On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
Discriminating against someone for being black is inherently the same thing as discriminating against someone because they're gay, old, or a woman.
None of those qualify as personality conflicts. Those are all protected classes under the law and employment actions can't be made based upon those classes. In contrast, a boss is free to fire his employee because he thinks his employee just rubs him the wrong way for reasons unrelated to any protected classification.
Savio is arguing against these protections, I think...?
Yes, he is. I'm just cleaning up the conversation. There are some silly things being said.
On September 04 2012 09:49 TheFrankOne wrote: Firing someone because of personality traits unrelated to a job and improving the profitability of a business through reducing unproductive assets are not remotely the same.
Considering how important workplace chemistry is, I think you might want to reevaluate this statement.
They said the same thing about blacks. People got over it.
Racism and personality conflict are two very distinct concepts.
Discriminating against someone for being black is inherently the same thing as discriminating against someone because they're gay, old, or a woman.
Or a Mormon, or a Catholic, or a short person, or a blonde, or a fat person or a...
Do I have to go on?
I would agree with everything here except for maybe "short person" or "fat person". Those can prove detrimental to the job depending on the job. People should not be discriminated based on religion (unless, say, it's a Catholic school, so it makes sense to hire Catholics and not Muslims) nor hair color, so yes, you can go on, though I'm not exactly sure why you brought these up in the first place.
On September 04 2012 07:39 Chocolate wrote: [quote] Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
Another, more well known one:
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Referencing the law that Gingrich criticized him for voting against? In that case, I commented before that there were a few things piggybacking on with that law to make it unappealing.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
On September 04 2012 07:52 KwarK wrote: [quote] Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Referencing the law that Gingrich criticized him for voting against? In that case, I commented before that there were a few things piggybacking on with that law to make it unappealing.
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
EDIT: Could it also be illegal for someone to choose who he talks to and spends time with? I think there should be strict anti-discriminatory laws for public employees but private people should be able to hire and fire for any reason since it is their money.
Everywhere in the U.S. has At Will employment with certain exceptions for protected classes. You are arguing that that protection shouldn't even exist. Well, that's a terrible opinion. The government should force people not to discriminate is such vital issues as employment on the basis of things like race or gender or sexuality. People need jobs in order to make a living, they aren't some luxury. Yes, you should need a better reason to fire someone than "I hate niggers." Is that really so crazy to you? I mean, do you really want to repeal the Civil Rights Act?
I would favor a Civil Rights Act that applied all the same statutes to public employees only.
Here are some words from Ron Paul that I think should be brought in: (bolding is original to him)
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676. source
Can you back up Ron Paul's claims with numbers or studies? I don't really consider "this one politician" a very good source.
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
EDIT: Could it also be illegal for someone to choose who he talks to and spends time with? I think there should be strict anti-discriminatory laws for public employees but private people should be able to hire and fire for any reason since it is their money.
Everywhere in the U.S. has At Will employment with certain exceptions for protected classes. You are arguing that that protection shouldn't even exist. Well, that's a terrible opinion. The government should force people not to discriminate is such vital issues as employment on the basis of things like race or gender or sexuality. People need jobs in order to make a living, they aren't some luxury. Yes, you should need a better reason to fire someone than "I hate niggers." Is that really so crazy to you? I mean, do you really want to repeal the Civil Rights Act?
I would favor a Civil Rights Act that applied all the same statutes to public employees only.
Here are some words from Ron Paul that I think should be brought in: (bolding is original to him)
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676. source
Quoting Ron Paul doesn't quite help your case here when he provides no evidence for his claims. I don't believe for a second that race tensions are worse than they were pre-Civil Rights, and progress definitely was helped along with the Civil Rights Act. This may not be the case for older generations who have been alive since the pre-Civil Rights era, but the generations after were born into a world where it was okay to play, live, and work with African-Americans, and this has helped shape equality in the eyes of the masses. I will agree, however, that race tensions are still high, as it is taking some areas much longer to progress, but I can't even fathom how many more bigots there'd be in America if the Civil Rights Act was not passed.
