Michelle Bachmann

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Glad to see someone finally added this in here, thought I would have to. That guy is super gay, like Big Gay Al from South Park. He is "reconditioning" gays to get some alone time with them, on that I would wager.

No kidding. If gaydar is real, Bachmann's husband moves the needle beyond "10".

Sounds like he wants to be "disciplined" by a "barbarian".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yujOclQ0P8

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If she is one of the less than 1% of rape victims who gets pregnant, then yeah, provided that the rape has been documented as a crime by the authorities, not just alleged after the fact.

And I'd charge the apprehended rapist with a count of at least 2nd degree homicide - since the death came out of his violent act toward the female and her resulting pregnancy.

There is still a life being taken. The issue is who's responsible.

Now, you can clearly see that my attempt at a hypothetical solution to your hypothetical (but plausible) crime does not mean that we would extend permission to get an abortion to anyone who, after getting pregnant, just doesn't want to have a baby. 99% of all abortions would be eliminated.

and by the time that case came to court, the child would be about 2 years old.
like i've said before, about abortion, guns, etc, etc..if you're not in favor of it, disagree with it, then don't do it. your opinion fits you, suits you, and your life. it's not your business to tell someone else that your opinion should be theirs, or that their rights should be taken away because you don't agree.
again, as i said regarding giving rights to homosexuals-how does someone being granted a right, in this case abortion, a taking away of your rights joey? how does it affect you, your life, how you live it? it doesn't.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and by the time that case came to court, the child would be about 2 years old.
like i've said before, about abortion, guns, etc, etc..if you're not in favor of it, disagree with it, then don't do it. your opinion fits you, suits you, and your life. it's not your business to tell someone else that your opinion should be theirs, or that their rights should be taken away because you don't agree.
again, as i said regarding giving rights to homosexuals-how does someone being granted a right, in this case abortion, a taking away of your rights joey? how does it affect you, your life, how you live it? it doesn't.

Abortion is unique however as many folks honestly believe that life begins at conception therefore abortion equates to murder. Some of those beliefs are packaged into an ultra right wing religious belief and some are the result of personal philosophy...nevertheless it is a complicated topic. The one striking factor is that in some states, while abortion is unrestricted, murder of a pregnant woman is considered the taking of two lives (Scott Peterson)...this seems a bit confusing. As I've said, I'd like to see abortion become unnecessary but that requires significant cultural changes centered around an increased sense of responsibility for both men and women (largely men)...until that day, this argument will never end.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

In our hypothetical new rules, the crime would have to be reported. The family member would get locked up, same thing - charged with 2nd degree murder or maybe even 1st degree - with the basis being that the close and continuous contact as a family member was tantamount to premeditation.

And I personally don't view it as "the right wanting to control things." I'd be happy to see abortion go away as the issue would also go away. Yes, I am a political conservative but I'd rather discuss other topics along that line of thinking.

We would know what exactly the rules are - it would still be there for such extreme cases as these crimes we are talking about. But the days of the would-be mother, alone, making the decision to end a life that she did not create alone, would end.

When a life is taken by an arm of the government, whether through capital punishment or in an abortion clinic, there needs to be due process. Investigation, records and the like. It cannot be "hush hush" and then someone is dead.

But crimes don't always go reported, especially crimes like that. So you'd be in favor of that person HAVING to have a baby they don't want because they are either too afraid or ashamed to report it? Doesn't seem very god-like to me.

We need less government involvement in our lives, not more. Stop trying to push your religious beliefs on everyone.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

But crimes don't always go reported, especially crimes like that. So you'd be in favor of that person HAVING to have a baby they don't want because they are either too afraid or ashamed to report it? Doesn't seem very god-like to me.

We need less government involvement in our lives, not more. Stop trying to push your religious beliefs on everyone.

Don't the Taliban sort of do that?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Abortion is unique however as many folks honestly believe that life begins at conception therefore abortion equates to murder. Some of those beliefs are packaged into an ultra right wing religious belief and some are the result of personal philosophy...nevertheless it is a complicated topic. The one striking factor is that in some states, while abortion is unrestricted, murder of a pregnant woman is considered the taking of two lives (Scott Peterson)...this seems a bit confusing. As I've said, I'd like to see abortion become unnecessary but that requires significant cultural changes centered around an increased sense of responsibility for both men and women (largely men)...until that day, this argument will never end.

i don't care how honest beliefs are. beliefs can be illogical, nonsensical, and unprovable. they shouldn't be the basis of law. i find it odd that the party that supposedly believes in small government so often is actually for more govt.
religion is an excuse to mind other peoples' business. it's 'for your own good' i'm sure.

