U.S. Politics

Page 840 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The GOP would need 60 senate votes to get the bill to Obama's desk.

In regards to the stats, those numbers don't add up as claimed. The abortion ratio is the best statistic to use because it measures numbers of abortion per 1000 live births to correct for the difference in number of children women have between races and differences in demographics between the races. White women 162, AA women 459. The difference is 2.83, not 5. Even if you use abortion rate, it would be 3.14. And the number for Latinas is less than 2 not more than 2 based on table 10.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
The GOP would need 60 senate votes to get the bill to Obama's desk.

In regards to the stats, those numbers don't add up as claimed. The abortion ratio is the best statistic to use because it measures numbers of abortion per 1000 live births to correct for the difference in number of children women have between races and differences in demographics between the races. White women 162, AA women 459. The difference is 2.83, not 5. Even if you use abortion rate, it would be 3.14. And the number for Latinas is less than 2 not more than 2 based on table 10.

Accounting games.

Use you numbers. Point stands.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Hugh Januss said:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
Black women killing their unborn, black kids killing each other. Lots of killing going on.

Unwanted babies? Kill 'em. I'd sure like to think you might be able to see where reasonable people could possibly reach a conclusion that differs from this "solution."
 
Hugh Januss said:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
Are you saying the answer to our economical problems is killing babies? :eek:
If killing is the answer let's start by killing all the mass murderers in our country. They are known criminals....you don't even know what the babies are going to turn out to be in life.
 
Hugh Januss said:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
Another important issue is often times the woman in question is in teens. Teen pregnancy (per 1000 live births. White 18.6, AA 39.0) accounts for most of the difference in abortion between the races. Fortunately through the actions by places like PP, teen pregnancies have decreased by more than twofold since 1991. People who want to decrease abortions should seek to increase funding to PP.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
Are you saying the answer to our economical problems is killing babies? :eek:
If killing is the answer let's start by killing all the mass murderers in our country. They are known criminals....you don't even know what the babies are going to turn out to be in life.
That would be a point if abortions were all that Planned Parenthood does, and if an abortion was actually the same as killing a live baby. It's not, if you believe it is then you are perfectly within your rights to not have one. Much as you are not being forced to marry a gay man if you feel it is against your religious beliefs.
 
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
Are you saying the answer to our economical problems is killing babies? :eek:
If killing is the answer let's start by killing all the mass murderers in our country. They are known criminals....you don't even know what the babies are going to turn out to be in life.
That would be a point if abortions were all that Planned Parenthood does, and if an abortion was actually the same as killing a live baby. It's not, if you believe it is then you are perfectly within your rights to not have one. Much as you are not being forced to marry a gay man if you feel it is against your religious beliefs.
It's really simply. The "being" (it's amazing how we can't use the word human - how sad our society has become) inside a womb is alive. When the doc is done doing his/her thing it isn't alive. It's dead. Killed. Murdered. Planned Parenthood should quit all such activity or not be funded.
 
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
Are you saying the answer to our economical problems is killing babies? :eek:
If killing is the answer let's start by killing all the mass murderers in our country. They are known criminals....you don't even know what the babies are going to turn out to be in life.
That would be a point if abortions were all that Planned Parenthood does, and if an abortion was actually the same as killing a live baby. It's not, if you believe it is then you are perfectly within your rights to not have one. Much as you are not being forced to marry a gay man if you feel it is against your religious beliefs.
It's really simply. The "being" (it's amazing how we can't use the word human - how sad our society has become) inside a womb is alive. When the doc is done doing his/her thing it isn't alive. It's dead. Killed. Murdered. Planned Parenthood should quit all such activity or not be funded.
It's legal. I think the better arguments are against abortion, not in favor back-door ways of circumventing laws one doesn't like, which only serve to exacerbate related social issues.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
An African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina more than twice as likely, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So these are the unwanted babies that you want born into this world with no real family struture, no support, and very little shot at a decent life? It's OK we can just make more prisons for them with the $500 mil we save on PP.
Cops shooting black kids and allowing black women the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy have exactly zero to do with each other.
Are you saying the answer to our economical problems is killing babies? :eek:
If killing is the answer let's start by killing all the mass murderers in our country. They are known criminals....you don't even know what the babies are going to turn out to be in life.
That would be a point if abortions were all that Planned Parenthood does, and if an abortion was actually the same as killing a live baby. It's not, if you believe it is then you are perfectly within your rights to not have one. Much as you are not being forced to marry a gay man if you feel it is against your religious beliefs.
It's really simply. The "being" (it's amazing how we can't use the word human - how sad our society has become) inside a womb is alive. When the doc is done doing his/her thing it isn't alive. It's dead. Killed. Murdered. Planned Parenthood should quit all such activity or not be funded.
It's even simpler, it has been decided. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade If you don't like it go get that changed, or move. Don't try, like Republicans always do to circumvent any law that they don't like with shady back room political manoeuvrings and attempted governmental shut downs.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Looks like abortion is a money maker for PP. 3% of their procedures producing, what, 15 -18% of their income??