If you want an example, look at the military. After blacks were allowed to join without being segregated, race tensions were still blazing; however, look at us now. It is foolish to think that progress was in spite of the Civil Rights Act. Progress never would have been as fast if people were kept segregated. Every single time blacks gained rights it had to be fought for with support from the government, from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, and thank God for that.
On September 04 2012 06:01 NovaTheFeared wrote: Sadist is right that something as liberal and contentious TODAY as the Civil Rights Act was THEN wouldn't pass today. But the Civil Rights Act today is not highly contentious, and no more than a handful of Republicans on the record in opposition. In addition, the Congress has passed additional civil rights legislation (Lilly Ledbetter and Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal Acts) which continue to expand and build upon previous civil rights law. Congress is continually making progress in the realm of civil rights, that's unarguable. So to make an argument that Congress wouldn't pass a previous act, when they are in fact passing legislation that continues to go further than those acts with respect to civil rights, that's nonsense.
In fact Federal ENDA legislation has NOT passed despite first introduced in 1994. In 29 states, it is legal to fire people for their sexual orientation. Your boss can call you into the office and say, "Hey John, I heard you're gay. You're fired for being a faggot." And it's perfectly legal. Whether important civil rights legislation would pass today is not a hypothetical question. It is a factual question. The answer is "no".
Seems like as long as we are talking about private businesses, people should be allowed to hire and fire whoever they want for any reason they want. That is kinda what "freedom" is. That is not true for public employees of course but if a man owned a private business and wanted to fire someone who he is paying money to work for him, if the gov't came along and said, "No, you HAVE to keep him employed and keep giving him your money unless you have a better reason for firing him" that would be pretty crazy.
Discrimination is wrong, but taking away someone's ability to hire who they want to hire just seems crazy to me and an omen of other dangers. I mean if government can control who a private business hires and fires, then what can government NOT control?
EDIT: Could it also be illegal for someone to choose who he talks to and spends time with? I think there should be strict anti-discriminatory laws for public employees but private people should be able to hire and fire for any reason since it is their money.
Everywhere in the U.S. has At Will employment with certain exceptions for protected classes. You are arguing that that protection shouldn't even exist. Well, that's a terrible opinion. The government should force people not to discriminate is such vital issues as employment on the basis of things like race or gender or sexuality. People need jobs in order to make a living, they aren't some luxury. Yes, you should need a better reason to fire someone than "I hate niggers." Is that really so crazy to you? I mean, do you really want to repeal the Civil Rights Act?
I would favor a Civil Rights Act that applied all the same statutes to public employees only.
Here are some words from Ron Paul that I think should be brought in: (bolding is original to him)
Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676. source
Can you back up Ron Paul's claims with numbers or studies? I don't really consider "this one politician" a very good source.
There is nothing actual backing anything in that diatribe, as Ron Paul is arguing from a position in which the standard is the Confederate platform circa June 1860
On September 04 2012 07:52 KwarK wrote: [quote] Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
I read the article and saw no evidence that the democratic position is that there shouldn't be a cutoff on how late in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Could you quote the part I missed?
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Referencing the law that Gingrich criticized him for voting against? In that case, I commented before that there were a few things piggybacking on with that law to make it unappealing.
Here is the law:
On September 04 2012 07:45 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:39 Chocolate wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:36 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:29 Chocolate wrote:
On September 04 2012 07:15 Savio wrote:
On September 04 2012 04:42 Chocolate wrote:
On September 04 2012 04:25 ziggurat wrote:
On September 04 2012 03:17 kwizach wrote: ... based on the clear rightward drift of the Republican party ...
This is a myth. Democrats say things like this to make their opponents sound like extremists, but it's not true. Republicans are in tune with the more conservative 50% of the American people, just like they've been for decades.
Sure, Republicans capture the conservative vote, but it's pretty justifiable to say that the leadership has been drifting right. Social issues probably aren't going to decide this election, but it's not very moderate to completely illegalize abortion in any circumstance as they propose. It's also not moderate to constitutionally (!?) define marriage as between a man and a woman only. It's not moderate to repeal the campaign contribution limits, it's not moderate to require government ID to stop voter fraud, and it's not moderate to support prayer in public schools. Confusingly, the prayer issue, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia stances make the Republican party less of a conservative party that stands for freedom, but rather a Christian, non-secular party that stands for some freedoms (guns) but not others.
