In other words, it’s doing exactly what Maurice Strong and the WCPA bunch want it to.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM

.
Seriously? Methinks someone has been listening 2 glenn 2 much.

cam2 on January 23, 2013 at 4:05 PM

.
( s i g h ) . . . . . . . you arrived at that conclusion, HOW ?

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

The Bible teaches “Thou shalt do no murder.” It does not really address when life beings. Science is quite clear that life begins at conception. You can arbitrarily claim the dividing line is a human heartbeat, but it’s rather foolish to claim the developing baby is not alive long before then. It’s a distinct organism with a distinct growth rate and development, and its own DNA.

If it’s not human, what is it? A tumor? A growth? A cancer? Those used to be popular answers when abortion was first legalized, but we’ve learned a lot about fetal development since 1973. Such claims are so obviously wrong that even the hard-core abortion apologists gave up making those claims long ago, and now hang their hat on arguing, that what is obviously alive is somehow not actually human.

What should be clear at this point is that the abortion advocates will find a rationalization for what they want to do, no matter how far they have to stretch. Gallup may ask poll questions about which trimester abortions should be allowed in, but it’s a moot point. Abortions are allowed in ALL trimesters. We can argue about where to draw the line, but abortion advocates refuse to accept that there can be a line.

Just to show how silly and incomplete your “textbook” definition is – according to it, a human dick is a living organism.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM

You’re a fool or an idiot to make that sort of argument. That is an organ, neither distinct nor able to reproduce itself. If your wife’s biology book lacks such a definition, then it’s either a higher level textbook that assumes that sort of definition of a living organism, or it’s horribly incomplete.

Since you insist, a slightly different list (though the main elements are the same):

Organization.
Homeostasis.
Adaptation.
Reproduction and heredity.
Growth and development.
Detection and response to stimuli (both internal and external).
Interactions.

Or here:

When we try to define ‘living’, we conventionally look for distinctive characteristics exhibited by living organisms. Growth, reproduction, ability to sense environment and mount a suitable response come to our mind immediately as unique features of living organisms. One can add a few more features like metabolism, ability to self-replicate, self-organise, interact and emergence to this list.

Or a little bit different reference:

A living organism grows and develops. A tree begins as a seed, animals and humans start as embryos, and insects begin life as larvae.

dominigan on January 23, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Unfortunately, I don’t think he wants to understand. Other comments reveal someone rather callous about human life.

In other words, it’s doing exactly what Maurice Strong and the WCPA bunch want it to.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Seriously? Methinks someone has been listening 2 glenn 2 much.

I also want to point out that without massive immigration reform and an influx of people from more populated nations, which isn’t necessarily a good thing for the US culturally, etc., we are facing a population crisis over the next 30 years as the population fails to be replaced anywhere near as fast as it needs to be. The number of workers, business creators, etc. is falling fast.

PastorJon on January 23, 2013 at 2:09 PM

.
In other words, it’s doing exactly what Maurice Strong and the WCPA bunch want it to.

nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:33 AM

You’re making the racist and classist assumption that:

A) The vast majority of unwanted babies will be unproductive members of society
B) That the vast majority of abortions are by the poor and unproductive.

Wrong on both. Abortion is expensive. The entire reason libs want taxpayer funded abortion is because it’s too expensive for them to reach their goal of culling the poor population using it. Abortion is used primarily as birth control and primarily by people who can afford it. There’s actually incentive for those on welfare and other public assistance to NOT have an abortion because it increases the size of their checks . . .

Also, if these babies are “unwanted” they can be put up for adoption to people who do want them. They can become productive members of society, and help grow our economy. They can easily go on to invent things, cure diseases, etc. Even if they are kept, they are likely born to people who could have afforded the procedure. Plenty of our leaders and movers and shakers come from poor backgrounds as well.

Those points aside, to say we shouldn’t be saving the lives of babies because of the future they may or may not have, is sick, demented, and WRONG.

M2RB: Dogwood

Read before firing.

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

I love how you put life in quotes, as you can’t know what that word really means. If you don’t know the meaning of the word, go look it up at Dictionary.com. It’s pretty cut and dry. A fetus is alive. It’s also human (a DNA test can prove that). That isn’t a “Christian” thing… its a proven medical, scientific fact. A fetus is an early developmental stage of a human being. Other developmental stages are infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult and elderly. Those are all still referring to a living human being.

