Yes, of course. Freedom for me but not for thee – based on my view of cells with DNA. My point exactly. You can’t have it both ways. Either champion individual freedom, or champion laws based on theocratic ideals.

You can argue for or against abortion from the perspective of individual freedom. If you grant human rights to a fetus, you’ll be against abortion. If you don’t grant human rights until birth, or viability, you’ll be for abortion. Both come from a human rights perspective. There’s no easy answer: you have two human organisms inhabiting the same body.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that, four weeks into the 111th Congress, FOCA has still not been introduced, despite the invitation by Obama that it would be the first legislation he would sign. Are the FoCKers savoring the moment or do they just know that this is radioactive? You know, Fear of Success can be cured.

So you are an advocate of anarchy? EVERY law on the books is based on someones view of right and wrong.

Next.

CDeb on January 28, 2009 at 4:21 PM

THANK YOU!

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_12.asp#When%20does%20the%20heart%20begin%20to%20beat?

Thanks to IrishEi as well for the link that shows the development of the foetus in such graphic detail. This link says that by the 12th week, doctors should be able to detect the heartbeat.

If any one watched the movie Marley and Me, John Grogan(played by Owen Wilson) takes his wife(played by Jennifer Anniston for a medical check up in the 9th/10th week of her pregnancy, only to be told by the doctor that the baby has lost its heartbeat and sometimes “it happens”. The movie is based on the true life experience of the Grogans.

It is very interesting to note that “KeepTheChange” keeps arguing that an unborn baby is a mere group of cells and that it is mere philosophy to say that it represents a life – well, it isnt philosohpy. It is a fricking FACT – when you have a baby with a heartbeat within the first 12 weeks of conception, what do you call it ? An unborn baby.

Within 20 weeks the baby has a fully formed circulatory system, heart and its other vital organs already in development. Roe v Wade allows a woman to abort UNTIL it becomes viable .i.e. 28th week typically.

Are we still talking about a “bunch of cells” ?

Even more disingenuous is the argument that a 5 month old baby does not have a “soul”. Huh? I am Hindu and I do believe in the concept of a soul, but give me a fricking break !

Gandhi clearly believed that foetal abortion was a crime – it goes beyond sinning for him.
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-abort-badkarma.html
I would bet a million dollars that MLK had the same view – cannot confirm this. Ditto Dalai Lama or any practising Buddhist.

If “personhood” is the criteria to justifying abortion, then why should killing a five month or five day old child be considered a crime ? After all an infant has no sense of self, personhood etc… Is it still life to the pro-choicers ?

For the longest time, i have given the benefit of doubt to those people who claimed that we couldnt conclusively prove that a foetus was life. But even THEN, no one had a satisfactory answer to the question ” when does life begin ?” – and if you dont know the answer to that question, why WOULD YOU NOT take the side of caution ? – abundant caution.

For a few people,abundant caution only means taking the oath of office of POTUS twice.

Abortion is clearly a grave and serious crime. Not because I philosophize about it, but because of the medical facts that hit you like a ton of bricks.

And yet look at how pro-choice people have drummed it into people’s heads that an unborn foetus is only a bunch of cells.

In the last election cycle, Ron Paul talked about the rights of an unborn child – he used this a stand to differentiate himself from traditional libertarians even though he sides with them on almost EVERY OTHER ISSUE.

Here’s a better slogan that would really hit at pro-choicers and make them sit up and think – What would Gandhi do ? What about MLK? What about a Buddhist like Dalai Lama – what would he do?

Of course please dont ask the question “what would Jesus do?” – that only gives them a choice to say how a “secular” debate has been made “religious”.

If Obama pushes for FOCA inspite of opposition from Catholic organizations and forces them to provide abortion services, it will show us what i suspected about him all along – an abortion extremist and left wing idealogue.

But given the fact that this moron would allow a born alive infant to die, would anyone be surprised if he signed FOCA into law ?

The Orwellian nature of the left – “free employee choice act”, “freedom of choice act” – it is truly revealing.

Standing by for thuja to starting talking about how a fetus is not a baby in 5..4…3…

kingsjester on January 28, 2009 at 3:39 PM

As the Wikipedia says, “Oil of thuja contains the terpene thujone which has been studied for its GABA receptor antagonistic, with potentially lethal properties.” Thujas need the thujone to fend off deer and Engrailed and Juniper Pug caterpillars. Killing is a basic function of life even for trees that look like cedars.

Nobama! Barakah!
Fight the FOCA suckah!

That’ll get the lefties’ panties in a bunch.

Thanks for the answer.

There is a danger in your criteria for human being as a “sentient self-aware entity,” however. Does this include a fetus which responds to pain? A preemie who was born early, lives outside the womb but doesn’t yet know how to suckle? A toddler? Mentally challenged adolescent? Etc.

Bottom line, I view a fetus as an unborn human being. This is based on my faith, my personal experiences, and my professional experiences. You apparently do not, and your perspective is also based on your worldview.

