Michelle Bachmann

[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.

[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.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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

In the scenario I presented....absolutely. Are you human? You'd rather force a 13 year old that was raped to have a baby because she is too embarassed or ashamed to admit what happened to her? I'll ask again, are you human?

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

Bulls.hit. It's all about religion. You can deny it, but I have seen enough of your posts to know that is how you form your opinions. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by joeydb

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.

Since abortion is legal, I don't have to defend my position. You're the one interested in pushing your religious beliefs on me and others and trying to intervene in people's lives. That's all on you Kirk Cameron.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

In the scenario I presented....absolutely. Are you human? You'd rather force a 13 year old that was raped to have a baby because she is too embarassed or ashamed to admit what happened to her? I'll ask again, are you human?



Bulls.hit. It's all about religion. You can deny it, but I have seen enough of your posts to know that is how you form your opinions. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.



Since abortion is legal, I don't have to defend my position. You're the one interested in pushing your religious beliefs on me and others and trying to intervene in people's lives. That's all on you Kirk Cameron.

You're so human you want to kill another human so nobody has to file a police report.

You don't know sh*t about me. Yes, I belong to a religion, but I likely know more about science than you do, and that is how I form my opinions. Since only I know my own inner thoughts, it's ridiculous for you to claim you know the origins of my motivations. I reiterate: a pro-life position need not be religious in nature. Stop the killing the innocent.

You do need to defend why the government approved termination of human life should be allowed to continue. Once the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, I'm sure you'll be quite vocal.

I suspect that your motivation is one of guilt. You can't accept that the position you advocate for is wrong, in that innocent babies are being killed. You'll defend that position to the last, and demonize any who oppose you, so that you won't have to accept the inexorable truth.

[dino]

I'm not religious but have no problem calling abortion murder in most instances. Funny how the opposition always seems to come up with something like what about if a 13 year old just started having her period and it was a Tuesday during lent with a full moon and she got raped by her second uncle who had aids and was mentally slow. Now should she have the baby?
Why don't they ever point out the 99 out of 100 abortions that are just a matter of convienience? They always try to come up with some 1 in a 100,000 senerio.
OOPS I'm not agreeing with Dahoss so he'll probably make some personal insult and then hide behind his computer.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by dino

I'm not religious but have no problem calling abortion murder in most instances. Funny how the opposition always seems to come up with something like what about if a 13 year old just started having her period and it was a Tuesday during lent with a full moon and she got raped by her second uncle who had aids and was mentally slow. Now should she have the baby?
Why don't they ever point out the 99 out of 100 abortions that are just a matter of convienience? They always try to come up with some 1 in a 100,000 senerio.
OOPS I'm not agreeing with Dahoss so he'll probably make some personal insult and then hide behind his computer.

Correct on all counts, especially about the next incoming insult from Dahoss. Countdown in 5, 4, 3...

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by dino

I'm not religious but have no problem calling abortion murder in most instances. Funny how the opposition always seems to come up with something like what about if a 13 year old just started having her period and it was a Tuesday during lent with a full moon and she got raped by her second uncle who had aids and was mentally slow. Now should she have the baby?
Why don't they ever point out the 99 out of 100 abortions that are just a matter of convienience? They always try to come up with some 1 in a 100,000 senerio.
OOPS I'm not agreeing with Dahoss so he'll probably make some personal insult and then hide behind his computer.

Another circle jerk today? Don't you boys ever get tired?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Another circle jerk today? Don't you boys ever get tired?

Well, counting your posts on "circle jerks", I'd assume that's a big hobby of yours.

Cut to the chase and answer this: When does life begin: at conception or at some point after? If after, tell me when.

If you cannot answer that question, the only responsible position is to not interfere with that process at any point after conception.

Note: there are NO religious references in that argument. Scientifically, tell me and cite the source of your facts. WHEN does life begin?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Well, counting your posts on "circle jerks", I'd assume that's a big hobby of yours.

Cut to the chase and answer this: When does life begin: at conception or at some point after? If after, tell me when.

If you cannot answer that question, the only responsible position is to not interfere with that process at any point after conception.

Note: there are NO religious references in that argument. Scientifically, tell me and cite the source of your facts. WHEN does life begin?

It's not as simple as you are making it, which has been my point all along.

But if you insist on ignoring my points, I'm going to ignore your questions. It was a big mistake posting in this room anyway. Byk should have closed it down years ago.

Are you catching tonight or is it tough guy Dino's turn?

[clyde]

Originally Posted by dino

I'm not religious but have no problem calling abortion murder in most instances. Funny how the opposition always seems to come up with something like what about if a 13 year old just started having her period and it was a Tuesday during lent with a full moon and she got raped by her second uncle who had aids and was mentally slow. Now should she have the baby?
Why don't they ever point out the 99 out of 100 abortions that are just a matter of convienience? They always try to come up with some 1 in a 100,000 senerio.
OOPS I'm not agreeing with Dahoss so he'll probably make some personal insult and then hide behind his computer.

r u not saying stupid things under computer cover?

[dino]

Originally Posted by clyde

r u not saying stupid things under computer cover?

Yo Claude, or Clyde, or whoever you are. As I told you and Dahoss, If you want to insult me then feel free to do it in person anytime you're in Saratoga. Otherwise keep your punk opinions to yourself.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by dino

Yo Claude, or Clyde, or whoever you are. As I told you and Dahoss, If you want to insult me then feel free to do it in person anytime you're in Saratoga. Otherwise keep your punk opinions to yourself.

I'll keep that in mind,fucl<face.

If I don't make Sara's....you can find me here:


7027 North Aurora Road,Bainbridge,Ohio.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You're so human you want to kill another human so nobody has to file a police report.

I obviously didn't say that. If you didn't insist on being disingenuous you wouldn't say that. I'm not big on absolutes. I realize there are different circumstances for people. I realize sometimes when someone is raped they don't report it. Just like people don't report other crimes for whatever reason. I don't think forcing a rape victim to have a child because they didn't report the crime, for whatever reason they, THE VICTIM, might have is very human.

Originally Posted by joeydb

You don't know sh*t about me.

Here's where it gets good. Anyone who has read a few minutes of this hell hole of a room knows your positions and how they are formed. But what I find so funny is in one sentence you say I know nothing about you, despite hundreds of posts, yet you spend the next two paragraphs making baseless and untrue claims about me. Disingenuous to a fault.

Originally Posted by joeydb

You do need to defend why the government approved termination of human life should be allowed to continue. Once the Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade, I'm sure you'll be quite vocal.

No, I don't need to defend anything. Keep trying.

Originally Posted by joeydb

I suspect that your motivation is one of guilt. You can't accept that the position you advocate for is wrong, in that innocent babies are being killed. You'll defend that position to the last, and demonize any who oppose you, so that you won't have to accept the inexorable truth.

Spoken like a true religious nut. Thanks for proving my point.

[jms62]

I got the solution, we vote on it and if the Pro-Lifers win then no more abortions HOWEVER a woman still can choose not to have the baby and it is assigned via lottery to one of the lucky winners that voted to eliminate abortions.