woman retains the power to control her own body until that fetus is viable.
That power comes from the US Constitution. Why are you so willing to shred the Constitution to suit your morals? Why are you so unAmerican that you think your religious beliefs should trump the US Constitution's statements? Don't you know that the USA was founded to get away from those kinds of activities and coercion?
It's not murdering her child to choose to end a pregnancy with an abortion.
That child is no longer alive because of intentional human action. IIRC that's called murder.
Being pregnant doesn't force a woman to remain pregnant.
I agree - it's called the delivery room at a hospital.
The woman retains the power to control her own body until that fetus is viable.
I agree - and she also has an obligation to nurture that fetus until it is viable.
See, we're getting somewhere!
It's not a child, and she doesn't have an obligation to nurture a non-viable fetus if she doesn't want to.
Taking the life of a child is murder. But, if you ACTUALLY recalled correctly, you'd already know that a non-viable fetus is not the same as a child!
Because she has a right to control her own body and that right includes being able to decide if she's going to continue a pregnancy while that fetus is non-viable.
The issue is now, and always has been, granting the woman the right to control her body versus giving the fetus priority rights.
What the fetus might require to stay alive (her to not choose an abortion) or what the father might want have no import to the law and the US Constitution that grants her the right to control her own body.
The non-viable fetus can't be given the right to control her body, and neither can the father.
Only that pregnant woman has the right and the privilege to control her own body.
If you'd been paying attention, you'd know this already. If the fetus growing inside of her can't control her body, then neither can the sperm donor. I don't understand how you could be so ignorant of this concept after hours of having it drilled into your head!
The fetus is living, but is not a person.
It's not killing a person to choose to control your own body and not allow a non-viable fetus to control your body. The woman gets pregnant, and she's allowed, by the laws in our nation and the US Constitution, to deny the fetus the right to control her body.
A non-viable fetus is not a person. It's not a baby, and it's not an individual.
Because it's a mother's role to nurture a child.
Only if she says it's her role. Some women don't want to nuture a fetus or a child.
Because all children have a right to life, no matter how they came to be
No, they don't. Not when it means that if they are to survive, their right to survive allows the non-viable fetus to control the woman's body.
No non-viable fetus has the right to control a woman's body. She has the right to control her own body and choose to remain pregnant or end that pregnancy.
The fetus's right to life doesn't trump that woman's right to control her own body.
This has been explained to you multiple times. If you had an open mind, you'd know it already.
In what way does the unborn child control the mother's body?
Are you trying to sound as stupid as possible?
It's not an unborn child. It's a fetus. In the early stages, in the first 5 months, it's a non-viable fetus.
If we force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy, that fetus inside of her controls her body. She no longer controls her own body. She's not given the respect she deserves, and instead the fetus is given the power to force her to continue to be pregnant.
You're trying to claim that the non-viable fetus's right to life is more important than the woman's right to control her own body.
The US Constitution says you're wrong. The US Constitution says she has the right to control her own body because she has a right to privacy. It doesn't say that the fetus has the right to survive even if the pregnant woman doesn't want to continue the pregnancy!
"Your argument isn't valid because the baby isn't an actual part of a woman's body like her arm or leg is."
Right. The foetus has just about exactly the relationship to the woman as her liver, for example. A separate object inside her body attached by a reciprocal link. Except the woman is dependent on her liver, but she is not dependent on her foetus.
Because the life of a viable fetus is just as important as the woman's life, that's why the US Supreme Court allowed for states to restrict abortions at the end of the pregnancy.
The woman's right to control her body is greater than the right of a non-viable fetus to control her body and force her to remain pregnant.
Again, there isn't anybody who opposes abortion in all circumstances. Your point is an outright distortion of our position on this issue.
Jim DeMint - South Carolina -He opposes abortion even in the case of rape or incest and doesn't think gays should be able to adopt.
But he still thinks there should be an exception for the life of the mother. Try again.
The life of the mother IS in danger if she's pregnant as a result of rape or incest! All danger doesn't have to be physical!
"That's unbelievably ridiculous. All of us pro lifers believe that there should be an exception for the life of the mother. "
If you are in favor of ANY abortion...you aren't anti-abortion. Only the abortions you think YOU have the right to ban. An abortion is an abortion...they all result in a dead foetus. You have to choose: are you anti-abortion or not? If you allow ANY exceptions, you are NOT.
"That's unbelievably ridiculous. All of us pro lifers believe that there should be an exception for the life of the mother. "
If you are in favor of ANY abortion...you aren't anti-abortion. Only the abortions you think YOU have the right to ban. An abortion is an abortion...they all result in a dead foetus. You have to choose: are you anti-abortion or not? If you allow ANY exceptions, you are NOT.