Some would say that Democrats have the most extreme position on abortion:
"The Democratic Party plank on abortion is the most extreme plank in the United States. The president of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive. That plank says tax-paid abortion at any moment, meaning partial-birth abortion. That's a 20 percent issue. The vast majority of women do not believe that taxpayers should pay to abort a child in the eighth or ninth month. Now why isn't it shocking that the Democrats on the social issue of abortion have taken the most extreme position in this country, and they couldn't defend that position for a day if it was made clear and vivid, as vivid as all the effort is made to paint Republicans." --Newt Gingrich
As for Marriage between man and woman being an "extreme" position: it is still 50% vs 48%. Neither position could be called "extreme" at this point. --http://www.gallup.com/poll/154529/Half-Americans-Support-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx
To be honest I don't support that particular stance on abortion; just because I don't like the Republican party doesn't mean I support everything the Democrats do My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
EDIT: Also, this followup later on, actually using the word 'piggybacking'.
Ahh, I see. Well the reason pulsating umbilical cord is in there is because the babys heart beat is what makes the cord pulse. So it is basically a sign of a beating heart. But yes, it does complicate things for doctors somewhat in that it says that even though they were hired to kill the baby, if it is accidentally born alive, they should recognize it as a human with rights and try to save it.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
I read the article and saw no evidence that the democratic position is that there shouldn't be a cutoff on how late in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Could you quote the part I missed?
Just as the GOP did not specifically add exeptions to the plank for rape, incest and Democrats have been calling them out for not doing so saying they are radical, the Democrats have not added exceptions to their support for abortion in the case of term pregnancy or partial birth. If you are going to be OK with 1 party calling the other out for not including exceptions, then you have to be OK with it happening right back to your side.
IMO, they should have both included exception language as that is where the American people are right now. But they didn't.
I am in support of the same exceptions as Mitt Romney (mother's life in danger, rape, and incest). Most people are in the middle somewhere. Its too bad that both party platforms have chosen to take the extreme position. Seemed like a good opportunity for one of the parties to show that they are not on the extreme side while the other is.
EDIT: Also, whats up with Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a baby born after surviving an abortion? I haven't heard his explanation for this...
Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
On September 04 2012 08:10 KwarK wrote: [quote] I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
I read the article and saw no evidence that the democratic position is that there shouldn't be a cutoff on how late in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Could you quote the part I missed?
Just as the GOP did not specifically add exeptions to the plank for rape, incest and Democrats have been calling them out for not doing so saying they are radical, the Democrats have not added exceptions to their support for abortion in the case of term pregnancy or partial birth. If you are going to be OK with 1 party calling the other out for not including exceptions, then you have to be OK with it happening right back to your side.
IMO, they should have both included exception language as that is where the American people are right now. But they didn't.
The difference is that Democrats supports states right's to regulate or ban abortion under current law. They do not support federal laws on abortion.
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
I read the article and saw no evidence that the democratic position is that there shouldn't be a cutoff on how late in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Could you quote the part I missed?
Just as the GOP did not specifically add exeptions to the plank for rape, incest and Democrats have been calling them out for not doing so saying they are radical, the Democrats have not added exceptions to their support for abortion in the case of term pregnancy or partial birth. If you are going to be OK with 1 party calling the other out for not including exceptions, then you have to be OK with it happening right back to your side.
IMO, they should have both included exception language as that is where the American people are right now. But they didn't.
The difference is that Democrats supports states right's to regulate or ban abortion under current law. They do not support federal laws on abortion.
All of the current action in terms of limiting and restricting abortions is occurring at the state level, and democrats have opposed all of those efforts.
On September 04 2012 08:10 KwarK wrote: [quote] I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
I read the article and saw no evidence that the democratic position is that there shouldn't be a cutoff on how late in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Could you quote the part I missed?
Just as the GOP did not specifically add exeptions to the plank for rape, incest and Democrats have been calling them out for not doing so saying they are radical, the Democrats have not added exceptions to their support for abortion in the case of term pregnancy or partial birth. If you are going to be OK with 1 party calling the other out for not including exceptions, then you have to be OK with it happening right back to your side.