[Riot]

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

What bullshit. Get the hell out of other people's lives.

completely!!!!!!! pocket book, wallets and purses included.

Pay for your own shiat!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

What bullshit. Get the hell out of other people's lives.

Right. Stop terminating the lives of the innocent through abortion.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

But crimes don't always go reported, especially crimes like that. So you'd be in favor of that person HAVING to have a baby they don't want because they are either too afraid or ashamed to report it? Doesn't seem very god-like to me.

We need less government involvement in our lives, not more. Stop trying to push your religious beliefs on everyone.

Is embarassment and the lack of willingness to report a crime sufficient reason to terminate an innocent life? Absolutely not.

And that's not a religious position. As somerfrost has pointed out, it stems from the (scientifically based) belief that life begins at conception, and that abortion therefore is the taking of a life. It is, for me, independent of religion. You don't see me pushing for creation theory here, centered on the book of Genesis. I don't believe that is literally how it happened. And besides, the debate between evolution and the 7-day creation account given in the Bible doesn't get anybody killed. It is intellectually lazy for the pro-abortion crowd to assign all motives of the anti-abortion crowd to religion. That's not correct.

Without intervention, a baby is coming. It is the supporters of abortion who must defend their position, not me or anyone who just advocates for nature to take its course.

[Danzig]

kathy ritvo, trainer of mucho macho man, was profiled in bloodhorse a few months back. i'm sure everyone knows her story about her heart transplant...but she also talked about the fact that at one point she became pregnant. her and her husband came to the painful decision to terminate the pregnancy because her doctor told her it would likely prove fatal. she already had two children-a family who needed her. now, who had the right to tell her to do otherwise? or force her to do so? thankfully, no one.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

No kidding. If gaydar is real, Bachmann's husband moves the needle beyond "10".

Sounds like he wants to be "disciplined" by a "barbarian".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yujOclQ0P8

they say those who are most virulently homophobic typically have homosexual tendencies.
wouldn't shock me if this guy had something 'come out' much like others in the past-such as the minister who preached against homosexuality, but was hiring male prostitutes.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

kathy ritvo, trainer of mucho macho man, was profiled in bloodhorse a few months back. i'm sure everyone knows her story about her heart transplant...but she also talked about the fact that at one point she became pregnant. her and her husband came to the painful decision to terminate the pregnancy because her doctor told her it would likely prove fatal. she already had two children-a family who needed her. now, who had the right to tell her to do otherwise? or force her to do so? thankfully, no one.

That's obviously a case where there is no choice. No sane person would force that.

Realize that the exception cases many pro-life people agree on, like rape and when the mother's life is in peril, are around 1% of all abortion cases, and the other 99% are simply "elective". The exceptions do not justify the elective abortions. It's not that juvenile. We can ban abortions where those factors of being the result of a documented crime or causing a legitimate medical emergency are not present.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

That's obviously a case where there is no choice. No sane person would force that.

Realize that the exception cases many pro-life people agree on, like rape and when the mother's life is in peril, are around 1% of all abortion cases, and the other 99% are simply "elective". The exceptions do not justify the elective abortions. It's not that juvenile. We can ban abortions where those factors of being the result of a documented crime or causing a legitimate medical emergency are not present.

and like i said above, the issue of a documented crime is a thorny one. what if the accused rapist goes free? what if the case doesn't go to trial? or what if people just shouldn't have to meet your choice of a burden of proof? then there's the fact that people can find professionals to say yea or nay to pretty much any topic under the sun, who would be the decider? three doctors say no, three say yes-should it be a committee? how much of a fight would it take? what if someone had to go through said hoops, was rejected by the 'abortion police' and died?
or, what if we just stay out of it, and let folks decide for themselves...no, we can't do that, we must be other peoples' judges.

and where does the 1% come from you mentioned above? have you done a survey? how many women don't say it was a crime, or a molestation? how many victims don't speak out already because they feel shame?

at any rate, i don't feel it's anyone's place to tell others what they should or shouldn't do regarding their reproduction choices. it's no one else's business.
and i asked you in a post above, but i guess you missed it...how does someone else's right affect you? how does a woman's right to choose have any affect on your life?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and like i said above, the issue of a documented crime is a thorny one. what if the accused rapist goes free? what if the case doesn't go to trial? or what if people just shouldn't have to meet your choice of a burden of proof? then there's the fact that people can find professionals to say yea or nay to pretty much any topic under the sun, who would be the decider? three doctors say no, three say yes-should it be a committee? how much of a fight would it take? what if someone had to go through said hoops, was rejected by the 'abortion police' and died?
or, what if we just stay out of it, and let folks decide for themselves...no, we can't do that, we must be other peoples' judges.