We're just against abortion on demand
No one demands abortions, either. Your tired old debunked cliches are symbolic of your desperation.
"Well lemme ask you this, where would you be if your mother decided to have an abortion while she was pregnant with you"
That's a great point. The liberals on this site have absolutely no respect for human life whatsoever. They don't seem to realize that the only reason that they're alive is because their mother chose life instead of death. My guess is that if the unborn could vote, we would have all pro life politicians in Congress.
We respect the pregnant woman's right to control her own body.
Why do you respect the rights of the fetus more than you respect her right to control her own body is my question? Why does a non-viable fetus get more rights and more respect from you than a pregnant woman gets?
Because murder should never be a right. I want you to have all the rights possible, but your freedom ends at another man's nose. You don't have the right to take someone elses rights away. Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; especially those who can't take care of themselves.
But it's not murder, is it? Of course it's not.
And if it were murder, then how could you condone any abortions! Crazy talk again.
Every person does have rights. Non-viable fetuses don't have those same rights.
That's why people like you try to turn those non-viable fetuses into babies, or the "unborn", or by saying things like "it's murder" when it's absolutely not murder!
A woman's freedom to control her own body can't be given to a non-viable fetus.
You can't defeat that argument.
"So you would totally find it acceptable for a pregnant mother to take a Walther P99, aim it at her torso where the unborn baby sits and pull the trigger?"
Acceptable? Personally I would find it unbelievably sad that her sanity was so affected by her unwanted pregnancy that she felt compelled to attempt suicide in order to end it. A safe, medical abortion would save her life, and give her the opportunity to seek medical assistance to save her sanity.
RH,
I know this is a heated discussion, but this comment of yours is beyond the pale:
"The liberals on this site have absolutely no respect for human life whatsoever."
The liberals on this site were against war in Iraq long before you were. Your objections to this war are based on monetary cost, not human life cost. That seems to suggest that you are more concerned about money than lives. The liberals on this site are for SCHIP and providing health care to everyone. Many of us believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. I read your opposition to health care and when you said it was because of the cost of it, that tells me that you respect your money more than human life. Your arguments seem to value the fetus more than they value those who are living outside of the womb, why? You are anti-abortion, but also anti-everything that would support the health concerns of living kids. Why?
Then, there was your statement about costs and government spending about SCHIP. I asked you once if abortion were illegal if you would be in favor of more government sponsored health care to keep fetuses alive and more government-sponsered orphanages and you replied that you would. Seems to me that you are all for government spending if it supports your issue.
There is legitimate debate as to when life starts. Personally, I believe it starts at viability.
By the way, how does it feel to be a RINO yourself these days with your opposition to the Iraq War ;)?
RH,
Again, you avoided the questions that I posted. By your statements, is it fair for me to infer that you value your money over the health and well-being of living people who don't have insurance? Do you value money over the deaths of people in Iraq?
RH, again, no one supports infanticide. It would be like me saying that your statements on this thread make you a proponent of rape. Is that a fair statement? After all, if rape results in a pregnancy, it has produced life, right? Would it be fair for me to say that you support rape?
Do you consider all children to be miracles sent from a higher power?
There's still no permission to kill that child.
Permission from who?
RH,
No, I am not shifting the discussion. If life begins at conception (thus making a fetus a person) and we have a fetus that ends up dead, doesn't that circumstance merit a criminal investigation?
If abortion becomes illegal, and life begins at conception, and a woman does everything she can to "kill" the fetus, is she a murderer? If she drinks to attempt to kill the fetus, but is unsuccessful, is she an attempted murderer? If she doesn't go to her doctor and expose her fetus to good nutrition and medical care, is she guilty of child abuse?
The point is, if life begins at contraception and fetuses are the same as human beings, every miscarriage will have to be investigated because, as a result of something, a "person" (if that is how we are defining fetuses) is dead. Every pregnancy will have to be recorded immediately so that these "people" are accounted for, right?
If I am wrong, please point out where.
If abortion is made illegal in MOST circumstances, things will simply be the way they were in 1960's when abortion was illegal. No one is saying that abortion will completely end if it is made illegal. But prosecuting abortion doctors will GREATLY reduce the number of abortions. That is the realistic goal that pro lifers have. We want to greatly limit the number of abortions; We simply oppose abortion on demand for any reason at all.
Obviously, it wouldn't be possible for the government to control what women drink and eat and so forth. Nobody is suggesting that the government do that. We are simply suggesting that the government shut down abortion clinics in order to greatly REDUCE the number of abortions that occur each year. And there are already laws against women who kill their unborn babies themselves.
Sorry dude. The free market has determined that abortion doctors are indeed necessary.
That is what you support, right - the free market concept?
