The irony of someone with a screen name of “adamsmith” claiming humans to be non-persons until the moment of government recognition is monumental and mind-boggling.

Ed Morrissey on May 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM

.
Thank you, Ed. Pithy, yet devastating.

People are going oveseas because unless you meet 100 percent of the state agency’s ridiculousy high standards you will never get to adopt a baby.

davod on May 18, 2008 at 6:12 AM

And who wants to go through that scrutiny to get a crack baby or a special-needs child, especially if you are turning to adoption after years of physically, emotionally, and financially taxing fertility treatments?

Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Too many people don’t want the government making personal decisions.

If it’s ever overturned the decision will revert back to the states. Some states would outlaw abortions, other states would allow them.

The NARAL endorsement might hurt Obama in some states.

You mean the rest of the world was operating in an environmentally friendly way.

People are going oveseas because unless you meet 100 percent of the state agency’s ridiculousy high standards you will never get to adopt a baby.

I bet they have a crush on Obama.

SouthernGent on May 17, 2008 at 12:49 PM

I bet they want to have his baby.

adamsmith on May 17,2008 at 9:58PM.

adamsmith: The clever Left have more terms and descriptions
for their agendas,when the womens ingredients
meet the males ingredients,its LIFE,a human
being,aborting is murder!

And I’m a tad miffed,since when did abortion
become an issue during this election?

You need a birth certificate to be a baby..My two cents and here comes the flame……….

adamsmith on May 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

If that’s the case, why was Scott Peterson convicted of killing his unborn child along with his conviction for killing his pregnant wife, Lacy?

I have had this argument before concerning unwanted babies being a burden, therefore we shouldn’t oppose abortion.

brotherbell on May 17, 2008 at 12:50 PM

I agree with brotherbell. Carried to its logical conclusion then it should be legal as Peter Singer advocates, that if that child is going to be a burden, that determination should take place at anytime during the child’s life, and that child could be terminated at any time. The only difference between what liberals call a “fetus” and a baby is location. Death in the womb is the same as death in this world.

They are terminating fetuses. You need a birth certificate to be a baby..My two cents and here comes the flame……….

adamsmith on May 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

If that fetus (Latin for infant) in the womb is not a human what is it? If it’s human why is it legal to kill him or her? Modern medicine has shown time and time again the infant in the womb is a living human being.
And a piece of paper does not make you a human being. That’s God’s job.

They may have gained a nominal influence with Obama

Nominal influence? Not really: they gained a promise of money — something Obama’s swimming in, and Hillary isn’t.

They are terminating fetuses. You need a birth certificate to be a baby..My two cents and here comes the flame……….

adamsmith on May 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM

A piece of paper does not make you a human being. Not having that piece of paper does not make you less than a human being.

(That way lies many, many horrors, but I don’t think that you were thinking in that vein. On to the vein in which I believe (and fervently hope) that you were thinking:)

A trip through the birth canal does not make you a human being (look at C-Section Births). A certain period of gestation does not make you a human being (look at the premature babies (like myself) who survive at shorter and shorter gestation periods).

You are a human being because you are you.

If a “fetus” is a life then it doesn’t matter what will happen after, it should be protected by any Government who holds life sacred. It is not the job of the Government to decide the worth of the “fetus” to society nor is it a parents job because how can they know? 29victor nailed it on the head! What stops us from tossing kids into the furnace because they aren’t living up to expectations or there a burden to the society? Obviously a strong example but think what road we start to travel when we accept abortion as birth control!

I find it interesting that two posters refuse to refer to a “fetus” as a “human/baby” and I wonder what they would think happens when a sperm/egg join? Is it semi-human? Is it half-human? If it is a human at the point of conception then the pro-life argument wins. It is also interesting to me that a birth circtificate which is Government implemented would be the definition of “life” to someone who is so anti-government. Ouch.

I know someone who just “terminated two fetuses” because her husband didn’t think they could afford two more “babies”. All I know is she is practically suicidal now. The doctor who was so eager to “terminate the fetuses” didn’t encourage her to seek any kind of therapy or explain what hormonal changes might happen to her body. She is crazy with guilt, is sure she will burn in hell and can barely care for her other two children. Of course husband won’t even think of getting a vasectomy. That situation occurs more often than the rape situation, I’ll bet. Abortion is being used to replace birth control and it is not ok.

ctmom on May 17, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Your friend needs to leave that tool, like yesterday. And I’m pro-choice.

There are some cases where adoption is unfortunately not the answer. Two women I know of had abortions because their psychotic exes would neither have let them raise the child in peace nor have let them give the kid up for adoption. And let’s be honest, people are going to Romania and China in order to avoid adopting addict babies and special-needs children.

So addicts, people unwilling to get adequate prenatal care, and women who date psychos shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place. My TARDIS is in the shop, so could I borrow yours in order to remedy this?

The irony of someone with a screen name of “adamsmith” claiming humans to be non-persons until the moment of government recognition is monumental and mind-boggling.

Ed Morrissey on May 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM

I believe it’s the principle of the invisible brain.

stenwin77 on May 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM

I fully agree.

http://www.cashill.com/regional/kline_v_kansas.htm