Abortion on demand will be available regardless of federal tax dollars. Try and remember - we've been told over and over that PP does not use tax dollars to perform abortions.

So, which other non-profits do you support sending tax money to?
 
red_flanders said:
It's legal. I think the better arguments are against abortion, not in favor back-door ways of circumventing laws one doesn't like, which only serve to exacerbate related social issues.
Of course that's the ultimate thing to do. Though, if something is truly wrong (I don't see how anyone can see abortion as a good thing, even in a "secular world") then I think it's okay to speak out against an organization. I understand what they are doing right now is "legal" in the eyes of our government. I'm just saying it's wrong.
 
Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
It's legal. I think the better arguments are against abortion, not in favor back-door ways of circumventing laws one doesn't like, which only serve to exacerbate related social issues.
Of course that's the ultimate thing to do. Though, if something is truly wrong (I don't see how anyone can see abortion as a good thing, even in a "secular world") then I think it's okay to speak out against an organization. I understand what they are doing right now is "legal" in the eyes of our government. I'm just saying it's wrong.
I agree with this. I also agree that something should not be regarded as being okay or good just because it is lawful, and that that is a very weak argument.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Looks like abortion is a money maker for PP. 3% of their procedures producing, what, 15 -18% of their income??

Abortion on demand will be available regardless of federal tax dollars. Try and remember - we've been told over and over that PP does not use tax dollars to perform abortions.

So, which other non-profits do you support sending tax money to?
Off the top of my head I'd say Rails to Trails - yes, NFL - no
 
Jspear said:
Are you saying the answer to our economical problems is killing babies? :eek:
Abortion is not killing babies, and describing it that way is intentionally using false language to support a particular view. A baby refers to a human organism that has been born, meaning, it’s capable of breathing air, ingesting nutrients into a digestive system, and communicating in rudimentary ways with other human beings.

You can describe abortion as killing embryos or fetuses, or killing a potential human being. That is pretty strong, some would say inflammatory, language in itself, but is technically correct, and I would never object to someone who describes the procedure in that way.

Of course, having sex also kills potential human beings, because every sperm cell that dies in the process has that potential. As someone who believes God created the human species, you might ask yourself why all this death has to occur just so that one new human being is born. Surely God could have designed our reproductive systems such that the male produces only one sperm, which is never wasted? You might also ask why God would create many other organisms that give birth to as many as thousands or millions of offspring, most of which die long before they mature. I don’t think you can argue that God gave these organisms any free will in the process. Rather, God performs literally billions of de facto abortions in nature, or if you prefer, God has created a world in which this is inevitable. Maybe that’s something you should ask God about next time you pray.

So as imperfect as we are, I’d say we’re an improvement over the original system. Most conceived embryos come to term, and most babies grow up to be adults. There aren’t really that many other species that can make that claim. I wish it were 100%, I’d like to think a more enlightened society would have no need even to consider abortion, but though you may object, the problem does have a strong economic element to it.

If abortions were illegal, and a draconian government prevented even illegal ones, there would be a lot more miserable children, and families, in the world. Assuming you aren’t blind to this fact, you must think the termination of a life that can feel no pain or suffering is worse than preserving that life with a high probability (you’re right, we don’t know for sure, but the statistics certainly are telling) of suffering, not just for that born child, but for others s/he comes into contact with. If your objection is not the pain or suffering, but the snuffing out of a potential human being, doesn’t it bother you that millions of sperm never get to fulfill their potential, either? Really, doesn't it bother you whenever a couple thinks about having children, and decide not to? That potential unique new human that never is?