Well the other day even McCain said that 16 months "is a pretty good timetable." So even he is coming around on the issue.
LOL
When McCain "came around" on this "timetable" what day was that?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You shouldn’t have used the word timetable.
MCCAIN: I didn’t use the word timetable. That I did — if I did
"Well lemme ask you this, where would you be if your mother decided to have an abortion while she was pregnant with you"
That's a great point. The liberals on this site have absolutely no respect for human life whatsoever. They don't seem to realize that the only reason that they're alive is because their mother chose life instead of death. My guess is that if the unborn could vote, we would have all pro life politicians in Congress.
----------------------------------
What an assinine post. You say that liberals on this site have no respect for human life whatsoever. Nice blanket statement, especially since you have no freaking clue as to how this liberal believes. In fact, if you would have even read the posts before, you would see that I, for example, don't believe in abortion, but do believe in a woman's right to choose. That doesn't mean I have no respect for life. Furthermore, many (if not most) liberals believe the death penalty is wrong. Where's your respect for life there? You're inconsistent - and it shows.
Come on..."if the unborn could vote..." Do I really need to comment on that stupid statement? You're grasping at straws.
Well lemme ask you this, where would you be if your mother decided to have an abortion while she was pregnant with you?
Another example of your stupidity. If my mom had chosen to have an abortion, I wouldn't be here to type this dummy. And if my parents hadn't gotten married to each other, none of their children would be here.
If the price to be paid to allow a woman to have the right to control her own body would be that I was never born, that's a price I'd be willing to pay. I don't believe that anyone is irreplaceable.
"Another example of your stupidity. If my mom had chosen to have an abortion, I wouldn't be here to type this dummy."
Exactly! *cue thunderous applause*
"If the price to be paid to allow a woman to have the right to control her own body would be that I was never born, that's a price I'd be willing to pay. I don't believe that anyone is irreplaceable."
But this isn't about a woman's right to control her own body - this is about protecting a child's right to life. People have the freedom to do whatever they want - as long as no one else's freedoms are being violated.
And if no one is irreplaceable, can you identify anyone who could replace you? (That sounded kinda mean... Not trying to be, BTW)
BTW, are you a track runner in college? Irrelevant, I know, but you kinda sound familar.
Yes, it is exactly about the choice between allowing a woman to control her own body and allowing the fetus to control her body. That's 100% what it's about.
If your morals don't allow you to have an abortion, don't have one. But you don't have the right to force a woman to allow a fetus to control her body because your morals won't allow you to have an abortion.
"Yes, it is exactly about the choice between allowing a woman to control her own body and allowing the fetus to control her body. That's 100% what it's about."
Last I checked, pregnant women are still in 100% control of their own bodies. And the fetus is in 100% control of his or her own body.
"If your morals don't allow you to have an abortion, don't have one."
Believe me, I won't let the mother of my child have one - she'll be anti-abortion like me. :)
Women are not 100% in control of their own bodies if they are denied the right to an abortion!
If they're denied that right, then you're giving a non-viable fetus more rights and more respect than you giving a living woman to control her own body.
A fetus has no rights to control the woman's body.
"Women are not 100% in control of their own bodies if they are denied the right to an abortion!
If they're denied that right, then you're giving a non-viable fetus more rights and more respect than you giving a living woman to control her own body.
A fetus has no rights to control the woman's body."
The fetus is an individual with a right to life, just like the mother. The mother is still in 100% control of her own body, but the mother has no right to commit murder to her own son or daughter. That's a living human being inside that womb that has a beating heart, moveable joints, needs, among other things.
Besides, isn't killing a pregnant woman labeled as "double murder"?
"Besides, isn't killing a pregnant woman labeled as "double murder"?"
Because one assumes that the woman was going to give birth, therefore there would have been someone with rights. That's far different from a mother having an abortion on her own, since obviously she wasn't planning on bringing a child into the world. It's a commentary on the intent of the woman, not on the supposed inherent rights of a fetus.
"Because one assumes that the woman was going to give birth, therefore there would have been someone with rights. That's far different from a mother having an abortion on her own, since obviously she wasn't planning on bringing a child into the world."
Um, the murderer of the pregnant woman wasn't planning on bringing a child into the world either.
And what, the second the pregnant mother enters the abortion clinic her unborn baby loses all his or her rights as a human being and as an individual?
"Um, the murderer of the pregnant woman wasn't planning on bringing a child into the world either."
What the hell does that mean, and how is it supposed to address what I said?
"And what, the second the pregnant mother enters the abortion clinic her unborn baby loses all his or her rights as a human being and as an individual?"