and where does the 1% come from you mentioned above? have you done a survey? how many women don't say it was a crime, or a molestation? how many victims don't speak out already because they feel shame?

at any rate, i don't feel it's anyone's place to tell others what they should or shouldn't do regarding their reproduction choices. it's no one else's business.
and i asked you in a post above, but i guess you missed it...how does someone else's right affect you? how does a woman's right to choose have any affect on your life?

I don't have a position on gay rights, and I don't know how that got in any way intertwined with what has become an abortion debate. So that's a total non-sequitur.

I did hear the 1% number (ballpark) over many years - whether it was 0.9% or 1.4%, something in between - I'm sure it varies year-to-year like any statistic. It's not 10%.

The hypothetical process I espoused - as a point of departure for a debate - was an attempt to get a better handle on it than we have now - where basically the role of God is played by the would-be mother: deciding who lives and who dies. That is unjust. There needs to be some sort of objective criteria. Innocent victims - yes, offspring in all stages of development - should not be killed without some sort of due process.

If we (the government of the United States) stayed out of this from 1973 and onward, there would be no federally sanctioned abortion. It would continue to be the risky crime it used to be. Medical abortion to save lives would still occur - doctors knew how to do it.

In case you missed MY point: Abortion is not a "right". It was not what Thomas Jefferson was referring to in the Declaration of Independence with all of us "being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights" (that reference to the Creator is his, not mine). Abortion is the result of an intellectually flawed Supreme Court decision that will someday be overturned. No legitimate "right" would give one person the ability under the law to kill another without any due process. That "right" certainly affects the life of the victim of the abortion!

The "woman's right to choose" - that sentence fragment - to choose what exactly? To choose to kill a baby. No one ever wants to complete the sentence, and I laugh at every politician who reads that talking point blankly off the teleprompter. That's the definition of vapid and unthinking.

If you have a better solution that addresses the rape situation or the threat to the mother's life, but does not reward irresponsibility, nor use abortion as a birth control method, I am all ears.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I don't have a position on gay rights, and I don't know how that got in any way intertwined with what has become an abortion debate. So that's a total non-sequitur.

I did hear the 1% number (ballpark) over many years - whether it was 0.9% or 1.4%, something in between - I'm sure it varies year-to-year like any statistic. It's not 10%.

The hypothetical process I espoused - as a point of departure for a debate - was an attempt to get a better handle on it than we have now - where basically the role of God is played by the would-be mother: deciding who lives and who dies. That is unjust. There needs to be some sort of objective criteria. Innocent victims - yes, offspring in all stages of development - should not be killed without some sort of due process.

If we (the government of the United States) stayed out of this from 1973 and onward, there would be no federally sanctioned abortion. It would continue to be the risky crime it used to be. Medical abortion to save lives would still occur - doctors knew how to do it.

In case you missed MY point: Abortion is not a "right". It was not what Thomas Jefferson was referring to in the Declaration of Independence with all of us "being endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights" (that reference to the Creator is his, not mine). Abortion is the result of an intellectually flawed Supreme Court decision that will someday be overturned. No legitimate "right" would give one person the ability under the law to kill another without any due process. That "right" certainly affects the life of the victim of the abortion!

The "woman's right to choose" - that sentence fragment - to choose what exactly? To choose to kill a baby. No one ever wants to complete the sentence, and I laugh at every politician who reads that talking point blankly off the teleprompter. That's the definition of vapid and unthinking.

If you have a better solution that addresses the rape situation or the threat to the mother's life, but does not reward irresponsibility, nor use abortion as a birth control method, I am all ears.

my point about rights, be they for homosexuals or women, is that the granting of rights doesn't equate you losing any rights. do you disagree about that?

as for the %, i brought that up because it's probably a skewed number. like i said above, people don't necessarily explain why they choose to end a pregnancy.

as for the mother choosing-she's choosing whether to be pregnant or not. it's not as tho a woman has any other choice when she finds out she's pregnant. you can't move the embryo elsewhere. you either continue the pregnancy, or you don't. not everyone equates abortion to murder-your belief that it is such doesn't make it so.

as for 'rewarding', that's a strange term. no birth control prevention is 100% effective. my mother joked that my brother was born with foam on his head (they had used a spermicide, ooops). so, if a woman does everything possible, but still becomes pregnant, tough crap. i find that ridiculous. and i doubt most women have a standing reservation at the local clinic-that's also a ridiculous assumption.

and the declaration of independence..it's a remarkable document, but i'm pretty sure we go by the constitution when we make laws.

