![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() That's nice.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Well I guess the Senator is saying he was involved with the part where life actually begins: conception. Others can take credit for the life ending procedures that they are so proud of.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...ish-galloping/
Not that it matters, joey, but heres an article discussing the subject...and your contention of when life begins doesnt matter anyway
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I wonder if the author thinks that "climate change" is settled science, even though he won't acknowledge that the idea that life begins at conception is a hell of a lot more settled. His opinion, yours, and mine are all irrelevant to the truth of whether life begins at conception or not. But an answer to that question must exist. This debate was short-circuited by the Supreme Court in 1973, resulting in the deaths of 50 million human beings and counting. The reality is that at conception: 1. A DNA series that does not match the mother or father is formed, resulting in the blueprint for a third human being. 2. The cells immediately begin to divide and grow, continually becoming more complex in structure and capability. 3. What was formerly two cells, the sperm and egg, is now one continuous living mass. It is obvious that no one individual exists in two completely different pieces on the macroscopic level, so this is earliest possible beginning of the individual. The conservative approach is to not interfere with life after conception. Not political conservatism - but just sound judgment, since presumably none of us want to hurt an innocent human being. Personally, I think most of the pro-abortion people just don't care whether life has begun or not at that point. Why should they question the gift that the inept Supreme Court gave them through their decision? They are interested in defending sexual irresponsibility. They do not wish to accept that there are risks and no form of birth control is 100% effective. The matter at hand was not centered on the general case of abortion but that "Planned Parenthood", a misnomer if ever there was one, is selling body parts from aborted babies, and even alters their methods to obtain those valuable parts. They are caught red handed in the many videos that have been filmed. The "procedures" discussed are more suitable for comparison to the practices of Nazi "doctor" Joseph Mengele than they are for submission to the New England Medical Journal. The Democrats are in a panic. And they should be. This has brought to light the macabre day-to-day operation of their slaughterhouse. So yeah, the bad news for those of us who are pro-life is that currently the law lines up against us. But this event, along with the endless march of science showing the development of babies at earlier and earlier stages with more detail (like in digital ultrasound), the understanding of DNA and what it means, etc., is leading to a gradual change such that our momentum will eventually overturn the legality of in-utero murder. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Now joey, you know you're not allowed to voice an opinion, not having a vagina and all.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
And besides, half of those 50 million casualties were female, and half were male, so we should all be able to render an opinion. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
as for earlier and earlier detail, ultrasound...that doesn't mean much, since the line of viability remains 24 weeks. when it does, or they come up with artificial wombs, abortion will remain-it's been around as long as women have gotten pregnant. but, at least for people like you, you can rest easier knowing that pregnancy rates are down across all segments of the populace, as are births, as are abortion rates. so, thank goodness for getting more and better bc available to a lot more people-because that is why the above paragraph is true. not because of people saying don't have sex, but if you do, you have to 'pay' the consequences. always liked that, pay. my kids aren't punishment to us, they were wanted and are loved. my two grandmothers had 21 kids between them. would be more, but my grandfather died shortly after my maternal grand had her 7th. left her alone with seven to raise. so, yeah, in utopia, all kids would be wanted, all pregnancies happy and healthy. but we live in the real world.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
as for 'political correctness'... i didn't know being rude, crude and misogynistic was pc...or calling a whole populace criminals was pc. but, since you're a big trump supporter--what are your thoughts on his remarks supporting planned parenthood????