The fetus never had any rights as a human being or as an individual anyway. The point is that if a woman is intending to bring a child into the world, then that intent gives the fetus the status that they would have had if they were born. It's dependent on the will of the mother, so the "double murder" argument doesn't prove that a fetus has any rights of its own.
"Um, the murderer of the pregnant woman wasn't planning on bringing a child into the world either."
What the hell does that mean, and how is it supposed to address what I said? "
Bottom line is, someone wasn't planning on having that baby enter the world. What difference does it make if it's the child's mother or not?
The fetus never had any rights as a human being or as an individual anyway. The point is that if a woman is intending to bring a child into the world, then that intent gives the fetus the status that they would have had if they were born. It's dependent on the will of the mother, so the "double murder" argument doesn't prove that a fetus has any rights of its own.
You can't have it both ways. Either that baby is a living individual, or it isn't. A mother's say-so doesn't determine that.
Also, NATURE intends to bring that child into the world, otherwise that little bundle of joy wouldn't be coming out after it was conceived.
"Bottom line is, someone wasn't planning on having that baby enter the world. What difference does it make if it's the child's mother or not?"
The difference is the will of the woman, since that will is what determines the rights of a born child. It's the same as the difference between an abortion and someone killing your three month-old baby. There are no rights in the former case, while in the latter your baby has been given rights through birth.
"You can't have it both ways. Either that baby is a living individual, or it isn't. A mother's say-so doesn't determine that."
We're talking about rights, not the determination of individuality. That is rather irrelevant, since the fetus doesn't have any rights either way.
"Also, NATURE intends to bring that child into the world, otherwise that little bundle of joy wouldn't be coming out after it was conceived."
The rules of civilized society are not dictated by what "nature" intends.
Um, the murderer of the pregnant woman wasn't planning on bringing a child into the world either.
Then he shouldn't have children. Anyway, what does this have to do with him murdering the pregnant women?
Because whether it was done by the child's mother or someone else, a child planning on entering the world was unable to do so because he was murdered.
It has nothing to do with child; it has to do with the potwential mother.
And let's assume it's about the "child planning on entering the world", the "child" should be more responsible in the picking its host.
DaWuss,
If abortion is outlawed someday, do you support murder investigations for every miscarriage? After all, by your reasoning, it would appear that you think abortion is murder. If a fetus ends up "dead", in your mind, do we have an obligation to investigate every time a fetus is lost? Why or why not?
Oh yes. As a foetus in my mother's womb, I was making all kinds of plans before my birth.
Do you know how stupid you sound?
The fetus is an individual with a right to life, just like the mother. The mother is still in 100% control of her own body, but the mother has no right to commit murder to her own son or daughter. That's a living human being inside that womb that has a beating heart, moveable joints, needs, among other things.
The non-viable fetus is not an individual. It can't survive outside the womb. It's not a person. It doesn't have rights.
A woman is not a mother until she has that baby. She's a pregnant woman. That pregnancy happens to her baby, and is she's forced to keep that non-viable fetus inside her body, then the fetus has more rights to control her body and gets more respect than than the female does! That's not right.
It's not murder. Murder kills a person. A non-viable fetus can't survive outside the womb, regardless of the fact that there's a beating heart and movable limbs.
The issue is can you rightfully take away a woman's right to control her own body and give it to a non-viable fetus? And the answer is, you can't.
That's a living human being inside that womb that has a beating heart, moveable joints, needs, among other things.
A fetus wouldn't have a beating heart, movable joints, or anything else WITHOUT THE MOTHER! A fetus does not exist WITHOUT THE MOTHER!
It is the woman's body, and her control of her body, that's the issue here. How can you still not understand that simple concept?
Neither the sperm donor or the non-viable fetus have the right to force the woman to remain pregnant. If her choice is to end the pregnancy, then it's her choice. If she'd denied that right because the sperm donor objects or because she's denied the right to an abortion, then she has lost the right to control her own body.
Believe me, I won't let the mother of my child have one - she'll be anti-abortion like me.
Yet another person you want to control. That's the basis of spousal abuse.
People have the freedom to do whatever they want - as long as no one else's freedoms are being violated.
And if no one is irreplaceable, can you identify anyone who could replace you? (That sounded kinda mean... Not trying to be, BTW)
People have the right to protect fetuses, as long as they aren't violating the rights of pregnant women to control their own bodies! A non-viable fetus doesn't have rights. Not even a right to freedom.
And if no one is irreplaceable, then there'd be no need to replace me.
where would you be if your mother decided to have an abortion while she was pregnant with you?
That's a different topic entirely, but my mother would have been well within her rights to do so, except that it was illegal when I was born, and many, many women were mutilated, maimed, and scarred for life because of that very illegality.
Let me ask you something: Where would you have been if your parents had lived in a town where the educational system was much better? Because you either lived in a poor school zone, or you weren't paying attention when logic and reason were being discussed.
