On October 04 2008 03:41 D10 wrote: So savio, how will you feel when/if Obama wins ?
Hmmm...I have thought about that a lot recently because I think it is most likely that he does win.
I would be sad that we came so close to gaining a sensible majority on the supreme court before losing it again.
But in terms of what else he does as President, I wouldn't be too grieved.
I used to think that if the democrat and/or liberal won, that it would be the end of the world, and then one day it dawned on me that my life would continue as it has so far with very little effect.
I mean, I can't look outside and tell by the trees that Clinton is President or Bush. Either way, I wasn't really affected personally by the transition to Bush from Clinton or to Clinton from Bush Sr.
But I would mourn that our country will continue to offer so little protection to unborn children and abortion will still be a matter of simple convenience trumping the life of a human baby.
Here's some sense. Why would the forefathers preface the right to bear arms with reasoning justifying their ownership?
Let's look at the reasoning the forefathers used,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So the reason the forefathers put the right to bear arm in the constitution is to keep a well regulated militia for state security. Since we don't need a state militia anymore since we have the military, nukes, etc., the reasoning the forefathers used is no longer valid. Thus we should all rexamine the purpose of guns as used in todays society and consider whether we need or perhaps should have this right."
Purposes of guns:
1. Hunting (hell yes) 2. Shooting for fun (hell yes) 3. Protecting yourself and family (Hell no, all research shows you're more likely to be killed with your own gun than ever use it to protect yourself or family) 4. Killing others (hell no)
If you can think of others feel free to add on.
Hunting and shooting are just too cool to say no too right? I think so. Research shows a positive correlation with gun regulation and crime. So arguably if we keep guns crime should stay the same or decrease. Murder rates however do go down when guns are banned on the average. But screw it, the world is overpopulated anyways.
1 - The public keeps more negative information than positive information, its a fact, and it should be used.
2 - McCain did more negative adds all the way before the national convention, this study shows only the following week where democrats wanted to tip the momentum back to them, and I see no reference as to an overall negative study.
You are probably right on both points (the first one for sure). But you cannot argue that there is a HUGE difference in the negativity of the 2 campaigns. They are both operating the way all campaign have in the past and MAYBE the way campaigns HAVE to be run (since negative ads work--thats all there is to it).
I'm ok with both sides being negative. Presidential campaigns are rough business and they should be in order to expose both candidates strengths and weaknesses.
On October 04 2008 04:01 aRod wrote: Here's some sense. Why would the forefathers preface the right to bear arms with reasoning justifying their ownership?
Let's look at the reasoning the forefathers used,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So the reason the forefathers put the right to bear arm in the constitution is to keep a well regulated militia for state security. Since we don't need a state militia anymore since we have the military, nukes, etc., the reasoning the forefathers used is no longer valid. Thus we should all rexamine the purpose of guns as used in todays society and consider whether we need or perhaps should have this right."
Purposes of guns:
1. Hunting (hell yes) 2. Shooting for fun (hell yes) 3. Protecting yourself and family (Hell no, all research shows you're more likely to be killed with your own gun than ever use it to protect yourself or family) 4. Killing others (hell no)
If you can think of others feel free to add on.
Hunting and shooting are just too cool to say no too right? I think so. Research shows a positive correlation with gun regulation and crime. So arguably if we keep guns crime should stay the same or decrease. Murder rates however do go down when guns are banned on the average. But screw it, the world is overpopulated anyways.
The constitution refers multiple times (it is counted, but I don't know the number) to the "right of the people" and every time it is referring to an individual right (this was identified by the Supreme Court itself). If you say that the 2nd amendment is different then you are making a singular exception for that one right.
The "right of the people" always refers to individual rights.
The debate was pretty good last night if. I flipped through all the news channels to see their take on the 'results' and no suprise fox skews toward palin and biden skews toward biden... partizan news ftw!
Did anyone catch Dick Morris totally reaming Alan Colmes? I couldn't believe how bad he wrecked his anus on his own show.... I'm going to see if I can find a clip of it...
For those who don't know who Dick Morris is look him up. Love him or hate him, he's one of the smartest people in politics.
On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote: Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body.
I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond.
As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo.
Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people.
So the baby is not "the mother's body".
The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down.