It's really simple. The "being" (it's amazing how we can't use the word human - how sad our society has become) inside a womb is alive. When the doc is done doing his/her thing it isn't alive. It's dead. Killed. Murdered. Planned Parenthood should quit all such activity or not be funded.
It's really simple. Every single one of those millions of sperm cells is alive. When intercourse is over, every one but one is dead. Killed. Murdered. Not to mention all the millions of other, somatic cells in our bodies that die every day. Murder galore. Google apoptosis, programmed cell death.

Scott SoCal said:
Looks like abortion is a money maker for PP. 3% of their procedures producing, what, 15 -18% of their income??

Abortion on demand will be available regardless of federal tax dollars. Try and remember - we've been told over and over that PP does not use tax dollars to perform abortions.
I covered this in a previous post. I thought you actually knew something about economics, but apparently not. If services costing only 3% of their income produce 30% (not 15-18%, see link upthread) of their income, how/why are tax dollars needed to perform them?

If college football brings in far more revenue to a university than needed to support the football program, does anyone complain that the football program is being supported by students' tuition?

So, which other non-profits do you support sending tax money to?
Surprised you're not in the NFL thread, complaining about all these taxpayer-paid-for-stadiums that every team now seems to think is a birthright.
 
BigMac said:
Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
It's legal. I think the better arguments are against abortion, not in favor back-door ways of circumventing laws one doesn't like, which only serve to exacerbate related social issues.
Of course that's the ultimate thing to do. Though, if something is truly wrong (I don't see how anyone can see abortion as a good thing, even in a "secular world") then I think it's okay to speak out against an organization. I understand what they are doing right now is "legal" in the eyes of our government. I'm just saying it's wrong.
I agree with this. I also agree that something should not be regarded as being okay or good just because it is lawful, and that that is a very weak argument.
I'm not arguing it's OK or good, I'm saying it's counter-productive to attack an organization for doing abortions when that organization is doing a TON of good preventing pregnancy. To de-fund their abortion-prevention activities because one opposes legal abortion seems a bit nutty and over-zealous, if not completely disingenuous to me.
 
red_flanders said:
BigMac said:
Jspear said:
red_flanders said:
It's legal. I think the better arguments are against abortion, not in favor back-door ways of circumventing laws one doesn't like, which only serve to exacerbate related social issues.
Of course that's the ultimate thing to do. Though, if something is truly wrong (I don't see how anyone can see abortion as a good thing, even in a "secular world") then I think it's okay to speak out against an organization. I understand what they are doing right now is "legal" in the eyes of our government. I'm just saying it's wrong.
I agree with this. I also agree that something should not be regarded as being okay or good just because it is lawful, and that that is a very weak argument.
I'm not arguing it's OK or good, I'm saying it's counter-productive to attack an organization for doing abortions when that organization is doing a TON of good preventing pregnancy. To de-fund their abortion-prevention activities because one opposes legal abortion seems a bit nutty and over-zealous, if not completely disingenuous to me.
Sorry red, should have edited your quote out. That wasn't directed at you.

edit: nor Jspear ofc.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

Merckx index said:
Jspear said:
Are you saying the answer to our economical problems is killing babies? :eek:
Abortion is not killing babies, and describing it that way is intentionally using false language to support a particular view. A baby refers to a human organism that has been born, meaning, it’s capable of breathing air, ingesting nutrients into a digestive system, and communicating in rudimentary ways with other human beings.

You can describe abortion as killing embryos or fetuses, or killing a potential human being. That is pretty strong, some would say inflammatory, language in itself, but is technically correct, and I would never object to someone who describes the procedure in that way.

Of course, having sex also kills potential human beings, because every sperm cell that dies in the process has that potential. As someone who believes God created the human species, you might ask yourself why all this death has to occur just so that one new human being is born. Surely God could have designed our reproductive systems such that the male produces only one sperm, which is never wasted? You might also ask why God would create many other organisms that give birth to as many as thousands or millions of offspring, most of which die long before they mature. I don’t think you can argue that God gave these organisms any free will in the process. Rather, God performs literally billions of de facto abortions in nature, or if you prefer, God has created a world in which this is inevitable. Maybe that’s something you should ask God about next time you pray.

