Democratic primary debate.

[luns101]

He restored that which Regan put into effect. Not much change. Partial Birth....how many of all abortions fall into this category? Very few. And even many pro-choicers are against this. Presidents can have whatever beliefs they wish....does not make it automatic that they become law.

Out of curiosity...who do you support?

Jay, Reagan's order was suspended under 8 years of Bill Clinton. Not much change! There is now a constitutional ban on an abortion procedure that was once legal. Not much change! That is a major turning point in the history of this issue. In one sentence you say that there's not much change and then in the next you say that presidents can have whatever beliefs they wish...but doesn't make it automatic they become law.....The partial-birth abortion ban is now actually the law!

I don't support anyone at this point. It is the responsibility of those campaigning to make their case. Since I'm a conservative I like what I'm hearing from Huckabee, however I don't know if he has enough experience to be president of the U.S. I'm still waiting for someone to take the conservative banner and run with it. If nobody does I might vote for the Republican candidate because the alternative would be another presidency of endless lies from the Clintons.

I certainly wouldn't want Hillary to become president. She is a disciple of Saul Alinsky. Although it wouldn't be the best choice, I would feel better about Rudy Guiliani being president than her.

[xtratabasco]

its so laughable that men (I assume your all men or males) will argue until HELL freezes over about what a woman can or cant do with her own body.

[luns101]

im gonna guess hes brownback or huckabee...but ive occasionally been wrong.

OK, smart guy. What number am I thinking of right now?!!

[got tonkaed]

im gonna guess hes brownback or huckabee...but ive occasionally been wrong.

OK, smart guy. What number am I thinking of right now?!!

if its between 1-10 the number is 3 or 7.

[luns101]

im gonna guess hes brownback or huckabee...but ive occasionally been wrong.

OK, smart guy. What number am I thinking of right now?!!

if its between 1-10 the number is 3 or 7.

wow, that's amazing...it was 3 (or 7). You're really starting to freak me out now!

[got tonkaed]

im gonna guess hes brownback or huckabee...but ive occasionally been wrong.

OK, smart guy. What number am I thinking of right now?!!

if its between 1-10 the number is 3 or 7.

wow, that's amazing...it was 3 (or 7). You're really starting to freak me out now!

lol before you think im too awesome, i stumbled across a study (or someone else did who told me...i certainly dont remember) that claims that the whole number process isnt random at all. People are far more likely to pick 3 or 7 which represent quartiles than any other number. Or so they claimed.

[jay_a2j]

its so laughable that men (I assume your all men or males) will argue until HELL freezes over about what a woman can or cant do with her own body.

Either abortion is killing a child or it's not. This goes FAR beyond "a woman's body"...there is another one who's rights are taken away.

A woman's right to choose, doesn't trump a child's right to live!

BTW luns...If the final choice was between Hillary and Ron Paul who would you vote for?

[got tonkaed]

since this thread is living off being jacked at the moment....

i admit im somewhat ambivalent over the drive of the value voter, which both you (read jay and luns) are compelled to engage in, when looking at the political scene. When we talk about someone whose going to lead the country or large scale political policy, we frequently have to delve into areas that are mulitfacted and complicated.

When we reduce political aspiriations/understandings to very simple notions that are tied into goals that are very difficult if not impossible to achieve in the current political climate, which is at the heart of many value voter issue, i begin to wonder, what exactly is the point? Essentially you are painted into a corner and forced to choose from a small pool of candidates who are very difficult to elect to unelectable, simply because they are the only ones who will support political objectives which are very unlikely to be fruitfully accomplished (i suppose this part of the rant is toward luns primarily)

Now dont get me wrong, i understand the reasons why people take these issues on so seriously, and i realize they come close to the heart. But the more politicized these issues become, the more they seem to really curtial the amount of other political ends that can be guarded by individuals. In many cases people are forced to choose between candidates who will best serve their economic or political interests and those who will support these value vote issues, and thats not an easy choice to make. Likewise i understand that everyone can and should exercise their political rights in the arenas they wish and im not asking for value voters to go away or claim that people shouldnt be allow to try and create changes on some of these issues.

I just am ranting (and i dont know if this is really that responsive friendly) that maybe the entire value voter system is doing much more of a disservice than it is doing anyone any good, especially if these ends are somewhat to very unachievable.

[suggs]

Either abortion is killing a child or it's not. This goes FAR beyond "a woman's body"...there is another one who's rights are taken away.

A woman's right to choose, doesn't trump a child's right to live!

Depneds on the whole is it a child? is it a feotus? At what stage does a baby/ foeutus (Sp?!) become conscious.
I doubt theres anyhing wrong with terminating a foeutus, since its highly unlikely that its conscious.

[jay_a2j]

Either abortion is killing a child or it's not. This goes FAR beyond "a woman's body"...there is another one who's rights are taken away.

A woman's right to choose, doesn't trump a child's right to live!

I doubt theres anyhing wrong with terminating a foeutus, since its highly unlikely that its conscious.

"highly unlikely"

In the 8th week of pregnancy (when MOST abortions are preformed) they are indeed conscience. Watch the movie Silent Scream and you will see the fetus MOVE AWAY from the abortion instrument which is approaching it to dismember it.