The baby is part of the mother's body. Entirely, no the baby does not represent "the mother's body." But you wouldn't exclusively refer to your external anal sphincter either as your body would you? No of course not you would say it's a part. Just like a tumor is a part of your body. If you don't want it you cut it off.
On October 04 2008 04:04 Savio wrote: I'm ok with both sides being negative. Presidential campaigns are rough business and they should be in order to expose both candidates strengths and weaknesses.
I'm okay with both sides being negative. But there's "fair play" and then there's really twisting the truth and being misleading in a malevolent way. In my opinion, and in the opinion of most mainstream media (I know, the McCain campaign thinks everyone from Newsweek to NBC to the NY Times news division is a left-wing shill, but that's absurd), McCain and his campaign have based their attacks a huge amount more on dirty tricks. Just off the top of my head, here's the things from both campaigns that I felt were below the belt.
For Obama, the things they've done that crossed the line IMHO were: 1. Ads about McCain's ability to use technology, etc. This is silly. You can attack the guy for not being "with it" without resorting to this. 2. The whole Spain-Zapatero thing. Yes, I'm fairly convinced that McCain wasn't sure at that point who Zapatero was, but I think it's silly to bring that little "gotcha moment" up over and over. 3. I think Obama ran an ad on immigration (Spanish language I believe) that pretty unfairly linked McCain to anti-immigration Repubs.
For McCain, the things they've done that cross the line were (I won't elaborate, there's too many): 1. "Obama raised taxes 94 times." --> by the same logic, McCain raised them 100s of times. 2. "Raised taxes for people earning as little as $42k" --> extremely misleading, if not an outright lie, and McCain voted for the SAME bill. 3. "He'd sit down with Iran, etc." --> misleading not to mention it's a stupid argument that's been shot down by almost every diplomatic heavyweight in the country 4. "Lipstick on a pig" --> please! 5. "Suspended the campaign" --> First of all, no he didn't suspend his campaign. Second of all, the negotiations pretty much fell through as soon as he arrived, there's no way he can argue his presence helped. Not to mention he waited a full day to return to Washington and did a bunch of campaign events in that time. Not to mention his ads still ran. Not to mention all his campaign offices were still open. 6. "Obama phoned it in" --> Attacking Obama for not showing up in person, when McCain did the same thing, calling congressional leaders on the phone rather than seeing them in person. 7. "Now is not the time for blame" --> 2 minutes later, blaming Obama and the Dems for the failure of the bailout bill. This is a pattern that's been repeated. 8. "millions of small businesses would be affected by the Obama tax plan" --> same bogus argument that Bush used, when no reasonable fact checking organization believes the number of businesses actually affected would be more than 1-2%. 9. Anything he argues about how he's for regulation. Listen, the Republicans are for deregulation... even now, most Republicans believe that wasn't what was at fault here. Okay, you can make that argument, but don't just lie about your former record blatantly. They were for deregulation 3 months ago, and they will be again in a year or two. They should just mention they goofed and they are "revising" their position. 10. "Thanks but no thanks on the Bridge to nowhere" --> bald-faced lie. 11. McCain slammed Obama in spanish-language radio ads on immigration reform, when they were both on the same side of the vote. 12. "When I said 'fundamentals of the economy, I meant workers'" --> total bullshit.
There are more for McCain/Palin, but I am out of time.
On October 04 2008 04:10 starcraft911 wrote: The debate was pretty good last night if. I flipped through all the news channels to see their take on the 'results' and no suprise fox skews toward palin and biden skews toward biden... partizan news ftw!
Did anyone catch Dick Morris totally reaming Alan Colmes? I couldn't believe how bad he wrecked his anus on his own show.... I'm going to see if I can find a clip of it...
On October 04 2008 03:41 D10 wrote: So savio, how will you feel when/if Obama wins ?
Hmmm...I have thought about that a lot recently because I think it is most likely that he does win.
I would be sad that we came so close to gaining a sensible majority on the supreme court before losing it again.
But in terms of what else he does as President, I wouldn't be too grieved.
I used to think that if the democrat and/or liberal won, that it would be the end of the world, and then one day it dawned on me that my life would continue as it has so far with very little effect.
I mean, I can't look outside and tell by the trees that Clinton is President or Bush. Either way, I wasn't really affected personally by the transition to Bush from Clinton or to Clinton from Bush Sr.