Society as a whole needs boundaries to allow human freedom within the limits of “unacceptable” behavior, which every culture has examples of. The rub is in agreeing on a value framework foundation (which all cultures also have) and what the implications are for that society.

The solution therefore is for you to refrain from abortion, and me to go the other way. Arguing about abortion is pointless because we are arguing philosophy.

The point that does need arguing is whether my view or your view should supercede the rights of the other by becoming law. My argument is that you should have the right to not engage in abortion if it violates your moral universe. You should have that right. Nobody should force you to do otherwise. That is the libertarian view. However, you don’t extend to others the same respect. You want your views to become law and to apply to everybody else.

There’s the rub.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Wrong.

No you are not arguing philosophy, just life vs. murder for convenience.

The question is: What right are you talking about? The right to murder an unborn child?

Your non-existent right does NOT supersede the right to life of the unborn child.

I’m gonna assume you are a man or boy.

Next question: Did you ever counsel a woman you impregnated to get an abortion?

You don’t have to answer it, but you sound like an apologist for the pro-abortion movement by totally ignoring the fact that an unborn baby is a human being. This has been confirmed now by science, not just religion.

Even true libertarians are pro-life because it is a civil rights issue.

Just because you call it murder, doesn’t make it so. But you want your view to become law to overrule all other views. That is not in keeping with the ideals of conservatism.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:11 PM

Correct. Just because he calls it murder doesn’t make it so. It is so because it is self-evident murder, as in duh!

Watch “Silent Scream” ALL of it on YouTube, and then come back here and tell us it isn’t murder.

You have a right to life. We conservatives believe in a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberals don’t.

Just ordered a black small shirt. I’m wearing it to Mass first chance I get. I’m itchin for stares from those ‘cafeteria’ Catholics.

A throwing the moneychangers out of the Temple moment.

Of course, the reason why we’re having this ridiculous debate is because the Supreme Court decided they would make up a right to abortion and proclaim that the Constitution mandates it, and no, you’re not allowed to know where the clause is. The Supreme Court knows where it is and we just have to take their word for it. Whenever the Supreme Court makes decisions like this, they just create rifts between people.

Me likey.

…when there is a debate that hinges on philosophy, especially one where one side quotes religious scripture, arguing that criminal law should be predicated upon one philosophy vs another, is more in keeping with Islamic countries rather than the United States.
…

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 5:03 PM

My scripture tells me that murder and theft are wrong, too. Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against those things?

I was pro-life LONG before I was a Christian. Yes, I find the pro-life position entirely consistent with and somewhat supported by the Bible; but its rightness was apparent to me on strictly humanitarian grounds, quite apart from religious faith. I still find those arguments much less ambiguous (and more universally compelling) than the scriptures.

Time for me to head for Church. I’ll try to check in later.

I thought conservatives were all about freedom of choice. Freedom to drive big trucks, own guns, worship, and all that jazz. All good. But freedom to choose in this instance – not so good. I guess this is what is called “naunce”.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM

You don’t have the freedom to choose to beat your toddler to death.

There isn’t a generic issue of choice here. The debate is over the particular act of abortion.

My criteria for a human being is a sentient self-aware entity. In fact, it goes further. I believe what makes us special is not our heart or brain, but our soul – the human mind. And souls are not created at the moment of conception, they are made through a lifetime of work, suffering, tribulation, joy and sorrow. And a lifetime of experience. A fetus does not have a soul. Once it is born, that process slowly begins.

But again, we are arguing philosophy which is pointless. The argument should be whether your philosophy should trump mine in the eyes of the law in a free country.

keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:51 PM

So, let me get this straight – if YOUR philosophy is allowed to trump MINE, it’s a wonderful thing.
But MINE should never, ever, be allowed to trump YOURS???
Oh, and by the way – who the f*** cares what your personal criteria is for a human being – yeah, my philosophy trumps yours, I win, game over.

We know that Obama is extremely pro-abortion but is he really so committed to this liberal sacrament that he would side with the abortion industry at the cost of so many health care facilities?

Rush divisive? He doesn’t come close to the FOCA crowd and their presidential cheer leader.

You are preaching that a tiny organism is the same as a full blown sentient human being.
keep the change on January 28, 2009 at 4:35 PM

That’s a dark and dangerous path you’re ethics are traveling down.
Life to me, and most conservatives, is a light switch. You are either alive or you are dead. Leftists believe that life is a dimmer switch. Subjectivity in the definition of something that sacred and important is quite scary.

Lebensunwertes Leben, indeed.

They don’t say it’s not life. They say it’s not “personhood” which they loosely define based on some arbitrary criteria.

Darth Executor on January 28, 2009 at 5:41 PM

Yeah, I’m guessing it’s something like that “slowly developing soul process” that keep the change talked about.

LOL. Good grief.

(Good link btw. How the heck did you find that?!)