"There are societal reasons why people can't kill each other. There is no societal reason to force women to give birth."
Wow we finally agree!
I think that I should have the right to murder my next door neighbor if I wish to. Who are you to tell me that that's wrong and that I can't do that? It's my choice, right? Why are you forcing your morality on me?
It's against the law to murder. Our laws say that it's wrong, and that you can't do it.
If you want to lobby our lawmakers and try to get them to allow people to murder other people, then go for it. Until they decriminalize that, you shouldn't plan on murdering anyone.
The right to privacy built into our US Constitution gives women the right to control their own bodies rather than giving a non-viable fetus the right to control that woman's body. We give women the respect they deserve, even if they made a mistake and got pregnant. It is their body that's pregnant, and it's their choice to remain pregnant or end that pregnancy in its early stages.
Someone else is not suffering. A non-viable fetus is not 'someone'.
The fetus doesn't have the right to force the woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy just so that it can survive.
That's the issue you continue to ignore. The fetus doesn't have the right to control the woman's body. The fetus doesn't have any rights. The woman can choose to continue the pregnancy or end it up until the time the fetus is viable and can live outside the womb.
But the fetus doesn't control the woman's body! The woman is still 100% in control of her own body, and can move about, act about, and think about all on her own - the fetus isn't doing any of that! They are two independent entities with a beneficial relationship.
But the fetus doesn't control the woman's body! The woman is still 100% in control of her own body, and can move about, act about, and think about all on her own - the fetus isn't doing any of that! They are two independent entities with a beneficial relationship.
If a woman is forced to remain pregnant against her will, she's not controlling her own body! What a waste of a human life you've turned out to be!
A non-viable fetus is not an independent entity.
How can it possibly be that you haven't gotten that message in over 200 posts yet and over several hours?
A non-viable fetus can't survive on its own. If you force a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will, you're giving her fetus the right to control her body, and no non-viable fetus has that right according to our Constitution.
So, I ask you again - why are you so unAmerican that you're willing to trash our Constitution to have your moral beliefs be upheld and forced on everyone in America?
"They are two independent entities with a beneficial relationship. "
Wrong. They are not BOTH independent. The foetus is in a symbiotic relationship to the woman. TOTALLY dependent on her. She is not at all dependent on the foetus. The foetus takes nutrients and energy from the woman and gives nothing back that is life dependent for the woman.
If a woman is forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy her right to 100% control of her body HAS been diminished - to the point where whatever her body gives to the foetus has been taken from her own existence.
"animals don't resort to this kind of barbarianism"
Right. They just eat them.
Also you said "If a baby survives a botched abortion, Obama simply wants the born baby to die on it's own."
You know, if there is legislation addressing as serious subject as a "botched abortion " I highly doubt it falls in the category of just your average dose of political campaign fodder. This sounds pretty serious and complicated and you are implying that John McCain voted _for it_ based on his knowledge as a physician and Obama simply wants to see little babies flayling about on the hospital floor.
Footnote? FOOTNOTE?
These people don't even know what that is. It's like asking your dog to do the dishes.
My dog is a Shih Tzu... he would not even entertain the notion
Footnotes? Thanks for reminding me.
Corsi said that he had pages and pages of footnotes. Hannity mentioned 700.
Footnotes are at the bottom of every page. End notes are at the end of a book, and are not the same as footnotes. Another sleazy right wing author, some woman I believe whose name and book's subject matter escapes me, was guilty of that same thing - calling end notes footnotes.
Footnotes are much more valuable. They tell you immediately what reference resource the author used. His endnotes are not near as valuable, and I believe that they're used on purpose to be less informative.
I think it was Ann Coulter, wasn't it-- I remember that Al Franken nailed her on this. Something about using endnotes to evade what you couldn't avoid with footnotes.
Footnotes are great, but are antique now, unfortunately. I haven't seen them in years.
Cranks love footnotes, too. Most right wing nutcase books have heavy "documentation" that must make them feel official.
I have a hard time with your incredulity about this.
Don't you suppose that a fetus that survived an abortion would be so physically and/or mentally challenged that forcing that child to live could be the less humane option?
What is your link on this? As in most legislation, there are always mitigating factors, and details that conveniently get left out.
I won't believe any charge unless it is backed up by supporting facts from a reputable source.
"botched abortion"
This makes no sense. If someone tries to murder someone else and BOTCHES it, it means the victim lives. Wouldn't a "botched" abortion mean the foetus did NOT exit the womb? That it was still attached, still a viable FOETUS...not a born child?
That's another lie.
There is not one documented case of a botched abortion producing a live child. Not one. All the ones supposedly presented have all been debunked.