But I would mourn that our country will continue to offer so little protection to unborn children and abortion will still be a matter of simple convenience trumping the life of a human baby.
If you weren't so polite, your ridiculous lack of rationale would make everyone consider you a troll.
I live in Michigan and I can tell that Bush is president and not Clinton, because the town I'm in has an unemployment rate above 10% and in real terms, its actually higher because the statistic is bullshit.
On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote: Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body.
I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond.
As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo.
Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people.
So the baby is not "the mother's body".
The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down.
The baby is part of the mother's body. Entirely, no the baby does not represent "the mother's body." But you wouldn't exclusively refer to your external anal sphincter either as your body would you? No of course not you would say it's a part. Just like a tumor is a part of your body. If you don't want it you cut it off.
OK, this is my post on Abortion.
I have a few thoughts that I wanted to share regarding the argument "My body, my choice" and your assertion that the baby's body is simply part of the mothers body.
Here are some facts:
1. The human body has a built in way to discriminate between "self" and "non-self". Part of this is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a protein embedded in every cells that is "self" and tells you what is you and what isn't. If something is not "you" then your body will attack it (I'm cutting out a lot of technical science so this is readable). So here is the kicker. The mother's body does not recognize the baby's cells as "self". This is because not a singe cell fo the baby was created by the mother. The baby began as a single cell with a unique genetic makeup from a mix of its father and mother. That cell divides a bagillion times until the baby is ready to be born. The cells created by the mother were never "welded" onto the baby. That baby made it by itself.
So why call the baby part of the mother, when the mother's body identifies it as "non-self" and would attack it and destroy it if it could? This is partly why the mother's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy.
2. The baby made his own blood. NONE of it came from his mother, and they never mix. The blood made by the babys body and other accessory parts of what the BABY has made including the yolk sac. Many babies don't even have the same blood type as their mother and if their blood mixed, it would result in an sensitivity reaction.
3. The baby HAS ITS OWN CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. The mother cannot "flex" her baby's muscles. Even her autonomic nervous system cannot act on the baby. No ganglia from the mother extend to and innervate effectors within the baby. The baby kicks and swims and swallows all from its own neural impulses and not the mother's.
4. The mother's role during the pregnancy is to provide nutrients and sugar to the baby (same thing breast milk does). Also, she does the work of the baby's kidneys. And most importantly, her blood delivers oxygen to the baby's blood. She also provides a good and stable environment for the baby to grow in. Her roles after the baby is born are to: provide nutrients and sugar by way of breast milk and provide a safe and stable environment for the baby to grow.
The primary difference between what a mother does for her baby during pregnancy as opposed to after is that she is no longer doing the work of the baby's kidneys and lungs. If this is what you think makes the baby not human, then patients on a ventilator and dialysis are not human either, but just part of the "machine" they are connected to.
5. DNA defines who we are. You see a crime scene with DNA evidence, you can look at the DNA and say, this is the DNA of so-and-so. The baby has a unique DNA sequence. It is NOT the mother's.
The baby has its own brain, its own MHC complex defining "self", its own blood, its own DNA, and its own autonomy (it decides when it moves). That the unborn baby is totally dependent on its mother for the continuation of its life is irrelevant because the baby that is BORN is also completely dependent on her for the continuation of its life. Dependence on its mother does not make it un-human or un-alive.
So....this post was ONLY to cover the science behind the claim that the baby is "the mother's body". There is a lot more that could be said about abortion, but this post only addresses that issue.
For those who want to ask, these are my views on abortion (I can tell that some of these are going to be asked anyway so I will answer them now):
1. Right now there is nothing in the constitution about abortion so it should be decided by the states. If one side wants to make it a national issue, they should push for an amendment to the constitution.
2. Abortion is complicated with many things to consider. I don't think that convenience is sufficient reason to kill the baby. If the mother can't handle raising the baby, there are LOTS of people willing to adopt. This can be handled in ways that don't involve killing the baby.
3. If I were making the law (or constitutional amendment), I would allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger (I disagree with Sarah Palin on this). I would NOT support ANY law banning abortion if it did not include these exceptions.
4. If I were deciding things (with an amendment) partial birth abortion would not be allowed under any circumstance except to save the mother's life (although I can't think of any way in which this would be possible but you never know).
