Another gop govt shutdown?!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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

Thanks for the article.

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.

[OldDog]

Now joey, you know you're not allowed to voice an opinion, not having a vagina and all.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Now joey, you know you're not allowed to voice an opinion, not having a vagina and all.

Well, maybe Donald Trump is showing everybody that this political correctness bullsh*t has gone too far.

And besides, half of those 50 million casualties were female, and half were male, so we should all be able to render an opinion.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Well, maybe Donald Trump is showing everybody that this political correctness bullsh*t has gone too far.

And besides, half of those 50 million casualties were female, and half were male, so we should all be able to render an opinion.

anyone can have an opinion...
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????

[Danzig]

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

[OldDog]

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."

[jms62]

Originally Posted by OldDog

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."

I am shocked that any political party would use the media to attack the other party. I am equally shocked that the media will run with a story without significant fact checking. Still even more shocking is the American public will accept anything presented on the Internet or media as gospel. But then again they accept gospel as gospel in defiance of science but I digress.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Thanks for the article.

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.
...so, did you read the article? if so...how can you just repeat what you said above?
sperm and egg meeting is just one of many steps involved in what will ultimately, possibly, create a new human being. them doing the tango doesn't mean squat if the new combo doesn't get attached to the uterine wall...and then develop, etc, etc and remain til it gets far enough along to survive delivery.

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. it didn't 'short circuit' anything. abortion had been legal in part of the united states from the time even before it was united..or anything was a 'state'

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.
way more involved than 'irresponsibility'. but, like the post above, and what i'm writing here...it probably won't matter. i suggest you get all the facts about who gets abortions and why, and how many were on bc when they got pregnant. or circumstances changed, etc. and there's the pesky biological thing to begin with. i'm 48 now. guess what, i still haven't hit menopause. so, were tony and i to do all to prevent, and something failed, i'm to be forced to maintain a risky pregnancy with risks for the fetus as well? were it not for bc, god knows how many kids i'd have. three we had came along pretty damn easy.
i'm to take risks, for you to sleep well? we have overloaded this planet, and you think we should keep doing so? to what end?

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.

try again on the last, regarding 'selling' body parts. and just where do you suppose the various labs, scientists, colleges, universities, etc, etc, get all the various and sundry cures for various and sundry diseases? how they glean info about the human body? how they know how long a body has been dead? how they know how they'll go about fixing my herniated disc i just found out i have? trial and error? operating on folks and saying 'ooops, that didn't work. bring in the next and we'll try plan c'?

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

try again on the last, regarding 'selling' body parts. and just where do you suppose the various labs, scientists, colleges, universities, etc, etc, get all the various and sundry cures for various and sundry diseases? how they glean info about the human body? how they know how long a body has been dead? how they know how they'll go about fixing my herniated disc i just found out i have? trial and error? operating on folks and saying 'ooops, that didn't work. bring in the next and we'll try plan c'?

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.

"sperm and egg meeting is just one of many steps involved in what will ultimately, possibly, create a new human being. them doing the tango doesn't mean squat if the new combo doesn't get attached to the uterine wall...and then develop, etc, etc and remain til it gets far enough along to survive delivery."

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.

[jms62]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpmInmrokUk

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpmInmrokUk

well said. and probably a lot less trouble than what i wrote, and just as sure to make a person change their mind....

[Danzig]

[/color]

Originally Posted by joeydb

"sperm and egg meeting is just one of many steps involved in what will ultimately, possibly, create a new human being. them doing the tango doesn't mean squat if the new combo doesn't get attached to the uterine wall...and then develop, etc, etc and remain til it gets far enough along to survive delivery."

OK, fine, but the whole pro-life stance of many is anchored on finding the point at which nothing should be done to baby--that line has been set, remember? 24 weeks? after that point, states can make rules, and some have chosen to do so. others have not. and that time frame hasn't been altered from that time to now. unless/until medical advances change that, it will remain the line.
, 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-completely disagree. one, that ignores what science knows. two, there is a human involved-the woman. it's her decision, her body, her uterus. i will never, ever concede the rights of a potential human override the life of the person who is actually a human, already here, and fully capable of deciding for herself. she knows her life, her circumstances, her abilities, or her health.
. 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. viability wasn't arbitrarily chosen. it isn't a 'legal' device.



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". ...i'm sorry you don't understand what you just wrote about.

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. maybe it is, maybe it's not. but yes, everyone is aware that if a pregnancy proceeds, a baby will come.
but if i throw away an acorn, i didn't chop down an oak tree.

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. yeah, not quite. when i miscarried, i didn't say my baby died. i said i had a miscarriage. and yes, an abortion ends a pregnancy, which again would produce a baby if it's carried the whole time. and a lot of people do have issues with bc, and i've seen countless discussion where people claim certain bc is an abortaficent. of course them holding that opinion doesn't make it so.

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. the previous three sentences imo are ridiculous. it's your opinion, which you have a right to have. having said this, do you think a woman should go to jail for having a legal abortion? and it is an assult on a womans health. pregnancy for centuries was the number one cause of death for women. it still kills women. and should women here have to go thru stuff like that poor girl in paraguay? forced at ten to carry a pregnancy to term..pregnant after being raped by her step father.

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? the exceedingly vast majority of abortion occurs before week 12, and the vast majority of those-before week 8. people keep saying 'week 20 should be the limit', but week 20 is when many prenatal testing can finally be done-testing that would show an unhealthy fetus. so, one, you don't know it's a 'healthy baby' that early on, it's too soon to tell a darn thing. two, a healthy woman can get pretty unhealthy in a hurry further along, and three, if they bar abortion at 20 weeks, women would be forced to carry a doomed pregnancy to term. i can't imagine having to do that, especially with some of the issues some fetuses develop.