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() and lookie-lou who engaged in fetal tissue research. of course, that was back when he was just a doctor. now that ben is a republican candidate, well...it's all different now.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carso...h-fetal-tissue Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson is defending himself against charges of hypocrisy after a doctor pointed out that Carson, a neurosurgeon, performed research in 1992 on tissue from an aborted fetus. But as physician Jen Gunter discovered and published on her blog Wednesday, Carson published a paper in 1992 that disclosed using tissue from ”two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation.” and another take: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._material.html and another: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...ssue-research/ Carson said that there was “nothing that can’t be done without fetal tissue" and that babies aborted at 17 weeks were clearly human beings. That inspired Dr. Jen Gunter to excavate a 1992 paper, co-authored by Carson, in which doctors described how they applied "human choroid plexus ependyma and nasal mucosa from two fetuses aborted in the ninth and 17th week of gestation." That, wrote Gunter, was quite the contrast from Carson's 2015 denunciation of fetal tissue research. "Could he think his own research was useless?" Gunter asked. "If it was non contributory to the field why was it published? Maybe he forgot that he’d done the research on fetal tissue?" good questions! and then what of this: Asked if fetal tissue research should be banned, or if it was immoral, Carson said no. blam
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln Last edited by Danzig : 08-13-2015 at 12:53 PM. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Statement from Dr. Ben Carson:
"I wanted to use our time tonight to directly deal with an attack launched on me today by the left and the media. A couple questions came in on this subject, so I want to address it head on. Today I was accused by the press as having done research on fetal tissue. It simply is not true. The study they distributed by an anonymous source was done in 1992. The study was about tumors. I won’t bore you with the science. There were four doctors' names on the study. One was mine. I spent my life studying brain tumors and removing them. My only involvement in this study was supplying tumors that I had removed from my patients. Those tissue samples were compared to other tissue samples under a microscope. Pathologists do this work to gain clues about tumors. I, nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing. Research hospitals across the country have microscope slides of all kinds of tissue to compare and contrast. The fetal tissue that was viewed in this study by others was not collected for this study. I am sickened by the attack that I, after having spent my entire life caring for children, had something to do with aborting a child and harvesting organs. My medical specialty is the human brain and even I am amazed at what it is capable of doing. Please know these attacks are pathetic attempts to blunt our progress. Now lets get to answering your questions." |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
i don't care if he did research on aborted tissue. but i do find his attacks on pp to be disingenuous, especially considering his answers to the questions of whether fetal tissue research is immoral, or should be stopped. we all know pols pander, that's why many don't run for office who should-they can't dissemble. he's a doctor, he knows the value of all research. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/13/politi...rch/index.html dissembling 101
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln Last edited by Danzig : 08-14-2015 at 09:45 AM. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
OK, fine, but the whole pro-life stance of many is anchored on finding the point at which nothing should be done to baby, so while you are correct of course on the mechanics you describe above, that is all the more reason to NOT interfere with the well-being of the baby. And as a practical matter, no one is pursuing an abortion for a non-attached zygote, as there is no need, and the levels of hormones in the blood that indicate pregnancy are not detectable until the attachment occurs. The development of a human being - no surprise - is extremely complex and complicated. Some of the concepts are not - like the DNA blueprint, but even that is so huge that it was only recently decoded to an extent by the Human Genome Project. Picking an arbitrary point for "yes before this point, and no thereafter" is almost impossible - as the 1973 Supreme Court themselves grappled with until they themselves defined viability as a legal device. And no one would dispute that this is an emotionally charged issue for both sides. The Supreme Court decision did indeed short circuit official debate, since Congress knows that even though they are free to pass whatever bill they want, up to and including a ban, that if they do so the debate alone will shut down Congress. The three coequal branches of government are free to act - the Supreme Court is not "boss" of the other two, no matter how far you take Marbury vs. Madison and the Constitutionally unsupported concept of "judicial review". Abortion is easily shown to be the horrible act that it is, not just by videotaped observation of the reality as has come to light, and not just by the scientific facts regarding conception being the point where all the DNA is fused and the organism growing constantly, but also philosphically. What is the purpose for pursuing an abortion? It is an acknowledgement that if an abortion is not committed, -gasp-, a baby is coming. And unlike birth control which will prevent the process from starting, and which very few people have an issue with, the fact that it has started and must be stopped, must mean that something that is living will be rendered non-living. When something is transitioned from living to dead through the actions of another, that's killing. When that something is a human being, that's murder. If there is a process and a strategy for doing all of that, that's called premeditation, and is the worst form of murder recognized by the law. People rallying around Planned Parenthood are calling this an assault on women's health. They do not address the central question: When a healthy woman goes to a clinic to abort a healthy baby, is that a women's health issue? If one or the other is not healthy, if the mother's life is in danger and there is no other way to save her life, that's a different story. But let's be clear: the hand wringing from the pro-abortion crowd is not about the small percentage of extraordinary circumstances like rape or a legitimate life-threatening condition. It's about the other 99% of the 340,000 abortions per year that are not in that category. And guess what? I do agree about better birth control, thereby PREVENTING this situation. And I further agree that kids are not punishments but blessings, but I'm not the one you need to convince: more like the parents of the 340,000+ that will die in the next year. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() [/color]
Quote:
i won't try to convince even one person not to abort. it's their life, their decision. not mine. they may have other kids, aren't ready, whatever. it's like the fable of gawain and ragnelle. all women want is sovereignty over their own body. women shouldn't have to be held victim to biology. and i don't believe that if a mistake is made and bc fails, that a mistake must be compounded, and a woman made to alter the rest of her entire life because sperm met egg.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() well said. and probably a lot less trouble than what i wrote, and just as sure to make a person change their mind.... ![]()
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
But to clarify: " do you think a woman should go to jail for having a legal abortion?" No - the point is that abortion should not be legal in the first place since it is ending a human life. |