BUT I repeat, the main purpose of this post was not so share these last 4 beliefs but to mention the scientific reasons why the baby is NOT the mother's body. Focus your responses on these.
On October 04 2008 04:01 aRod wrote: Here's some sense. Why would the forefathers preface the right to bear arms with reasoning justifying their ownership?
Let's look at the reasoning the forefathers used,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So the reason the forefathers put the right to bear arm in the constitution is to keep a well regulated militia for state security. Since we don't need a state militia anymore since we have the military, nukes, etc., the reasoning the forefathers used is no longer valid. Thus we should all rexamine the purpose of guns as used in todays society and consider whether we need or perhaps should have this right."
Purposes of guns:
1. Hunting (hell yes) 2. Shooting for fun (hell yes) 3. Protecting yourself and family (Hell no, all research shows you're more likely to be killed with your own gun than ever use it to protect yourself or family) 4. Killing others (hell no)
If you can think of others feel free to add on.
Hunting and shooting are just too cool to say no too right? I think so. Research shows a positive correlation with gun regulation and crime. So arguably if we keep guns crime should stay the same or decrease. Murder rates however do go down when guns are banned on the average. But screw it, the world is overpopulated anyways.
The constitution refers multiple times (it is counted, but I don't know the number) to the "right of the people" and every time it is referring to an individual right (this was identified by the Supreme Court itself). If you say that the 2nd amendment is different then you are making a singular exception for that one right.
The "right of the people" always refers to individual rights.
If you want to have a historical debate, I can make an extremely strong case that the second amendment was not intended for personal use. Obviously the Supreme Court said otherwise, but they also said the same about abortion.
On October 04 2008 03:41 D10 wrote: So savio, how will you feel when/if Obama wins ?
Hmmm...I have thought about that a lot recently because I think it is most likely that he does win.
I would be sad that we came so close to gaining a sensible majority on the supreme court before losing it again.
But in terms of what else he does as President, I wouldn't be too grieved.
I used to think that if the democrat and/or liberal won, that it would be the end of the world, and then one day it dawned on me that my life would continue as it has so far with very little effect.
I mean, I can't look outside and tell by the trees that Clinton is President or Bush. Either way, I wasn't really affected personally by the transition to Bush from Clinton or to Clinton from Bush Sr.
But I would mourn that our country will continue to offer so little protection to unborn children and abortion will still be a matter of simple convenience trumping the life of a human baby.
If you weren't so polite, your ridiculous lack of rationale would make everyone consider you a troll.
I live in Michigan and I can tell that Bush is president and not Clinton, because the town I'm in has an unemployment rate above 10% and in real terms, its actually higher because the statistic is bullshit.
Its impossible to know what the unemployment rate would be right now if Kerry had won. But my guess is that it would be almost identical. The rate in your town is most likely due to global patterns of competition (Japanese making SICK cars), union membership in US (which raises unemployment, Econ 101), and the cycles of the US economy.
You cannot say that because your town's unemployment is at 10% now, that that is BECAUSE Bush is President. That is like saying it is the year 2008, BECAUSE I am sitting in this chair. They happen at the same time, but you can't say that once causes the other.
On October 04 2008 05:14 MyLostTemple wrote: dick moris is a lying sack of shit and a fucking idiot. don't kid yourself. he's proved himself more than enough to prove that he's a fucking retard.
He's crafty like Rove is but he's a much more disgusting individual, and that's saying a lot. He's in the Rush Limbaugh class of human beings. People that need to hire a hooker with AIDS (and Morris has a habit of hiring hookers.)
On October 04 2008 03:41 D10 wrote: So savio, how will you feel when/if Obama wins ?
Hmmm...I have thought about that a lot recently because I think it is most likely that he does win.
I would be sad that we came so close to gaining a sensible majority on the supreme court before losing it again.
But in terms of what else he does as President, I wouldn't be too grieved.
I used to think that if the democrat and/or liberal won, that it would be the end of the world, and then one day it dawned on me that my life would continue as it has so far with very little effect.
I mean, I can't look outside and tell by the trees that Clinton is President or Bush. Either way, I wasn't really affected personally by the transition to Bush from Clinton or to Clinton from Bush Sr.
But I would mourn that our country will continue to offer so little protection to unborn children and abortion will still be a matter of simple convenience trumping the life of a human baby.
If you weren't so polite, your ridiculous lack of rationale would make everyone consider you a troll.