IMO, they should have both included exception language as that is where the American people are right now. But they didn't.
It is currently against the law to perform a late term abortion (after 24 weeks I believe) and I don't know of any Democrat plans to push that back. The Republicans get shit because they say "we want to enact a law to outlaw all abortions" and then people go "all? what about rape". Until the Democrats go "we want to repeal the law against abortions after 24 weeks" then I'm not sure what your point is. That's what I keep asking you to provide proof of, that the Democratic party wish to remove the legal barriers to abortion beyond the cutoff. As for partial birth, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the medical reasons for favouring that method over others but it was never a significant part of abortions anyway, making up a tiny fraction (less than 1/500) of total abortions. If it's medically justifiable (over other methods) for the health of the mother and complies with all the other laws (cutoff etc) then I see no problem with it. Likewise, if it'd be wrong because it was after the cutoff then you don't need a explicit barring of partial birth abortion under those conditions, it's already covered. I'm really not sure what the issue is. Either it's okay to remove a foetus before 24 weeks or it's not, complaining about how exactly the remains are removed from the womb is a strange argument to get into.
On September 04 2012 07:39 Chocolate wrote: [quote] Can we get a source on Obama voting to allow Doctors to kill a born baby? That's a very surprising statement, and a pretty bold claim by Mr. Gingrich.
Also, I agree with you on abortion as well with the exception of allowing any abortion before 3 months. At that point, the fetus has next to no nervous system and thus is not alive nor thinking.
"A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law."
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
On September 04 2012 08:10 KwarK wrote: [quote] I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
I read the article and saw no evidence that the democratic position is that there shouldn't be a cutoff on how late in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Could you quote the part I missed?
Just as the GOP did not specifically add exeptions to the plank for rape, incest and Democrats have been calling them out for not doing so saying they are radical, the Democrats have not added exceptions to their support for abortion in the case of term pregnancy or partial birth. If you are going to be OK with 1 party calling the other out for not including exceptions, then you have to be OK with it happening right back to your side.
IMO, they should have both included exception language as that is where the American people are right now. But they didn't.
This line of thinking suggests to me that you're identifying the two sides as "pro-life" and "pro-abortion", which is inaccurate. The GOP says "Make abortion illegal", the Democrats say "Leave abortion as a choice". The fact that one of these is restrictive is the reason for adding exceptions, because it is inherently punitive. Adding exceptional clauses to the pro-choice argument undermines the philosophy that the government shouldn't be broadly regulating this matter at all, because the cases are different per each individual.
Sorry if it doesn't, but I believe this will make sense without being too obvious?
On September 04 2012 08:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] Are you being serious? I googled her and within 15 seconds found that she was born at 30 weeks which is far beyond the current cutoff where doctors a foetus could survive. Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
I am amazed you had either the ignorance or the audacity to post that without even checking how early she was aborted. My stance: There should be a cutoff. The cutoff should be measured against the ability of the foetus to survive outside of the womb with current medical science. Babies that cannot survive should be humanely destroyed, those who can should not be aborted. Your response: But this girl who was aborted 6 weeks after the cutoff where doctors think a foetus could survive survived! You wouldn't give her a lethal injection, would you?!?
Are you serious?
Whoa now, calm down. The video was only meant to show that surviving abortion has happened more than in the 1 example I had posted and not to disagree with you that there should be a cutoff. In fact, if you actually read the text below the video, you will actually see my response to you.
EDIT: Actually, what I mean is that the text under my first video is what I think you and I agree on and what I would now refer you to.
"But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion. " --Savio
A video showing that someone born after the date where doctors think it is possible for you to survive survived is utterly meaningless to the debate. It's just an example of the classic "here's this person, you wouldn't murder them, don't abort". What is the connection between the partial birth debate and a video of someone who was born when doctors said she could survive and then survived?
The connection is that the Democratic Platform represents the extreme (as does the Republican one unfortunately). The Democratic Platform makes no exceptions and does not come out against abortion even if performed at full term on a partially deliervered baby. And the other thing I pointed out is that Obama SHOULD have voted in favor of the law protecting abortion survivors to show he was not extreme on the issue.