You're either ignorant or simply misinformed:
http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
Go back and read that.
Sarah was not aborted. She remained in the womb.
She didn't survive a botched abortion.
Her twin was taken in a successful abortion. She was not aborted.
There's no evidence of even one baby surviving a botched abortion.
"A botched abortion means that the abortion "doctor" attempted to kill the baby in the womb, but the baby survived and ended up being born"
I hate to be the one to break this to you...but that is a SUCCESSFUL abortion. An abortion is intended to remove the foetus from the womb. If the foetus is delivered alive, it's still a successful ABORTION. The foetus was removed from the womb. Successful procedure.
What doesn't get discussed very much is what life was like before Roe v Wade or what would happen if all the states banned abortion period. Piously being "against abortion" is not the same as accepting responsibility for how it would be criminalized, and realizing the ramifications. What mostly would happen: those with resources would pay for a qualified doctor to perform the procedure illegally (and pay plenty), while the poor would find an unqualified person to do it, or induce the abortion themselves, resulting in many massive infections and/or deaths.
It's possible and probable that some women would not opt for this, have a child they don't want or can't care for, and give that child a life of abuse or neglect.
Those who think that abortion is wrong would be wise to do what they can to improve the lives of women and families, because that reduces abortions.l
I like this quote from John Dewey:
"Mankind likes to think in terms of extreme opposites. It is given to formulating its beliefs in terms of Either/Ors, between which it recognizes no intermediate possibilities. When forced to recognize that the extremes can not be acted upon, it is still inclined to hold that they are all right in theory, but that when it comes to practical matters circumstances compel us to compromise".
This is the abortion conundrum in a nutshell. There are endless possibilities and solutions along a very wide continuum between "pro hoice" and "pro life". One can actually be both pro life and pro choice.
I think it's interesting that from colonial times up to about 1900, abortion was a choice of the woman until "quickening". There were ads for drugs to induce abortions in newspapers and even church bulletins (albeit with euphemistic language). It wasn't until about 1900 that abortions were banned at any time except to save the life of the mother.
Roe v. Wade is actually a more traditional value of compromise based on our country's history. Compromise is a must when talking about this issue. Absolutes don't work work.
I read a book called "The Egg and I" written by a humorist, Betty MacDonald. In it, she related her own experience in a rural hospital while giving birth in the 1920s. There were many women in there suffering from "botched" abortions, often done by a male relative or acquaintance. There were also the patent medicines.
Hey, Mary I have an idea. How about dudes be fitted with a chastity computer chip that won't allow their pecker to swell. When they get married, that chip will be removed and another one implanted that only lets their pecker swell if they are having sex with their betrothed.
Hey, why should women be the only ones to suffer draconian consequnces for having sex. :-0)
"An abortion is meant to KILL an unborn baby, PERIOD. If it doesn't work, it is a botched abortion. I still can't believe that you actually wrote that"
And *I* can't believe YOU wrote THAT. You really need to get better at reading a dictionary: "the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy" - where in that definition from a DICTIONARY does it say anything about the death of the foetus?
A botched action is one in which the intended action DOES NOT OCCUR. A "botched" abortion is one in which the intended ending of the pregnancy DOES NOT OCCUR. A foetus that survives a BOTCHED abortion is still a foetus attached to the womb of a still pregnant women.
That the foetus dies after an abortion is in inescapable result of the abortion, but the abortion is only intended to end the pregnancy. When the foetus is on the borderline of viablity outside of the womb, it's still an abortion...but modern science has NOW introduced the possibility of medically keeping that foetus alive until it develops to the point of viablity without support - but it was STILL aborted, even if the abortion was induced to deliver the foetus deliberately because for some reason it can no longer be properly developed in the woman's womb.
And before you jump in with more outrage, no an aborted foetus that can be kept alive is not PRODUCED by the same method as inducing labor to deliver a foetus at exactly the same stage of development.
I still can't believe that you actually wrote that.
There's a lot of useless crap spread all around MMFA that we can't believe YOU wrote, RH.
Part of the arguement this guy and hannity have also is when does life begin gibberish. It is begins at conseption seems far fetched to me. But I agree that in the last three months you should not be allowed to abort the baby unless it is a threat to your life. Hannity is part of the no abortion crowd so of course he wants to make it seem like women are just murdering the unborn.
So you'll have her in court on a charge of murder, The doctor and medical team as well. Anyone supporting her decision well be up for accessory to murder. Boy thats going to make death row the largest growing population in our country.
I don't see you offering up your body to bring a fetus to term. Its a possble route, medically possible.
How many fetuses have you interveiwed to get their impressions of life?
Abortion predated civilization, and has existed in civilized society 1000's of years before your heros decided suddenly that here's an issue we can ride to power on. Which is their major concern.