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. it's pro choice, not pro abortion many pro choice people don't like abortion, would never have one-but don't think their views should be foisted on every one else-unlike the anti-choice pro birth crowd.

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.

as for your last paragraph.
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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

[/color]

as for your last paragraph.
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.

Not going to change your mind Danzig, and the reverse is certainly true.

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.

[OldDog]

Huh.

Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 23 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"); these are indicated below with an asterisk (*).

more details here
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Huh.



more details here
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/...tate-laws.aspx

Yep, they exist. Note they don't apply to abortion. Those charges typically get pinned onto a case where the woman wished to keep her pregnancy.
There was a guy here a couple years ago who intentionally rammed his car into his estranged wife's car. Killed the passenger who was pregnant. So, two murder charges filed by the state.
Go figure tho.....people leave their kids in hot cars and don't get charged....
Amazing how much more people sorry about those not born than those who are here already.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Not going to change your mind Danzig, and the reverse is certainly true.

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.

Nope, its not. And again, its up to the woman to be pregnant or not. And they were legal in many states long before roe v wade. Make them illegal again and it'll keep happening....only you'll have dead women too.
I'm figuring tho that doesn't matter. Protect the unborn, but to hell with the born.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

So do you feel women should go to jail for having abortions? Because you know, outlawing something doesn't eliminate it. In fact, during the Victorian era, when abortion was pretty much illegal across the country, some estimates put the per capita rate of abortion at 8 times what it is today.

So, what do you propose the punishment for these mothers (because the majority of women who have elective abortions already have at least one child) be? How many years do you think they should be locked away from their already living children for, Joey? What do you think is an appropriate sentence? Because if you're going to say it should be illegal, you need to be willing to back that up with what you think an appropriate sentence is.

Of course, outlaw it and the sentence for many women will be death. In the years immediately prior to Roe, 17 percent of maternal mortality deaths were due to illegal abortions. And in the mid 20th century it was estimated that there were between 200,000 and 1 million illegal abortions a year. This is when it was illegal, Joey. You think that's going to change if it's made illegal again? Please. We had almost 100 years of it being illegal and the rate per year was anywhere from 200,000 to 2,000,000 a year, depending on the source. And that's with a lot smaller population than we have today.

And the stats today- a vacuum-aspiration abortion carries a risk of death prior to eight weeks' gestation of one in one million. An abortion after 20 weeks' gestation creeps up to a little less than 9 in one million.

And childbirth? 12.7 per 100,000 will die. In just my own experience, I know one 13 year old girl whose mother died in childbirth and a pair of 4 year old twins whose mother died birthing them.

The long and short of it is, if abortion is outlawed, it will continue, at likely the same numbers it happens now, but the big difference is thousands of women will die every year from it, as they did in the past. Wives will die. Mothers will die. Daughters will die. They will die.

If you support abortion being made illegal again, you are saying you think death is an appropriate punishment for getting an abortion, because that will be the real world effect, no matter what fairy tale you try to spin for yourself. So never mind, Joey. You already answered Danzig's question.

[GenuineRisk]

But hey, I think we found Joey's candidate for President:

http://jezebel.com/mike-huckabee-den...-vi-1724398646

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So do you feel women should go to jail for having abortions? Because you know, outlawing something doesn't eliminate it. In fact, during the Victorian era, when abortion was pretty much illegal across the country, some estimates put the per capita rate of abortion at 8 times what it is today.

So, what do you propose the punishment for these mothers (because the majority of women who have elective abortions already have at least one child) be? How many years do you think they should be locked away from their already living children for, Joey? What do you think is an appropriate sentence? Because if you're going to say it should be illegal, you need to be willing to back that up with what you think an appropriate sentence is.

Of course, outlaw it and the sentence for many women will be death. In the years immediately prior to Roe, 17 percent of maternal mortality deaths were due to illegal abortions. And in the mid 20th century it was estimated that there were between 200,000 and 1 million illegal abortions a year. This is when it was illegal, Joey. You think that's going to change if it's made illegal again? Please. We had almost 100 years of it being illegal and the rate per year was anywhere from 200,000 to 2,000,000 a year, depending on the source. And that's with a lot smaller population than we have today.

And the stats today- a vacuum-aspiration abortion carries a risk of death prior to eight weeks' gestation of one in one million. An abortion after 20 weeks' gestation creeps up to a little less than 9 in one million.

And childbirth? 12.7 per 100,000 will die. In just my own experience, I know one 13 year old girl whose mother died in childbirth and a pair of 4 year old twins whose mother died birthing them.

The long and short of it is, if abortion is outlawed, it will continue, at likely the same numbers it happens now, but the big difference is thousands of women will die every year from it, as they did in the past. Wives will die. Mothers will die. Daughters will die. They will die.

If you support abortion being made illegal again, you are saying you think death is an appropriate punishment for getting an abortion, because that will be the real world effect, no matter what fairy tale you try to spin for yourself. So never mind, Joey. You already answered Danzig's question.

Which part of it "ending a human life" did you miss?

Every practice that is outlawed continues to some degree. There is drug abuse. There is underage drinking. There is insider trading. Yes, there are other varieties of murder. But obviously the incidence of these things goes down when they are outlawed and punishment after due process is applied.

Ever watch the investigative dramas about police work? There are many, many characters depicted that are in a bind, maybe they murder to end exploitation or blackmail, or they got carried away with an emotional reaction, or they were just stone cold evil. In every case, the sorting out of the case is left to the courts. The apprehension and charging of the suspect is uniformly carried out by the police, and then the case is adjudicated by the court.

That is all fiction of course, but it should say something about how we view the law and how we teach our kids (the ones not aborted), about right and wrong.

The idea that we would let a heinous practice continue to be legal just because people will continue to do it is not one that I would support.