Do you have a source for your claim that the democratic position does not oppose abortion up to 9 months? I'm reasonably sure that that would be an untenable position. As medical technology advances I could see wavering on the 24 weeks mark but I didn't think anyone disagreed that once doctors say it can live then you don't abort.
Basically describes that both party platforms are too extreme on abortion. But the reason it is being talked about right now is because Newt Gingrich called them out on it a few days ago here:
I read the article and saw no evidence that the democratic position is that there shouldn't be a cutoff on how late in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Could you quote the part I missed?
Just as the GOP did not specifically add exeptions to the plank for rape, incest and Democrats have been calling them out for not doing so saying they are radical, the Democrats have not added exceptions to their support for abortion in the case of term pregnancy or partial birth. If you are going to be OK with 1 party calling the other out for not including exceptions, then you have to be OK with it happening right back to your side.
IMO, they should have both included exception language as that is where the American people are right now. But they didn't.
The difference is that Democrats supports states right's to regulate or ban abortion under current law. They do not support federal laws on abortion.
All of the current action in terms of limiting and restricting abortions is occurring at the state level, and democrats have opposed all of those efforts.
True, but on the national level it is their platform... for what it's worth.
Isn't the point of the cutoff for abortion to avoid any possibility of that even happening? I'm about as pro-choice as you can get but if they're coming out able to survive outside of the womb then you need to push the cutoff back.
EDIT: But ya, I agree, its important to have a cutoff way before birth. But that is not what the Democrat Platform supports currently. Currently, my understanding is that their platform protects ALL forms of abortion and does not even come out against partial birth abortion.
EDIT 2: Also, funny quote from Reagan: "I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." -Ronald Reagan
I was curious about this so I looked it up. Before the ban partial birth abortions, according to wikipedia, accounted for 0.17% of abortions and the offspring are not able to survive from that age anyway. Even if the cells are still alive when removed from the woman they will die when cut off from the umbilical cord, the foetus remains a fundamentally parasitic organism. This seems very much a non issue. Would you rather the foetus was left to expire naturally rather than being administered a lethal injection in the tiny number of cases where partial birth abortions were actually used?
I bet a simple law stating people like this should be protected wouldn't do any harm either. And it would be an opportunity for Obama to show that he is not an idealogue or extremist on the issue. But that's not how he saw it.
Nobody thinks extraction and then lethal injection of the foetus should be legal all the way up to 9 months, they think that abortion in the weeks where the foetus is still a parasitic organism should be legal and that lethal injection is more humane than waiting for it to expire naturally.
For someone that tends to argue for precise terms, I'm not sure why you keep using deliberately labeling the foetus as a parasite. As far as I understand it, it's not an interaction between two different species. And to label the method for reproducing and passing on genes (which seems so important for evolutionary biology) seems rather strange. I don't deny that couples may wish to delay or perhaps forgo offspring altogether. But it seems a rather large distortion of the word 'parasite' if we are to use it for a stage in our species (or any species for that matter) reproduction.
I use it to illustrate the biological dependence of the foetus upon the mother. That it has no separate existence until it is viable independently.
I don't see it as a helpful illustration. Dependency doesn't necessarily mean parasitic. It doesn't make much sense to call what is necessary for the continuation of our species 'parasitic.'
Dependency is a vague term whereas parasitic expresses the relationship much more clearly in my opinion. It is a biological relationship in which one organism leeches nutrients from another in order to survive and in the case of pregnancy without legal abortion, it not always a consensual relationship. As always with language there will be misunderstandings but I feel parasite fits the situation better than dependent. Why can a parasitic relationship not be helpful to our species? I don't understand why you keep bringing species into it when it refers to the relationship between two organisms, the mother and the foetus, and not the species as a whole.
While I do get where you're coming from, the term parasite tends to be a negatively charged term.
EPT
My only problem with the pro-life stance is that it holds that the fetuses have a right to life for whatever reason, be it a soul (religious), pain/killing a human (not a problem if terminated quickly). I don't support late-term abortion, but to not allow abortion even when the mother is in danger is just wrong on so many levels.