I think that the failures of the ideology will be evident in short order, as an example of what not to do. As for the rest of the country, the liberal world vision might have to be imposed instead of letting things take their natural course.
Time will tell.
Liam on January 23, 2013 at 10:19 AM

By now, I would think it’s pretty evident that we don’t really have much of a choice in the matter any longer.

Wouldn’t you agree?

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

.
I don’t mind overturning Roe v Wade – and in fact welcome it – because federal government must not encroach upon the right of states, neither through the court overreach nor by legislative fiat. What I definitely would mind, however, is a) any federal legislation explicitly banning abortion, and b) any legislation, federal or local, that forces me to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Has I made my position clear enough?

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:44 AM

.
Uhhh … clearer.

But how has the Federal not already “banned” abortion with the fourteenth amendment?
.
Cross-posting from yesterdays abortion thread:

The argument here turns on whether the federal government would continue to have a role in the criminalization and prosecution of abortion after that point.

Armin Tamzarian on January 22, 2013 at 8:13 PM

.
Prosecution should remain right where it is today for murder.

Local, local, local. Depending on a given set of circumstances surrounding a particular murder, it could go to the state.

As far as I’m concerned, implied criminalization of abortion begins with the Declaration Of Independence, but the Fourteenth Amendment goes beyond “implied” to definitive.

listens2glenn on January 22, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Abortion or any social issue should not hold sway over all other issues but to water it down enough on the basis of winning instead of culture of life is just wrong.
Happy Nomad on January 23, 2013 at 10:14 AM
so just be happy with losing on principle?
nonpartisan on January 23, 2013 at 10:16 AM

How would you know? We never do.

GWB on January 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I borrowed my wife’s biology textbook and did not find your definition there. Just to show how silly and incomplete your “textbook” definition is – according to it, a human dick is a living organism. Now, my wife and Contessa Brewer want to know if you have a medical or biology degree.

First, the term “scientific standard” does not mean what you think it does – namely, you’re expected to quote your source, and make sure they are peer-reviewed.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:31 AM

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Well, you can define it that way if you like, but scientists disagree. Here’s the definition of a living organism as found in most biology textbooks:

•an organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells
•is distinct from other “structures”
•grows/matures
•reproduces (at the appropriate maturity stage)
•metabolizes energy to survive or sustain existence
•responds to stimuli

All those are true of a zygote at the moment of conception. (If you want to get technical, it isn’t proven until the first cell division when it goes from zygote to embryo.) If you want to debate *personhood* rather than life, you will get into all sorts of sticky areas that can only be answered by metaphysics instead of biology.

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Thank you Archivarix. You ask the ultimate question, the one that it takes courage to ask: where does life begin?

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:49 AM

Does a person with an artificial heart count as living or dead in your view?

Nope. Conservatives just want our founding documents to be followed. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence provides the vision behind the Constitution, the highest law in the land.

dominigan on January 23, 2013 at 11:41 AM

I think the pivotal point of discussion here is whether, and at which point of development, the fetus can be considered “life”. For a faithful Christian, it is natural to believe that life begins at conception, but as a non-believer, I refuse to have someone’s moral values forced on me in form of legislation. To me, life begins with heartbeat, which can be reliably detected about 15th week; until then, it’s abortion on demand if both parents consent, and are willing to pay.

DUDE, repeating from yesterday . . . . . . . . having the Legislature overturn ‘Roe vs Wade’ is not “Big Government”.

Having vice-police snooping around, hoping to catch someone fornicating would be, however NO ONE is proposing any such thing.

If you see outlawing ‘abortion-on-demand’ as an encroachment to freedom, then I defy your definition of freedom.

listens2glenn on January 23, 2013 at 11:36 AM

I don’t mind overturning Roe v Wade – and in fact welcome it – because federal government must not encroach upon the right of states, neither through the court overreach nor by legislative fiat. What I definitely would mind, however, is a) any federal legislation explicitly banning abortion, and b) any legislation, federal or local, that forces me to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Has I made my position clear enough?

You’re nothing but big government liberals with a Bible; you just want the big government to do what you want, not what Barry wants.

Archivarix on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Nope. Conservatives just want our founding documents to be followed. The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence provides the vision behind the Constitution, the highest law in the land.

(And yes as a conservative, I’ll point out that the rights mentioned in those documents are largely based on our Judeo-Christian belief system.)