I live in Michigan and I can tell that Bush is president and not Clinton, because the town I'm in has an unemployment rate above 10% and in real terms, its actually higher because the statistic is bullshit.
Its impossible to know what the unemployment rate would be right now if Kerry had won. But my guess is that it would be almost identical. The rate in your town is most likely due to global patterns of competition (Japanese making SICK cars), union membership in US (which raises unemployment, Econ 101), and the cycles of the US economy.
You cannot say that because your town's unemployment is at 10% now, that that is BECAUSE Bush is President. That is like saying it is the year 2008, BECAUSE I am sitting in this chair. They happen at the same time, but you can't say that once causes the other.
Trade policies are at the forefront of the economic collapse, whether it's free market policies in one case or absurd government subsidies for farmers and such on the other. The president has responsibility over those.
Your abortion post doesn't mention how life begins at conception. Almost all of your points concern late stage abortion, which are already under the control of states. Would you ban the morning after pill as well?
3. If I were making the law (or constitutional amendment), I would allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger (I disagree with Sarah Palin on this). I would NOT support ANY law banning abortion if it did not include these exceptions.
Why is the life of a baby conceived through rape or incest less valuable than one conceived through a one night stand?
On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote: Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body.
I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond.
As an MD student you know that the embryo is actually a parasite that embeds itself into the mother. The syncitiotrophoblast divide and infiltrate into the mothers uterine lining and uterus suppressing her immune system in order to avoid being recognized as a foreign body and rejected. Eventually the miracle of life progresses and we get a baby. In this sense the placenta is intimately a part of the mothers body which was originally derived from the embryo.
Babies deform the mothers abdominal cavity stretching her abdominal wall oftentimes causing nasty looking deformities such as stretch marks while sucking away a woman's resources needed for survival while making her sick. The baby/parasite also increases the mothers risk of death. There is an additional burden when the creature final comes to term and the mother is forced to care for it by buying diapers, clothes and food. The lack of sleep caused by these creatures is often difficult to handle in any society. The tasks required to care for such a creature are arduous and not for everyone. Lastly, everyone knows the world doesn't need more people.
So the baby is not "the mother's body".
The debate is about to start. I have some interesting thoughts I want to share after the debate and things have calmed down.
The baby is part of the mother's body. Entirely, no the baby does not represent "the mother's body." But you wouldn't exclusively refer to your external anal sphincter either as your body would you? No of course not you would say it's a part. Just like a tumor is a part of your body. If you don't want it you cut it off.
OK, this is my post on Abortion.
I have a few thoughts that I wanted to share regarding the argument "My body, my choice" and your assertion that the baby's body is simply part of the mothers body.
Here are some facts:
1. The human body has a built in way to discriminate between "self" and "non-self". Part of this is called the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) which is a protein embedded in every cells that is "self" and tells you what is you and what isn't. If something is not "you" then your body will attack it (I'm cutting out a lot of technical science so this is readable). So here is the kicker. The mother's body does not recognize the baby's cells as "self". This is because not a singe cell fo the baby was created by the mother. The baby began as a single cell with a unique genetic makeup from a mix of its father and mother. That cell divides a bagillion times until the baby is ready to be born. The cells created by the mother were never "welded" onto the baby. That baby made it by itself.
So why call the baby part of the mother, when the mother's body identifies it as "non-self" and would attack it and destroy it if it could? This is partly why the mother's immune system is suppressed during pregnancy.
2. The baby made his own blood. NONE of it came from his mother, and they never mix. The blood made by the babys body and other accessory parts of what the BABY has made including the yolk sac. Many babies don't even have the same blood type as their mother and if their blood mixed, it would result in an sensitivity reaction.
3. The baby HAS ITS OWN CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. The mother cannot "flex" her baby's muscles. Even her autonomic nervous system cannot act on the baby. No ganglia from the mother extend to and innervate effectors within the baby. The baby kicks and swims and swallows all from its own neural impulses and not the mother's.
4. The mother's role during the pregnancy is to provide nutrients and sugar to the baby (same thing breast milk does). Also, she does the work of the baby's kidneys. And most importantly, her blood delivers oxygen to the baby's blood. She also provides a good and stable environment for the baby to grow in. Her roles after the baby is born are to: provide nutrients and sugar by way of breast milk and provide a safe and stable environment for the baby to grow.