[Danzig]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html



Share Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
May 2011
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion;[2] half have had at least one previous abortion.[6]

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, nearly one-third will have had an abortion.[5]


it goes on from there...

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

my point about rights, be they for homosexuals or women, is that the granting of rights doesn't equate you losing any rights. do you disagree about that?

as for the %, i brought that up because it's probably a skewed number. like i said above, people don't necessarily explain why they choose to end a pregnancy.

as for the mother choosing-she's choosing whether to be pregnant or not. it's not as tho a woman has any other choice when she finds out she's pregnant. you can't move the embryo elsewhere. you either continue the pregnancy, or you don't. not everyone equates abortion to murder-your belief that it is such doesn't make it so.

as for 'rewarding', that's a strange term. no birth control prevention is 100% effective. my mother joked that my brother was born with foam on his head (they had used a spermicide, ooops). so, if a woman does everything possible, but still becomes pregnant, tough crap. i find that ridiculous. and i doubt most women have a standing reservation at the local clinic-that's also a ridiculous assumption.

and the declaration of independence..it's a remarkable document, but i'm pretty sure we go by the constitution when we make laws.

You're correct: The Constitution is the law of the land of course. The Declaration of Independence is often cited as a key piece of the intellectual background for that document. It actually defines the origin of rights, something which the Constitution builds on. That's my reason for citing it here.

There are many non-guarantees in life. You can check your parachute with absolute expertise in observation, and if you skydive 1000 times, there is a nonzero probability that at least once your chute may fail. If you quit smoking, or have never smoked at all, you still might get lung cancer. If you invest in only blue-chip stocks like GE, IBM, Microsoft, depending on the market you still may lose money. Each of these things is a risk. If you don't want to ever get in a car accident - don't drive, and don't be a passenger in a motor vehicle. If you never want to be (or get somebody) pregnant - do the math. If you proceed anyway, you implicitly accept the risk and the consquences.

Your point about not being able to move the embryo is correct - at least today. There's an interesting philosophical argument to be had about if or when technology provides that ability -would that bring an end to the current state of abortion? Or are people as concerned about killing the responsibility along with the child. The embryo is transferred, but somebody comes to you 18 years from now saying, "Hi Mom. Can you help me out with a college loan?"

Again, I don't have a position on homosexual rights - but following your argument - this is different. The question comes down to when the embryo is alive. If it is alive, then abortion MUST be murder. If the embryo is not alive - and I don't know how we make that case since it's growing and would eventually be a human in the same state of development as you or I -then it's not a murder. The criteria for the murder definition is that simple. Through that mechanism, someone has lost their rights - not me as a fellow citizen of the country - but the individual who was murdered. That's why this is different. These are not two independent citizens as is the case in your homosexual rights argument. One is dependent on the other, and one can be killed by the other, with the victim unable to do anything about it.

In the general case where independent citizens are "pursuing happiness" as the Declaration put forward, I agree that rights granted to one segment that don't affect the other segment does not reduce the rights of the other segment. This is as long as they are truly independent. I don't think that applies when one group are the recipients and the other group is made up of providers, by force, through taxation.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html



Share Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States
May 2011
INCIDENCE OF ABORTION
• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion;[2] half have had at least one previous abortion.[6]

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45[4], and, at current rates, nearly one-third will have had an abortion.[5]


it goes on from there...

OK - I like statistics. None of these tell us how many of the abortions were medically necessary to save the mother's life or were necessary because of a rape-caused pregnancy.

The racial composition is irrelevant to the question of whose life should be preserved, obviously. All new life is precious, and every individual has the same right to live.

We already know that abortion is used for unintended pregnancy. The question is how many really were necessitated by the need to save the mother's life or because a crime was committed where the woman never would have consented to the act in the first place.

[Antitrust32]

I think women who smoke, drink or do drugs when pregnant should be charged with child abuse and sentenced to prison.

but, I am okay with abortion purely because this country can not afford unwanted children.

I think abortion used as a form of birth control is disgusting.. but I'd rather the fetus be sucked out and destroyed than paying for millions of unwanted kids who become wards of the state.