[suggs]

That doesn't constitue consciousness.
A fly reacts when you try to swat it, but its not a not a rational, thinking being, and neither is afoeutus.
I wish i could remener te name of the Australian philosopher who really goes extreme on this one, and even argues that infanticide up to the ge of eighteen months is prob OK, cos they are not alive in any significant brain pattern way.
I grant you that a bit dodgy.
But aborrtion of a foetus is definitely no problem, and indeed essential for any balanced, progressive society.

[got tonkaed]

That doent constitue consciousness.
A fly reacts when you try to swat it, but its not a not a rational, thinking being, and neither is afoeutus.
I wish i could remener te name of the Australian philosopher who really goes extreme on this one, and even argues that infanticide up to the ge of eighteen months is prob OK, cos they are not alive in any significant brain pattern way.
I grant you that a bit dodgy.
But aborrtion of a foetus is definitely no problem, and indeed essential for any balanced, progressive society.

Peter singer....its part of a fairly well developed (even if you dont agree with it) argument about how we should be dealing with death and dying.

[suggs]

You MASSIVE winner!
I saw an article in newspaper a few years back, and couldnt remember who it was.
I've actually got a Singer book somewhere, I'll dig it out.
Sad how happy thats made me!

[Guiscard]

Watch the movie Silent Scream and you will see the fetus MOVE AWAY from the abortion instrument which is approaching it to dismember it.

Sunflowers move to face the sun... They must be conscious too...

[got tonkaed]

You MASSIVE winner!
I saw an article in newspaper a few years back, and couldnt remember who it was.
I've actually got a Singer book somewhere, I'll dig it out.
Sad how happy thats made me!

i picked up a collection of his works this summer

Writings on an ethical life i think, was pretty interesting material. I cant think of too many people who have as much sway as he does in his circles, though im not much of an actual philosopher, just an armchair one.

[unriggable]

Jay, are you saying having sex with a pregnant woman is bad?

[got tonkaed]

since i like to put words in other peoples mouths....

i bet he sees it on a bit of a spectrum....in hetero married couples its not the best but somewhat tolerable, since a healthy sex life can be part of a God-loving marriage. However out of wedlock pregnancies this is even more regrettable because the sex practices are a bit questionable to begin with in an ideal world.

[jay_a2j]

Jay, are you saying having sex with a pregnant woman is bad?

No, I'm saying and I'll quote, "If a man strikes a pregnant woman and the child dies put him to death also" I think that's pretty cut and dry on how God feels about the issue.

[Guiscard]

Jay, are you saying having sex with a pregnant woman is bad?

No, I'm saying and I'll quote, "If a man strikes a pregnant woman and the child dies put him to death also" I think that's pretty cut and dry on how God feels about the issue.

Which is a very sensible rule in a tribal group worried about its survival. As is all the brothers wife taking business.

[suggs]

Jay, are you saying having sex with a pregnant woman is bad?

No, I'm saying and I'll quote, "If a man strikes a pregnant woman and the child dies put him to death also" I think that's pretty cut and dry on how God feels about the issue.

No. Thats a pretty cut and dried expression of an individual human beings take on the issue, i.e whoever wrote that bit in the Bible. Thats like saying, "Look God exists, it says so in the Bible" or "West Ham are the best team in London-it says so in their Fanzine". A tad circular.

Plus didnt think God was really into killing, according to that bloke Moses...

[jay_a2j]

Jay, are you saying having sex with a pregnant woman is bad?

No, I'm saying and I'll quote, "If a man strikes a pregnant woman and the child dies put him to death also" I think that's pretty cut and dry on how God feels about the issue.

No. Thats a pretty cut and dried expression of an individual human beings take on the issue, i.e whoever wrote that bit in the Bible. Thats like saying, "Look God exists, it says so in the Bible" or "West Ham are the best team in London-it says so in their Fanzine". A tad circular.

Plus didnt think God was really into killing, according to that bloke Moses...

But you're all for it up to the 18 month of life.

[suggs]

I'm not sure about Stringer and infanticide. But abortions all to the good.
That is unless you want us all living in cattle sheds when the global population explodes.
Anyway, I'm sure this point has been made, but who on earth are the government to tell a woman, no you must keep those few cells "alive" -absurd.

[got tonkaed]

I'm not sure about Stringer and infanticide. But abortions all to the good.
That is unless you want us all living in cattle sheds when the global population explodes.
Anyway, I'm sure this point has been made, but who on earth are the government to tell a woman, no you must keep those few cells "alive" -absurd.

the thing about his argument that people have to understand is that he views life as more than simply the act of living. He argues if we were going to be consistent with our views about the protection of simply life then we would have to all be basically vegetarians. So he argues if we value human life as something more, it has to be because of our humanity, which is tied deeply into cognitive abilities and an ability to place ourselves in the future....which to his money makes things like infantcide (of those who are essentially brain dead) tolerable.

Clearly its a stance that you can only take if you view life the same way he does, which he unpacks much more than i do or probably could here.

[suggs]

Have to say, think its a pretty strong argument.
Otherwise plant lovers would havea real case, as trees etc are clearly "biologically" alive.
It neatly simplifies the abortion debate too.

[jay_a2j]

Have to say, think its a pretty strong argument.
Otherwise plant lovers would havea real case, as trees etc are clearly "biologically" alive.
It neatly simplifies the abortion debate too.

You have got to be kidding! I can't be involved with a debate with the irrational.