Since you seem to enjoy ridiculous hypothetical questions so very much, here's one for you: If, as you seem to believe, at the moment of conception a human life is created that is equivalent to a fully formed, living, breathing person, then are those who use the services of fertility clinics to produce fertilized eggs but then allow those eggs to die guilty of premeditated mass murder?
It seems to me that most professions (Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Plumbers,Strippers, etc,) have some sort of membership association that set standards, ethics, and practices and tries to bring together as a group with common professional understandings and interests.
This seems not to be the case with Television Journalism... if there were such an organization Mrl Hannity would have been expelled long ago and barred from practicing his "profession"
This seems not to be the case with Television Journalism... if there were such an organization Mrl Hannity would have been expelled long ago and barred from practicing his "profession"
No, he'd be president. They'd turn it into the People's Awards, with viewers being the ones who voted. And why not?
.
I don't support abortion after birth. hannity may make me rethink that position, however.
HI,
Mail sent to the address you gave for Corsi bounces.
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
<jcorsi@wintersoldier.com>:
66.11.239.29 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17)
Giving up on 66.11.239.29.
what's a 'winter soldier'? Oh I get it, angry vets.
But don't they realize that 'winter soldier' is what the old anti-war vets called themselves?
Maybe this guy's a put-on?
Lol. Classic. MMFA says it like it's nothing.
This is actually so over-the-top stupid, it has to help Obama. Hannity/Corsi have sunk the swift-boat with this creepy claim.
Americans, I hope and believe, are really tired of being lied to, and really sick at heart they believed the lies. So, my thanks go out to Dr. Corsi, for delivering up a lie that can not be believed (except for the 28 percenters, there is really no hope for them).
Please forgive my ignorance, but what are the 28 percenters you refer to?
One of those 28 percenters would be my mother who thinks Obama is a Muslim. No kidding. And she's not a stupid woman (?), really, she's not. Although, Hmmn....she thinks OJ is innocent (that Nicole was a tramp you know and was into drugs) and she used to give money to Jerry Falwell. So maybe I should rethink that notion of her intelligence. Oh - she watches Fox News programs, maybe that's it!
CORSI: Even if a child was born, he said the woman still had the right to kill the child in an abortion.
HANNITY: Unbelievable.
Why, yes. Yes it is unbelievable. Because it's false!
If your ratings blather were even remotely true, then American Idol would be a better source of news than all the bloviating blowhards at Fox Snooze put together.
Let's see, 30 people at a five-star restaurant, 50,000 flies on a pile of horse manure. Using your logic of numerical superiority, the manure would be a better thing to eat.
And so, please feel free to do so?!
Let's see, 30 people at a five-star restaurant, 50,000 flies on a pile of horse manure. Using your logic of numerical superiority, the manure would be a better thing to eat.
PERFECT!!!! :-)
I wonder if he had a book ready if Hillary had won the nomination.
The same damn book. He just had to do a "Find & Replace" to change the names.... :-)
theater. the same should apply to faux news....truth should be a essential part or reporting news. mr. corsi should be in a home, not on teevee.
The fact of the matter is that Obama supports Roe v. Wade. He is an abortionist period. He does not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the lives of innocent defenseless babies.
Obama is pro-abortion. Nobody who supports abortion is worthy of the Presidency - period.
What Hannity is really saying is that Barack Obama supports the act of "partial birth abortion", which is in essence infanticide. It is cutting the skull of a baby open as the baby is in the process of being delivered, and sucking out it's brains. Principled Democrats and people of other party affiliations decry this barbaric practice. Mr. Obama's reasoning if you can call it that, is if we vote against any type of abortion, this will eventually lead to a ban on all abortions, which I think is preposterous. Partial birth abortion is legal, but really should be banned because babies in the third trimester deserve our protection. Admittedly Hannity stretched it by saying that Obama believed in killing babies outside the womb. However, it is possible that Barack Obama voted to allow infants who survive abortions to languish, which would be murder in my view. Mr. Obama has a 100% voting record with NARAL and is an extremist on this issue, which is sad.. I do not beleive that most people in this nation support abortion in the third trimester. At that stage of development all should agree that it is no longer an abortion, but infanticide as the baby is able to survive outside the womb.
There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion". One is either born or not born. Let me prove how dumb that term is by pointing out that if you remove any of the words it makes no sense. "Partial birth" is impossible, as I just said. "Partial abortion" is also impossible. "Birth abortion" is an oxymoron. This is nonsensical term was dreamed up by the vagina patrol to aid in their crusade against a woman's right to not be a brood mare for the state. Late term abortions make up a small percentage of all abortions. But it is your opinion that because SCIENCE has made it possible for a 6 month fetus to live, it should be afforded the rights of a born person. Hasn't science also developed ways to preserve sperm and eggs in artificial receptacles? So by your standard, we ought to outlaw male masturbation and ovulation because SCIENCE can intervene and preserve the raw materials of human life. What about cells shed from our bodies? Each has DNA that can be extracted and inserted in a host egg.