So as imperfect as we are, I’d say we’re an improvement over the original system. Most conceived embryos come to term, and most babies grow up to be adults. There aren’t really that many other species that can make that claim. I wish it were 100%, I’d like to think a more enlightened society would have no need even to consider abortion, but though you may object, the problem does have a strong economic element to it.

If abortions were illegal, and a draconian government prevented even illegal ones, there would be a lot more miserable children, and families, in the world. Assuming you aren’t blind to this fact, you must think the termination of a life that can feel no pain or suffering is worse than preserving that life with a high probability (you’re right, we don’t know for sure, but the statistics certainly are telling) of suffering, not just for that born child, but for others s/he comes into contact with. If your objection is not the pain or suffering, but the snuffing out of a potential human being, doesn’t it bother you that millions of sperm never get to fulfill their potential, either? Really, doesn't it bother you whenever a couple thinks about having children, and decide not to? That potential unique new human that never is?

It's really simple. The "being" (it's amazing how we can't use the word human - how sad our society has become) inside a womb is alive. When the doc is done doing his/her thing it isn't alive. It's dead. Killed. Murdered. Planned Parenthood should quit all such activity or not be funded.
It's really simple. Every single one of those millions of sperm cells is alive. When intercourse is over, every one but one is dead. Killed. Murdered. Not to mention all the millions of other, somatic cells in our bodies that die every day. Murder galore. Google apoptosis, programmed cell death.

Scott SoCal said:
Looks like abortion is a money maker for PP. 3% of their procedures producing, what, 15 -18% of their income??

Abortion on demand will be available regardless of federal tax dollars. Try and remember - we've been told over and over that PP does not use tax dollars to perform abortions.
I covered this in a previous post. I thought you actually knew something about economics, but apparently not. If services costing only 3% of their income produce 30% (not 15-18%, see link upthread) of their income, how/why are tax dollars needed to perform them?

If college football brings in far more revenue to a university than needed to support the football program, does anyone complain that the football program is being supported by students' tuition?

So, which other non-profits do you support sending tax money to?
Surprised you're not in the NFL thread, complaining about all these taxpayer-paid-for-stadiums that every team now seems to think is a birthright.
I don't give a *** about the NFL. No apologies.

The sperm waste equals murder argument is silly. Insemination in and of itself does not equal fertilization. I'm thinking that it's a big distinction but ymmv.

It's my understanding that abortion accounts for 3% of the services performed not cost of service. Clearly Planned Parenthood states it this way to minimize or downplay what abortion means to their bottom line. I bring this up because it's a falsehood and anyone with a brain will understand it's a falsehood. If 3% Services performed is bringing in 15, 18, 30% of revenue (depending on how you look at it)then it's not insignificant.

College football is actually an excellent analogy. Here you have pugilists causing injury and irrepairable brain damage ( in certain cases) for profit. Proceeds from which benefit many others including lining the pockets of a few.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Funny. Merckx decides who has the IQ to matter back in this thread. Now he owns when a life is a life. Perfect. Also very funny how he does not broach the topic of a late term abortion.

Sad that we have to debate this abortion issue and Planned Parenthood fleecers these days. WTF - Row v Wade decided it and now we have to have this federal funded cash cow Planned Parenthood. Who not only gets Fed funds (tax dollars) but also MAKES FUNDS. WTF lets gather some human samples its all good. Lets gather up all that crap and sell it. Good to go.

Now back to Trump putting it to the pathway republicans. HAHA Blast all the time.
 
Huckabee on the Iran deal. "We got nothing. We got nothing." Literally said that.

Anyone concerned about his lying? Because that's flat out lying, that's not a viewpoint, not an opinion, not a differing analysis of the situation, that's just false and he knows it.
 
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
Funny. Merckx decides who has the IQ to matter back in this thread. Now he owns when a life is a life. Perfect. Also very funny how he does not broach the topic of a late term abortion.