The primary difference between what a mother does for her baby during pregnancy as opposed to after is that she is no longer doing the work of the baby's kidneys and lungs. If this is what you think makes the baby not human, then patients on a ventilator and dialysis are not human either, but just part of the "machine" they are connected to.
5. DNA defines who we are. You see a crime scene with DNA evidence, you can look at the DNA and say, this is the DNA of so-and-so. The baby has a unique DNA sequence. It is NOT the mother's.
The baby has its own brain, its own MHC complex defining "self", its own blood, its own DNA, and its own autonomy (it decides when it moves). That the unborn baby is totally dependent on its mother for the continuation of its life is irrelevant because the baby that is BORN is also completely dependent on her for the continuation of its life. Dependence on its mother does not make it un-human or un-alive.
So you agree a baby is a parasite, until it is born. And on a different point, generally speaking isn't a system fully contained within a system normally considered part of that system (outer system).
Why is the life of a baby conceived through rape or incest less valuable than one conceived through a one night stand?
I knew that question would come. I said in my post at the end that abortion is a complicated issue with a lot of factors to consider. Being able to choose when you have a baby is very important to. That choice is taken away in instances of rape and incest.
I have decided not to take the extreme view but to recognize that rape and incest are valid concerns. This is the compromise. A lot of people feel this same way. There is no perfect solution in a non-perfect world but this is as close as I can figure out.
So you could say I am pro-choice AND pro-life. Because every girl can choose when to become pregnant (there's only 1 way to do it), and when that decision is taken away (we call that rape), we still give her the choice.
Its not perfect, but its as close as I can figure out.
On October 04 2008 03:41 D10 wrote: So savio, how will you feel when/if Obama wins ?
Hmmm...I have thought about that a lot recently because I think it is most likely that he does win.
I would be sad that we came so close to gaining a sensible majority on the supreme court before losing it again.
But in terms of what else he does as President, I wouldn't be too grieved.
I used to think that if the democrat and/or liberal won, that it would be the end of the world, and then one day it dawned on me that my life would continue as it has so far with very little effect.
I mean, I can't look outside and tell by the trees that Clinton is President or Bush. Either way, I wasn't really affected personally by the transition to Bush from Clinton or to Clinton from Bush Sr.
But I would mourn that our country will continue to offer so little protection to unborn children and abortion will still be a matter of simple convenience trumping the life of a human baby.
If you weren't so polite, your ridiculous lack of rationale would make everyone consider you a troll.
I live in Michigan and I can tell that Bush is president and not Clinton, because the town I'm in has an unemployment rate above 10% and in real terms, its actually higher because the statistic is bullshit.
Its impossible to know what the unemployment rate would be right now if Kerry had won. But my guess is that it would be almost identical. The rate in your town is most likely due to global patterns of competition (Japanese making SICK cars), union membership in US (which raises unemployment, Econ 101), and the cycles of the US economy.
You cannot say that because your town's unemployment is at 10% now, that that is BECAUSE Bush is President. That is like saying it is the year 2008, BECAUSE I am sitting in this chair. They happen at the same time, but you can't say that once causes the other.
Trade policies are at the forefront of the economic collapse, whether it's free market policies in one case or absurd government subsidies for farmers and such on the other. The president has responsibility over those.
Your abortion post doesn't mention how life begins at conception. Almost all of your points concern late stage abortion, which are already under the control of states. Would you ban the morning after pill as well?
3. If I were making the law (or constitutional amendment), I would allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger (I disagree with Sarah Palin on this). I would NOT support ANY law banning abortion if it did not include these exceptions.
Why is the life of a baby conceived through rape or incest less valuable than one conceived through a one night stand?
I don't know when life begins, but that cell is a unique human organism at conception. As for the morning after pill, it actually takes the sperm more than a day to actually reach to egg (thats a long way for a single cell to swim).
"Some of his comments that he has made about the war…I think, in my world, disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander-in-chief," Palin told Fox News Friday. "Some of the comments he's made about Afghanistan, what we are doing there, supposedly just air-raiding villages and killing civilians — that's reckless."
Does anyone else get the feeling Palin (and possibly McCain) think we won the Vietnam war?
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2909496470_d751e8a3dc.jpg?v=0)