How far should we, as a society, allow SCIENCE to determine the boundaries of human life is my point.
Randy
What Hannity is really saying is that Barack Obama supports the act of "partial birth abortion", which is in essence infanticide. It is cutting the skull of a baby open as the baby is in the process of being delivered, and sucking out it's brains.
NO, IT ISN'T! How can you be so stupid after 335 posts?
First off, there is no such thing as "partial birth abortion." it's called "Intact dilation and extraction," and the procedure you describe is used in a very special type of birth defect, one in which the brain of the fetus develops outside of its cranium. Let me type that again for you wingnuts who have no clue where a clue is even located: The procedure you describe is used in a very special type of birth defect, one in which the brain of the fetus develops OUTSIDE OF ITS CRANIUM. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE that the fetus will ever survive outside the womb, and the probability is almost 100% that it will not even survive inside the womb. The fact that you take an extremely specialized procedure that has a specific, rare, purpose, and extrapolate that to almose everymid to late term abortion says that you have no grasp of facts. It also says that you would rather use emotion and lies instead of reason to make your point, because your point is not defensible.
Since the fetus is not an infant, it can't be infanticide. Since it isn't an individual, it has no rights. And because it's not a person, it isn't murder.
Flip-flopping on infanticide? NOT MY PRESIDENT!
Yup. That's what it looks like. Distorting what Obama actually did and actually supports to say that he supports the murder of children should be criminal, not just ignorant.
Claiming that the fact that I made great points repeatedly in response to stupid talking points is a negative for me is further evidence of the lack of a good argument.
Non-viable fetuses, ones that cannot live outside a womb, should not be allowed to control a woman's body and disallow that woman to control her own body. Being forced to remain pregnant, and not being allowed to end that pregnancy, is disallowing that woman to control her own body.
Bottle blond-
Am I to understand that if I disagree with Obama's position on partial birth abortion, I should go to jail?
You stated that it should be criminal to believe he supports the murder of children. I do believe this and will vote accordingly. Should I be prosecuted?
If you actually believe that, you and I have a very different understanding of American democracy.
Abortion is the taking of a human life. A woman makes her choice when she chooses to have sex. There are repercussions to choices. If she chooses to have sex she must be prepared to live with the consequences.
If a family comes on hard times, should we kill their 4 year old toddlers? This is the natural outcome of your reasoning. A 4 year old is her child - so it should be her choice whether or not the child lives.
I am sad you are so hard hearted. Dr. Mengele would be so proud.
Am I to understand that if I disagree with Obama's position on partial birth abortion, I should go to jail?
Am I to understand that you are so stupid you think that is a valid question for debate? Could you please elaborate on anything said by anyone that would lead you to that lunatic conclusion?
For thinking like that, you should not be in jail, but you might consider committing yourself to an institution to make sure the ignorant voices in your head that feed you these questions aren't dangerous to yourself and to others.
Obama supports partial birth abortion. He has explicitly stated so. He voted in favor of partial birth abortion - I am basing my position on this.
Are you a parent? If so when your child was being born, where you there to witness it.
When your son/daughter was struggling out of the womb, would you be OK with stabbing him/her in the head (in which they CAN feel the pain) and inserting a vacuum cleaner in the wound and sucking your baby's brains out.
Forget politics. On a human level, are you OK with that?
Barack Obama is. In my opinion anyone who supports this has the same morality as Eichman, Hess, Himmler, and Mengele.
You realize, of course, that every stupid post you make here makes Bobby Jindal look worse, right?????
(Not that he looked very good to begin with....)
How can there be so many ignorant people who think they are smart enough to reason this out?
I was not literally saying that someone was was ignorant should be a criminal and go to jail. Only someone who was really ignorant would take what I said literally. If the shoe fits, it's supposed to go on your foot, not in your mouth.
Non-viable fetuses aren't individuals, and are not comparable to a 4 year old child. That 4 year old has rights. A non-viable fetus doesn't have rights.
If only Corsi had been aborted...
What was his mother thinking? What happened, apparently, was that Corsi's head was stuffed in a toilet when he was 6-months old!!
His mother believed in tough love.
Now look at him.
If this man isn't a walking poster for a sewage system, I don't know what is.
NOLEFTTURNS,I standby my statement. Its been my experience that RIGHT WINGERS see things in absolutes,right or wrong and no grat in between.