Sad that we have to debate this abortion issue and Planned Parenthood fleecers these days. WTF - Row v Wade decided it and now we have to have this federal funded cash cow Planned Parenthood. Who not only gets Fed funds (tax dollars) but also MAKES FUNDS. WTF lets gather some human samples its all good. Lets gather up all that crap and sell it. Good to go.

Now back to Trump putting it to the pathway republicans. HAHA Blast all the time.
Pretty sure he was just repeating when science and the Supreme Court have decided that life begins. You may have a different idea and you would have a lot of bible thumping, climate change denying, Obama hating, tea-party Trump lovers backing you up. But no scientists, at least the ones who are not poisoned by certain religious leaning would agree.
 
Glenn, I never said anything about defining what is life. I thought I made it clear that any cell, including sperm and unfertilized eggs, is a form of life, and that these living things die in our bodies every day. Of course abortion involves killing something, death goes on all the time in our bodies. The question is, when does life become so complex that we decide it must be protected? Opinions differ, I never said my opinion was the only reasonable one, I said that any opinion must be balanced with the effect of letting a fertilized egg develop on the quality of life of an unwanted birth.

As has been shown in many studies, the conservative mind tends to see issues as black-and-white, right or wrong. Thus the tendency to draw a sharp line at conception. Anything after that must be protected. Yet the fact is that at conception, an egg is very much like any other cell. It has the potential to develop into something far more complex, but it hasn't done so yet, and for quite a while after that, the embryo is not much more than a mass of such cells. The liberal mind is more likely to see a gray area, where killing a fertilized egg or a mass of cells is not much different from killing any other cell, and is justified if giving birth will have a major impact on quality of life of mother and child.

However, if anyone here wants an argument against providing fetal tissue, I will give you one. A major reason such tissue is sought after is for use in testing new drugs. Drugs are generally tested on animals, but no non-human animal is just like a human, and so tests on humans are needed. Before that is done, it's very helpful to test on isolated human cells, hence the use of fetal tissue. Liver tissue is especially needed, because drugs generally end up there, as it's the body's main system for detoxifying. What happens to a drug in the liver gives a researcher a very good idea of some of the side effects a drug may have.

So here's the argument. If a fetus is far enough along in its development to have a liver (and it starts to develop one before the end of the first trimester), then it's no longer just a mass of cells. It's an organism. There's still no reason to believe it feels pain, and if it has any consciousness at all, it would be far below any level we recognize in ourselves. But it's still an organism. So tissue that is useful for such studies has to come from fetuses that are well along the path of prenatal development.

I myself rationalize this as making the best use of a fetus that is going to be aborted, anyway. But I do make a distinction between abortion at this point, and abortion that occurs much earlier.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/04/how-planned-parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/?hpid=z3

OK, some corrections about PP funding and services. That article, linked upthread and above in this post, was somewhat confusing, so I looked at the actual 2013-14 report for PP, which is linked in that article. Medical services comprised 65% of total revenue. There was no breakdown for specific services, so I don’t know how much of that was for abortions. The 3% figure I quoted was for the number of procedures or tests, not the amount of revenue. I stand corrected on that.

However, according to some research I did, the average cost of a first trimester abortion is roughly $500-1000, and nearly 90% of abortions are in the first trimester. Let’s go with $750 for a first trimester abortion, and twice that, $1500, for a second trimester. PP funded about 327,000 abortions, so the total cost would be roughly $270 million. That is about 20% of the total revenue of PP, and about 35% of the total revenue from non-governmental sources. So clearly government money is not necessary to pay for abortions.

Also, about 35% of the procedures/treatments/tests performed involved contraception, which of course is critical to preventing abortions. I would guess that much of the 45% of total revenue that is spent on medical procedures other than abortions goes for that, and that program would be hurt if PP lost its government funding. Also, about 40% of the procedures go for STD disease testing and treatment, which also is a critical preventive tool.

Jspear said:
And babies that fit this profile aren't ever aborted?? Talk about using false language to support a particular view.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. I said a baby refers to the being following birth, so when I said capable of breathing air, I mean it's actually doing so. A fetus of course develops lungs at the end of the gestation period, and so is capable of breathing air and surviving outside the womb, but it isn't capable of doing so as long as it remains in the womb and is still a fetus.

