Abortion Advocates Make Me Sick

That's why I said "Good luck with that"...as it has multiple meanings, one of which being I agree with you, in part. Another part says you're being unrealistic.

It isn't as easy to stop a War as you appear to think it is. It's complex. We invaded Afghanistan to hunt down Bin Laden. That failed and, through multiple ineptitudes by the Jr. administration, we found ourselves in a quagmire of a FUBAR-situation.

For one, we began a campaign to remove the Taliban, an unrealistic endeavor. Idiotic beliefs on the part of the Jr. administration, and somewhat on the Obama administration, irrationally believed that it was not only possible to do such a thing, but that we actually WERE accomplishing it. That is idiotic.

The Taliban can never be defeated by a military campaign. The idea is ludicrous, and shows that our leaders don't understand the concept of belief. They mistakenly believed they were fighting people, where they are actually fighting a belief, and beliefs cannot be defeated by force, they have to be contained.

That can be accomplished by using rational policies, one of which is education, another is compassion. These are used in some ways there, but get overshadowed by media reports of atrocities, committed both by the Taliban and ourselves.

The idea that we are killing people who are no threat to us is unrealistic, as it mistakenly assumes they are not a threat to us. They are. That doesn't mean you are totally out of line, as the War is misguided, but it's a necessary part of the over-all goal...that of convincing idiots to stop being idiotic, which is a pipe-dream, in and of itself.

They will always be a threat to us, and especially for the people in their region, for the foreseeable future...because their mind-set is one that relies on irrational thought, irrational hatred for us, irrational beliefs that are not easily combated and can't truly ever be successfully "defeated", as people in general are idiotic, misguided fools who are content with being at War for any reason.

IMO, and no offense meant.

 

But let's be honest, it's not the "sperm & egg" that are being aborted, is it? What's being aborted are the fetus'...the little life with a beating heart, fingers & toes. Can you deny that's a life?

 

Coin said, "

I think they become babies when they become alive." Ergo, this "little life" you guys are talking about is in his view a baby. At least that what he seems to be saying. ​

I believe that you yourself have at various times referred to abortion as baby killing, murder etc. You can't be a "baby killer" or a murderer of babies if what's being "killed" or "murdered", as you would characterize it, is not a baby. So this seems to be your view as well: "little life" = baby. If it's not let me know. Just trying to get some clarification here on the terms you're throwing around. ​

Read more: http://www.partisanlines.com/threads/abortion-advocates-make-me-sick.50414/page-2#ixzz2YwCFSon3​

 

Oh no offense taken. I think we pretty much agree. I would only point out that if there's a burr under the saddle, getting rid of it (in this case bringing it back home) usually results in the horse turning his attention to other issues. At least this is what I've been told by people who should know. My own experience with horses is somewhat limited. It would seem like getting rid of both burr and saddle would be the ideal situation, at least for the horse.

 

When have I ever said the life inside the womb was anything other than a baby?

 

I use the term "baby" as a general term in describing the individual being inside the woman's womb. You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that its an early-stage human being.

You're going to have to tell me when you think life begins before we can argue a point. I've already told you that I think that life for a baby begins when it becomes alive.

You need to realize that the opposite of "living" is "not living". If your argument is that a being inside a woman's womb is not living even if it has a heartbeat, brain functions, etc. then we don't have anything to discuss because we won't agree that it's not living.

However, if your argument is that the being inside a woman's womb possesses all those things and is "living", then we agree that it possesses life and we have no argument.

 

Interesting conversation on when "life" begins. Since the Supreme Court can't even decide this one, I doubt my opinion matters much. But, to me, life begins when a living thing can "live" on it's own. I don't mean hunt it's own food, make it's own shelter, hold a 9-5 job at the office. I mean, when it's not dependent on a host to sustain life, such as nutrients and oxygen and blood through an umbilical chord. If it is still depending on an outside host to provide the most basic elements of life, then I don't think it is by definition living. It may therefore have a beating heart and brain functions, but they aren't supplying it with life. It is in essence a seed....alive but not living.

 

A pipe dream. War is a fact of nature, and humans are no exception. All living things take what they need from other living things, or resources. A plant, for example, uses resources to grow and reproduce. It also releases chemicals that help it live and reproduce. Sometimes those chemicals are highly toxic to most other life, a "War" to ward off other species from consuming the available resources.

Humans have the capacity to resist going to War, true, but our nature is to ward off other life that interferes with our consumption of available resources. Worse, humans are also capable of Warring for other reasons, and that's where you are on this. We aren't consuming much from Afghanistan, pretty much just it's heroin, but politics deemed it necessary.

I agree that we shouldn't be Warring in Afghanistan, or to be more precise: that we shouldn't have begun the Warring there in the manner that we did. We were after Bin Laden, and we FAILED to capture or kill him, due to a number of miscalculations by our leaders and militaries.

Politically, we chose to remove the Taliban from power and "install a puppet-regime". The problems with that are multiple, since the country is one of the poorest around, and is highly religious...in the extremist realm of religion.

As such, the puppets aren't keen on complying with foreign demands. They will "obey" their "masters" to a point, in order to secure tons of cash and power among their people, but they are in no serious way truly puppets. Sooner or later they will break from the U.S.'s leash, probably when the cash-flow slows to a certain point and the relationship with America is no longer worth it.

In the meantime, in order to prevent complete chaos there, the U.S. is pouring resources into the country, mostly cash and armies, in an attempt to lift the country to a more stable relationship with the World.

In part, that'll be successful, but for how long is anyone's guess, as extremist's are still in control of the country. They go by a different name than the Taliban, but the point is somewhat moot, as the Taliban themselves will likely retake the country, within a year or two or three of our armies withdrawal.

Simply leaving is a possibility, but what the U.S. is trying to do is stabilize it to a point that they can defend themselves. I doubt it'll be successful, but the attempt itself isn't completely War-like.

Within a few months of the invasion, we found ourselves in a pickle: Do we help stabilize the region, or not? Can it be successful, or not? Politically we chose to try, and that meant a decade or more of struggle, whether our politicians and militaries understood that or not (they didn't).

Politicians, Obama included, would like nothing better than to not be engaged in Warring there, but the nature of what we did, the decisions we made, makes leaving there a nightmare prospect. If we left immediately after Jr. FAILED to capture or kill Bin Laden, the Taliban would have simply gone back to what they were doing: Asserting their will on anyone within their power.

The Taliban themselves are a new group, and we were already concerned about what they were doing there, but we didn't have enough concern to act. Once we invaded, we decided they had to go, since they were resistant to our demands. They would have given us Bin Laden, btw, if we agreed to provide proof of his guilt, and a few other conditions, but we chose to use force, and that started a War.

Once engaged in War, the power to end it isn't as easy as people think it is. We have physical resources there that take months to remove, and the Taliban would strike every chance they got to while we were pulling out. American anger, and stupidity, led us into the War, and we took on challenges that are pipe-dreams in and of themselves, but to leave before now would have been worse, IMO.

Right now would be a feasible, and rational, time to leave, and I hope we do. But in the meantime we use drones to strike targets.

The issue with Drones in all of this is odd to me. We carpet-bombed the hell out of places for no other reason than to convince the people in those countries to surrender. That was innocent civilians, mind you. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were similar to the Tokyo and German carpet-bombing we did...and those killed a significant amount of people. Drones kill a few, true, but the alternative isn't not using drones, or not Warring at all, it's carpet-bombing...because we are at War.

 

So, the food delivery method & dependence on an outside host is what determines life?

 

Boy, you sure are living proof of this, aren't you?


**But does this fact mean an infant in the womb isn't a viable life? If, as iqless claims, all living things take what they need from other living things, why is a baby in the womb any different than any other pre- or post-birth life?

 

Your argument is completely counterintuitive and fallacious. You are saying in effect that the Supreme Court has been wrong in the past therefore they are wrong now. That is a clear example of a logical fallacy. I'm not basing my argument on what the Supreme Court has ruled on abortion so much as I am simply refuting your claim that your authority to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies derives from the Constitution which it clearly does not. You say that you're basing your opinion on the Constitution and our right to life. Effectively you are taking your own extralegal interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution aside from what the highest court in the land has already ruled on and using that as your authority to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies. I guess you'd be fine with me taking the well regulated militia part of the 2nd Amendment and passing laws to strip people of their guns based on my interpretation of the Constitution aside from what the Supreme Court as already ruled...well of course they were wrong about Dred Scott so they must be wrong about the 2nd Amendment too. That is exactly the same argument you are making although you will never see it.
By the way, Dred Scott vs Sandford had nothing to do with deciding whether slavery was "OK". It had to do with deciding whether or not slaves were American citizens or not and therefore had no right to sue in federal court.

 

The ones who believe strictly in conception being the begning of human life usually don't consider the fact that a significant percentage of conceptions fail to produce offspring as a fact of nature. In humans, the stats indicate that a range between 30 to 50 % of ALL CONCEPTIONS end prematurely and naturally, well before the 20-week point:

Note that "known pregnancies" doesn't not mean "ALL CONCEPTIONS". right-wing idiots still wouldn't know the difference, even when told.

Additional information on fetal viability:

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

 

It has more to do with what women are doing to the baby's body than what the women are doing to their own body.

 

Have you ever referred to abortion in terms of murder or killing? If you have then you are saying that fetus is just another name for baby.

 

My point, which you obviously failed to see through your liberal fog, was that your reasoning that if the Supreme Court says it is so, then it must just simply "be so". Dred Scott proved that reasoning false. I never said that just because the Court ruled as it did in Dred Scott and then reversed itself years later means that every decision the Court makes is wrong. That's the fallacious argument YOU are making (although you will never see it).

Also, regarding Dred Scott, the Court ruled that African-Americans had no claim to freedom or citizenship. My statement that the Court ruled that slavery is "OK" is valid as it sums up the Court's opinion. Since the Court ruled that African-Americans had no claim to freedom, that's the same as saying that slavery is OK. I'm just trying to sum it up for you in as few words as possible in order to make it easier for you to understand.

Now, you like to keep saying that a woman should be able to do with her body as she wishes. To an extent, I actually agree with you. However, can you please tell me when you think the being inside her ceases to be part of her body and becomes an individual unto itself?

 

Roe v Wade did not make absolute a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

Roe v Wade also recognized that, after viability, the State can have an interest in the protection of fetal life up to and including forbidding abortion unless there is a threat to the woman's health or life.

 

I guess I don't get the point you are trying to make. To answer your question: Yes, I consider abortion to be murder. Yes, I consider a fetus to be a baby. Yes, I believe abortion is killing an innocent baby. What else do you want me to say?

 

Thats not what I said at all. And again, this is my opinion only. I said I think it's when an organism can live without the assistance of an outside host. Thats when I think something is living, not alive. My analogy with the seed demonstrates this, as it is alive but not living.

 

A baby, at delivery, can not survive without assistance...heck, a 3 yr old can't survive with assistance. And what about injured people or elderly people?

 

That would be at 24 weeks, as it is at that point that the chance of survival is statistically greater than the chance of death during a natural birth.