Radical Abortion Advocate Nominated by Obama

whatever has already messed up you and everything about you, you poor pathetic person!

distorted English???

Exactly what drug are you on?

You've GOT to be on some drug, because no one is THAT stupid! (Or are they? ha ha ha ha ha)

"secular humanists" actually believe they they're so smart, when in fact, what they are is IGNORANT and ARROGANT, and CLUELESS?

YOU to come to a Conservative site and tell anyone to shut the F up?

definition, is premeditated, cold blooded murder of the most innocent and defenseless of all.

So in order to have the state pass an abortion on demand law that is not paid by taxes or an insurance plan, then the great majority of anti-abortionists would vote in favor of it and help collect signatures to put it on the ballot.

Since paying for the immoral is your real objection, there would not be any more objection. And you would not try to eliminate it.

Is this correct?

The point about the objector to abortion paying for it is that having to pay is not only a moral issue, but a political one. If I am obliged to pay for something immoral, I have the right and duty to try to eliminate it. I am not merely being a busybody or trying to interfere with another person's freedom.

As a former policeman, I have no objection to people defending themselves violently if necessary. I find that a superior moral position to refusing to defend oneself or one's neighbors. I also noted that as a police officer in rural Pennsylvania, the pacifist sects called policemen when they had a violent crime committed against them. The same morality applies internationally.

>> Ken Location: VA
>> That's a straw man. By the time a woman knows she's pregnant, her fetus is more than a clump of cells.

Maybe you jumped-in mid discussion. We were debating the belief that a clump of cells (or even just two) are indeed human life.


>> I repeat, that's why pro-abortionists get so defensive whenever anyone displays a picture of an aborted fetus. One picture is worth a thousand words.

I admit you make a good point but you may also agree that a picture, even an accurate one, can also be unfairly prejudicial.

For example, many people strongly disagreed with the recent publishing of a picture of dying US soldier in Iraq. The Bush administration banned even pictures of coffins! Bush...

The effect of anti-abortion on society is to lower respect for life. And since we are social people living in relationship to others, it is important not to allow the Fascit anti-abortion movement to force their pregnancy views down the throats of any woman who does not want to accept it.
A tire is an important part of a car. Try driving a car with a flat. A car cannot function normally with a flat. A tire is not a car. The part is not equal to the whole.
A four celled embryo is not a human being. A 3 month fetus doesn't have a nervous system or a brain to register pain, it is not a human being.
Calling a fetus a pre-born does not enable it to function as a human being who can help you with something. Isn't that important to...

>> Vickie Location: CA
>> Did I miss something? Did Townhall get raided by HuffPo or something?

No. Just average Americans.

Many other conservative blogs ban us because they want to perpetuate the myth that America is predominantly conservative.

This is a good time to thank TownHall for not banning us. This is the first conservative blog that I've been allowed to sustain oppositional viewpoint. Thank you, TownHall.

Robert,

I'm not sure I agree with your premise that abortion generally lowers value for life.

How do you come to that conclusion? Tons of excellent mothers have had an abortion. Have you seen data that show they are more likely to abuse the children they finally have?

Or are you referring to some assumed link between the rise in abortions and the rise in societal violence? I be very surprised if you could dig-up data proving that link.

As for the idea that you should not have to pay for what you don't morally agree with -- I'd LOVE to have that option!

I'd have a MUCH lower tax bill than most conservatives since I'm a Christian pacifist and would not have to pay for wars and the military in...

"So, it seems like letting the mother and her doctor decide is the most reasonable way to go. It allows YOU and ME the freedom to NOT have abortions but allows OTHERS to act according to their personal consciences and religious understanding." That is a very appealing idea and has a lot of merit. The problem with it is that we are not morally autonomous people living in isolation, but a social people living in relationship to others. The effect of abortion on society is to lower respect for life and the reification of human beings-- i.e., it makes us a thing rather than a person. What we do privately matters to the whole.

The second problem is that we are unfortunately increasingly a society where we all are expected to pay...

I didn't think the first one "took", so I tried again and expanded my point a bit. As some of you have probably noticed, that happens quite a bit on this site.

"Think about it... in the age of cloning, a fingernail, like a zygote, is primitive human life that might someday be fully human under the right conditions."

That's a straw man. By the time a woman knows she's pregnant, her fetus is more than a clump of cells. I repeat, that's why pro-abortionists get so defensive whenever anyone displays a picture of an aborted fetus. One picture is worth a thousand words.

I've heard people defend abortion by arguing that an egg is not a chicken. If that's the case, then an eagle's egg is not an eagle. Yet it's against the law to break an eagle's egg. Why do we protect unborn eagles and destroy unborn human beings?

"Think about it... in the age of cloning, a fingernail, like a zygote, is primitive human life that might someday be fully human under the right conditions."

That's a straw man. By the time a woman knows she's pregnant, her fetus is more than a clump of cells. I repeat, that's why pro-abortionists get so defensive whenever anyone displays a picture of an aborted fetus. One picture is worth a thousand words.

Robert,

You raise good questions that aren't easy to answer -- clearly "cute" is not a criteria for human... or a lot of babies would not make the the cut ;-)

The legal standard of "viability" is frustrating because it is not precise but is certainly more acceptable than "breath" (the biblical definition of life) or "conception" (the common evangelical definition of life) or "eternal will of God" (the Catholic definition of life.)

The tree main religious definitions of life all bigger problems than the legal definition of viability, IMHO. For starters, we can't use a religious definition in our secular society without some science or other secular standard to back it up.


There is another that doesn't...

What you are using as your criterion as to when a "fetus" is a child is your feeling about it. I'd rather have as a criterion what I think about it. To carry your argument even further, I would feel much worse over losing a six year old than losing a new born child. Our feelings about a child do not define its humanity.

You properly note that the fetus changes during development. You are then left with the necessity of making a crucial decision: at what point is this a child? When it is cute, or when it has brain waves? When the full possibilities of what will develop are fixed biologically or at birth? When we have made up our mind to birth the child or when we have decided to let it live after birth? Remember, modern...

>> Tinsldr2 Location: GA
>> Greg and baby vs Fetus
>> Well I am not a latin scholar but I know a little over 16 years ago my wife was Pregnant. We called our baby a baby while she was pregnant. If my parents or anyone else called they never said how is the fetus they said how is the baby.

I'm a dad and the same was true for me -- when my wife could feel the fetus kick or we saw a sonogram, we felt and called it a baby.

However, the first sonogram we saw was when the fetus was like a little bean. Although I am personally pro-life I can't honestly say that it seemed like a human to me, at that point.

Let me ask you -- quite likely, your wife had at least one spontaneous abortion. Can you HONESTLY say that...

And yet if you were to speak out aginst this yet another person with RADICAL LEFTIST IDEOLOGY you would be branded as racist!!! THE FACT IS THAT THIS CLOWN AND ALL HIS CRONIES ARE FACISTS AND CATOGORIZE EVERY PERSON INTO A GROUP AND THE REAL RACISTS HERE ARE THESE IDIOTS WOULD, IN MY OPINION COULD POUR URINE OUT OF A BOOT, IF THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BOOT!!! THIS COUNTRY IS RIPE FOR A REVOLT AND IT WILL BE WITH THE VOTE!!! 2010-2012 BABY!!!!

Hosea,

(I hope you are checking back)

I think you and I agree that simple DNA doesn't define what/who is human -- as you say, a body part and a whole baby have the same DNA. In that sense, a severed finger is "human" but not viable if not attached to a human.

Similarly, pro-choicers say that early-term zygotes, blastocysts and fetuses are not viably human unless they remain attached to a woman.

Think about it... in the age of cloning, a fingernail, like a zygote, is primitive human life that might someday be fully human under the right conditions.

This is only one aspect of science that makes the simplistic "life starts at conception" harder and harder for educated people to believe.

For...

Oh, how I wish supposed professional journalists, writers, and editors would learn to proof their articles before submitting them to the public. It is NOT the Office of Legal Council. It IS the Office of Legal COUNSEL. Grrr!!!

I hope the reporter doesn't mind that I lifted the quoted statements. Further, I put the thoughts in the last paragraph into my words and included all in emails to my two Senators. My communication with both of them merely asked where they stand on her confirmation.

I live in a state that passed a gay marriage ban during the same election that a parental consent law failed. It would seem to my small brain that the folks who think gay marriage is a sin or whatever would also be pro-life, no? That's not too much of a stretch of reason, is it? So, then, why the cognitive disconnect? Why did people fall back on their religion and morals for something as truly unimportant as gay marriage, but leave the door open for young girls to have abortions without mom and dad knowing and approving? I really would like an answer, though I have my thoughts on the matter. I think that most Americans, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, want the 'choice' of abortion. I didn't say they want abortions...I said...

You said:
Logically this could include the change from "potentially human" to "human". You may not agree with the distinction, but it is reasonable.

I do not agree with the distinction and am unsure about the reasonableness of the statement for this reason: The DNA says it's human. That's it. It's not "potentially human" because every bit of it is "human." I think pro-choicers link the humaness of a fertilized egg to that of a finger nail off your hand. Both are human, one is definitely "more" than the other. Therein lies the distinction. My baby calls. I must call it a day. :-)

It is hard to believe you really want a reasoned debate.

You must be getting paid because I cannot imagine a person who would actually spend their time thinking up ugly and hateful things to write as a pasttime or method of entertainment.

I will pray for you.

Parental laws don't pass because Planned Parenthood is a money making organization with global reach and a great deal of money to spend on politicians.

Parental laws don't pass because Left wing activists spend hours of their free (non-productive lives) organizing and lobbying for their ideologies while the Right is at work.