If birth occurs after seven months, the fetus becomes a baby, but it doesn't follow that a seven month old fetus that has not been born is a baby. A baby is defined as coming into existence following birth. By referring to any fetus as a baby, you are blurring the very large differences between fetuses and babies. The differences may not be that great towards the end of gestation, but they certainly are during earlier periods when almost all abortions are performed.

What is a potential human being? Never heard of such a thing.
So to you a fertilized egg is a human being? But it has almost none of the qualities that we associate with human beings, anatomically, physically, emotionally or mentally. A dog, let along a chimpanzee, is far more similar to a human being than a fertilized egg is. The only aspect in which a fertilized egg is more similar to a human being than some other animal or organism is its DNA. But the same is true of other cells in the human body.

If you want to call a fertilized egg, or even a fetus, a human being, then clearly we need a new word to describe humans outside the womb. Just as if you insist on referring to embryos or fetuses as babies, we need a new word for human beings right after birth. Because by referring to them all by the same word, you are glossing over enormous differences, and these differences are at the heart of the abortion debate.

On the debate:

Cruz I think it was said science had proven that a fertilized egg is a person because of its DNA. Typically misinformed, does he have any idea how dumb he looks when he says things like that?

Trump got some boos. He said everyone in the U.S. government was stupid, and the Mexican government knows this and sends criminals they don’t want to the U.S. When asked to provide his evidence, he just said people at the border had told him that. He was the only candidate on the stage who wouldn’t commit to supporting the Republican nominee. But I thought his worst moments came when he described how he bought political favors and said everyone else does it. He donated money to Hillary the Devil among others, because he knew she would owe him something in return. He came across as a criminal who wants to be the police chief because he knows how the system works, but he never gave any indication that he had reformed.

So Trump revealed one of his biggest liabilities, other than the fact that he's a loose cannon. He's not a team player. Every successful politician has a massive ego, but they also have to be sensitive to the opinions of others. They have to be willing to compromise. As a business tycoon, Trump hasn't had much experience in doing that, other than dickering over the price of something, and I think Republican voters are picking up on that.

I’d bet the post-debate polls show him losing a lot of support, but I'm not sure if anyone else was a big winner. I thought Huckabee was vacuous, never said anything specific at all. Kasich and Bush talked specifics at times, but at other times just the usual platitudes. Christie got into an interesting pissing match with Rand Paul that I'm sure will make all the highlight reels.
 
Re:

Merckx index said:
Abortion is not killing babies, and describing it that way is intentionally using false language to support a particular view. A baby refers to a human organism that has been born, meaning, it’s capable of breathing air, ingesting nutrients into a digestive system, and communicating in rudimentary ways with other human beings.
And babies that fit this profile aren't ever aborted?? Talk about using false language to support a particular view.

You can describe abortion as killing embryos or fetuses, or killing a potential human being. That is pretty strong, some would say inflammatory, language in itself, but is technically correct, and I would never object to someone who describes the procedure in that way.
What is a potential human being? Never heard of such a thing.

Of course, having sex also kills potential human beings, because every sperm cell that dies in the process has that potential. As someone who believes God created the human species, you might ask yourself why all this death has to occur just so that one new human being is born. Surely God could have designed our reproductive systems such that the male produces only one sperm, which is never wasted? You might also ask why God would create many other organisms that give birth to as many as thousands or millions of offspring, most of which die long before they mature. I don’t think you can argue that God gave these organisms any free will in the process. Rather, God performs literally billions of de facto abortions in nature, or if you prefer, God has created a world in which this is inevitable. Maybe that’s something you should ask God about next time you pray.
Again no such thing as a potential human.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re:

red_flanders said:
Huckabee on the Iran deal. "We got nothing. We got nothing." Literally said that.

Anyone concerned about his lying? Because that's flat out lying, that's not a viewpoint, not an opinion, not a differing analysis of the situation, that's just false and he knows it.
Yes it concerns me.

Here's what concerns me even more. Huckabee, literally a nobobody in the greater scheme of things lies to your,face and you are rightfully offended. So was I.

Yet Obama, a sitting President, lies to your face, you are made aware of it, and you defend him to the end.

I like you, I like reading your stuff and this I just do not get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS