[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The abortion issue is all about religion, and you know it. To suggest otherwise shows how disingenuous you are.

You might want to tell all the people who oppose abortion who aren't particularly religious. They'd probably want to know all the reasons they have for not supporting it are just "religion". Go for it!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your reply shows how little you understand of human psychology and motivation. People join organizations because those organizations have similar beliefs. Some people take their beliefs too seriously in instances like this and commit heinous crimes as a result. Are those individuals criminally culpable for their actions? Of course! When the organization uses terms like "murderer," and other hateful terms, to describe those who believe differently than they do, they may not be criminally culpable, but they certainly are civilly culpable in inciting violence.

So then you agree that PETA and CODE PINK are dangerous organizations promoting violence and crime? I mean, for consistency's sake, right?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I brought up the fact that Tiller was making in excess of $1 million a year because the bottom line is it not about choice, it's about money.

Abortion isn't covered by insurance, so as medical procedures go, it's relatively affordable. I'd be surprised if it's the cash cow you're implying it is.

At least relative to the amount of money you can make providing OB/GYN services that are covered by insurance.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You might want to tell all the people who oppose abortion who aren't particularly religious. They'd probably want to know all the reasons they have for not supporting it are just "religion". Go for it!

Whoosh.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So then you agree that PETA and CODE PINK are dangerous organizations promoting violence and crime? I mean, for consistency's sake, right?

Whoosh.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I don't think Islam has been villainized.

I do think those who promote radical Islamic doctrine WHO DO preach hate and violence HAVE been appropriately villianized though. I see no real "blanket" villianization of Islam as a whole. Maybe I'm missing it.

You are.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Whoosh.

Someone might want to grab the cork that flew out of OldManMac's ear. I hear stuff leaking out....

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You may try, but if you claim to be a member of a religious group, your religious upbringing has a definitive and substantial effect on your beliefs. Your god and his church has decreed that taking a human's life is wrong, and you can try to cloak it in other terms, but it won't wash.

I do realize that my religious upbringing is going to have some kind of influence on how I generally think about things, but whether or not taking a human life is wrong is a pretty unbiased belief. If you were to poll the entire world on it, regardless of dogma, most people would agree that taking a human life is not a desirable outcome to any action.

I believe that abortion is ending a human life because I've seen no objective evidence to the contrary. It's an entity with its own unique DNA and, although not fully developed, its own brain, heart, and lungs - but there are certainly babies born alive with underdeveloped internal organs and bodies, so this isn't a valid enough qualifier for whether or not a baby can be considered a human or not.

If you were honest with yourself, you'd admit that your views are based on your religious beliefs.

Why do you say that? I've heard arguments for why abortion should be an acceptable alternative to giving birth - it's the woman's body and therefore her right, it's not a living thing, etc. I see no scientific, objective evidence supporting this. It's supported by her body, but the baby itself is not her body. A simple DNA test will prove that is a unique individual with its own unique genetic pattern. The argument that it's not a living thing is extremely debatable - as I've already said, there is no universal, objective, rational point at which "life begins". If life begins at birth, why do we have a problem with late-term abortions? If life begins at the point of fetal viability, this is completely subjective depending on which obstetrician you speak to, since different babies can survive different levels of premature birth. One baby might survive being born a month early, whereas another baby born just as early might die.

The arguments for what constitutes humanity are even more subjective. Your ability to breathe and have a beating heart is not a definition of humanity - all living things breathe, and there are humans who are incapable of breathing or sustaining a beating heart without outside support - does this invalidate their humanity? I've also heard the argument that humanity is defined by our ability to consciously think for ourselves with free will. Of course, this is irrelevant when the person you are referring to is severely retarded or, like Sunny von Bulow, in a permanent vegetative state.

I've heard the argument that the baby cannot survive without life support from its mother, and is therefore not yet alive. This point could be as easily applied to a born child, since an infant will die if abandoned. The same goes for people on life support or in other ways unable to stay alive without outside influences.

These are not points based on religion. They're points that I think are pretty objective, all things considered. You can keep God out of the discussion entirely and still argue that abortion is ending a human life.

Which, for the record, has nothing to do with whether or not ending a human life (any human life) is morally acceptable or reprehensible. It's simply an argument that an unborn baby is, indeed, a living human being.

This is also why I don't add in that disclaimer of "except in the cases of incest or rape" - it's a human baby, no matter what conditions arose to create it. Even if it was created through rape, aborting it is still ending a life.

I choose to err on the side of caution - there's no specific point at which an unborn baby "becomes" a living human being. You may say that life begins at birth, but there are babies that can survive premature birth. Who's to say that a baby aborted sometime in the third trimester (e.g. late-term abortions) couldn't survive at that point were he to be born alive?

Still more beliefs based on religion.

Really? Does this mean that a staunchly nonreligous person (e.g. an atheist) cannot possibly agree that ending a human life is morally wrong?

There is no objective point at which an unborn baby matures from a nonliving thing to a living thing. Period. This is not based on religion or dogma. It's based on fact. If you believe that there is a universal, objective point at which an unborn child can be denoted as "alive", please share what that point is.

I support the death penalty for certain crimes because the person who commits a crime chooses to do so. The insanity argument certainly comes into play here, but many times, a person who murders in cold blood does so with full knowledge of what they're doing and what the ramifications are if they are caught and convicted.

I take it that all of your actions are taken only after full dissection and analyzation of the ramifications involved? I'm not justifying murder or crime, but to state that people murder in cold blood do so with full knowledge of what they're doing and the ramifications involved belies the fact that their emotions can become an overriding factor in their decision. The human species is often not as rational as you would like to believe, as history is full of horrific stories of bloodshed and carnage, most often carried out in the name of religion.

Indeed, but when we are discussing how a law should be applied to the people, we must retain rationality over emotion. A crime of passion or fury is still a crime. In fact, people sometimes think that a crime committed out of strong emotion is worse, such as attributing the term "hate crime" to a particular action. Vandalizing a person's front door with a racial epithet is considered "worse" than vandalizing a person's front door with, say, random spray-painted markings. Why? Because it was done in hate, and we see that as more wrong than if such a strong emotion were not involved.

That is true, if one considers an unborn baby as a human.

And again, I have yet to see a truly objective, rational definition of what constitutes "human" that doesn't (a) include unborn babies and (b) exclude certain groups of born individuals.

Now you're saying, if I read correctly, that it's always a woman's choice to have sex, even if her father/uncle/brother rapes her. Not very consistent.

No, but similar to how the majority of crimes are not committed out of insanity, the majority of abortions are not committed because the child is the result of rape. While statistics aren't entirely accurate since many women don't denote that they were raped and thus became pregnant, I still think it's pretty safe to say that the wide majority of abortions performed are due to an unwanted pregnancy as a result of unprotected, irresponsible sex.

A true statement, but only in the cases where one of the parties has such a disease. This is a separate issue from what's being discussed.

Not exactly. Abortion provides an easy out if one's act of unprotected sex brings an unwanted result - a baby. The act of unprotected sex is still irresponsible without the risk of pregnancy.

I think it's similar to cases of very wealthy children doing stupid and illegal things, knowing full well that mommy and daddy can buy off law enforcement or get them a good enough lawyer to let them go free. While they may be able to easily ignore the ramifications of, say, stealing a car, it doesn't make the act of the theft any less illegal or wrong.

Also a possibly true statement, but extraordinarily unlikely, considering that 80 - ninety percent of the populations believes in a higher deity of some sort, and seeing as how the majority of unbelievers still started life as part of a family with some religious beliefs.

So this means that it's impossible for a person to believe abortion is ending a human life unless they believe in God? Are you suggesting that a belief in God (or any deity or dogma) is the only way that a person could view an unborn baby as a human? Yes, your upbringing influences your thought - but that argument could be taken all the way to the founding fathers, saying that all our laws and the Constitution are based on religion, since the people who wrote it were religious in one way or another. That doesn't invalidate the contents of those documents to atheists, does it? Aren't there other, more objective reasons for ensuring things like freedom of speech?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

Abortion isn't covered by insurance, so as medical procedures go, it's relatively affordable. I'd be surprised if it's the cash cow you're implying it is.

At least relative to the amount of money you can make providing OB/GYN services that are covered by insurance.

An abortion costs $350-$600, depending on the stage of pregnancy and the actions necessary to abort the baby.

Not super expensive, but not exactly a drop in the bucket, either.

[ort888]

My favorite abortion clinic has a card you punch. Every 10th abortion is free.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Abortion isn't covered by insurance, so as medical procedures go, it's relatively affordable. I'd be surprised if it's the cash cow you're implying it is.

At least relative to the amount of money you can make providing OB/GYN services that are covered by insurance.

I looked at Healthnet's Schedule of Benefits for my plan.

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES Refer to the Family Planning Services Benefit for a description of
Covered Services, including any restrictions and limitations that may apply. Contraceptive implants, insertions, and devices are subject to a 50%
Coinsurance and are limited to 1 every 36 months. Contraceptive implant removals are covered at no charge and are limited to 1 removal every 36 months. Lifetime Maximum benefit for elective abortions performed during the
first trimester is limited to 2 per Member.
Abortions Lifetime Maximum benefit for non-Medically Necessary (elective) abortions is limited as shown in the Schedule of Benefits.
Elective abortions must be performed during the first trimester. Copayment and/or Coinsurance will correspond to the charge associated with the Facility in which services are received.

[subego]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

An abortion costs $350-$600, depending on the stage of pregnancy and the actions necessary to abort the baby.

Not super expensive, but not exactly a drop in the bucket, either.

I was speaking expressly in terms of how much profit that can make a doctor or clinic versus, well... everything else. I would imagine a straight exam is going to be at least $100, and you can get some volume going with that. Once you get into garden variety obstetrics, you basically can't stop the cabbage from rolling in.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I look at Healthnet's Schedule of Benefits for my plan.

Color me surprised. I appreciate the correction.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I try to keep my dogmatic beliefs out of my political viewpoints. I believe that abortion is ending a human life because I've seen no objective evidence to the contrary. It's an entity with its own unique DNA and, although not fully developed, its own brain, heart, and lungs - but there are certainly babies born alive with underdeveloped internal organs and bodies, so this isn't a valid enough qualifier for whether or not a baby can be considered a human or not.

I can't see how this is relevant unless you have some belief that being genetically human entitles you to something. A culture of cancer cells is genetically human, but nobody wants to give it rights. Ergo, this argument is not compelling.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I choose to err on the side of caution

So you believe in cautiously ruining and ending women's lives — much like Nero took a cautious approach to Rome burning.

You could say just as well that caution means not jeopardizing the woman's future over fuzzy philosophical questions. The fact is that you prioritize a non-sentient bunch of cells over a thinking, breathing woman.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I support the death penalty for certain crimes because the person who commits a crime chooses to do so.

Why? He's still got human DNA. Why does genetics protect a lump of undifferentiated cells but not a full-grown man who made a mistake? If that argument is so compelling that it overrides a woman's best interest, it should apply here. I posit that you only use it in the abortion case because it justifies what you already believe, not because of its logical soundness. In the case where it conflicts with your conservative Christian values, you chuck it out the window.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

You can be anti-abortion without being religious at all.

And you can be a KKK supporter without being white, but it generally doesn't work out that way, does it?

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

On the front page of Operation Rescue's website is a statement released immediately by the President of the Organization, Troy Newman;

I applaud their work!!!

washingtonpost.com

Antiabortion activist Randall Terry today added fuel to the debate over the killing yesterday of a prominent Kansas late-term abortion provider, saying George R. Tiller "was a mass murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed."

Nice that he added "horrifically", to that statement to protect himself from potential lawsuits.
Not that I think he believes it was horrific.

Rhetoric like Terry's is what I believe is what he and others rely on to spur the weak minded, dumb asses, nuts etc. to do their dirty work for them.

I'm sure there were high fives, toasts after Tiller was executed.

I'm no fan of abortion but I can't believe that some people can't see the need that's out there and expect women and children to see a pregnancy through under any circumstances.

And what's with the argument that women alone are responsible because she didn't insist on the use of a condom.
Responsibility can't just be on the women, unless you view them as...

[Chuckit]

I don't see how "horrifically" is supposed to protect him from lawsuits. The only part of that statement that's possibly legally actionable is "He's a mass murderer," which is potentially slanderous, though I don't think he would be sued since it's pretty clear what he means. Wishing a guy dead isn't something you can be sued for AFAIK. I assume the "horrifically" was just there because he knew he was going to sound like a giant douche.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by shifuimam

I try to keep my dogmatic beliefs out of my political viewpoints. I believe that abortion is ending a human life because I've seen no objective evidence to the contrary.

Coming from your argument on evolution, I don't think objective evidence (or the amount there of) has anything to do with your decisions.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't see how "horrifically" is supposed to protect him from lawsuits. The only part of that statement that's possibly legally actionable is "He's a mass murderer," which is potentially slanderous, though I don't think he would be sued since it's pretty clear what he means. Wishing a guy dead isn't something you can be sued for AFAIK. I assume the "horrifically" was just there because he knew he was going to sound like a giant douche.

It would possibly protect him of accusations of promoting violence.
Read it without "horrifically" and the folks that believe that are listening.
As you sow so shall you reap

Origin

From the Bible, Galatians VI (King James Version):

Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Surprise, religion.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The abortion issue is all about religion, and you know it. To suggest otherwise shows how disingenuous you are.

I know atheists who are pro-life, so obviously that isn't entirely true.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't see how "horrifically" is supposed to protect him from lawsuits. The only part of that statement that's possibly legally actionable is "He's a mass murderer," which is potentially slanderous, though I don't think he would be sued since it's pretty clear what he means. Wishing a guy dead isn't something you can be sued for AFAIK. I assume the "horrifically" was just there because he knew he was going to sound like a giant douche.

Well, in the most accurate sense he was a serial killer, but not all forms of killing are illegal.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

And you can be a KKK supporter without being white, but it generally doesn't work out that way, does it?

that's the most idiotic strawman I've ever seen around here, and that's saying something.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

that's the most idiotic strawman I've ever seen around here, and that's saying something.

Strawman? What argument was I trying to claim shifuimam made that she did not actually make?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can't see how this is relevant unless you have some belief that being genetically human entitles you to something. A culture of cancer cells is genetically human, but nobody wants to give it rights. Ergo, this argument is not compelling.

Why? He's still got human DNA. Why does genetics protect a lump of undifferentiated cells but not a full-grown man who made a mistake? If that argument is so compelling that it overrides a woman's best interest, it should apply here. I posit that you only use it in the abortion case because it justifies what you already believe, not because of its logical soundness. In the case where it conflicts with your conservative Christian values, you chuck it out the window.

Here in lies the rub. Dr. Tiller was performing 3rd trimester abortions, at the point they could survive outside the womb. These were well formed children, well beyond the "lump of undifferentiated cells" stage. Just ask Gianna Jessen. She survived a saline procedure.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Here in lies the rub. Dr. Tiller was performing 3rd trimester abortions, at the point they could survive outside the womb. Theses were well formed children, well beyond the "lump of undifferentiated cells" stage. Just ask Gianna Jessen. She survived a saline procedure.

I don't believe I was talking to you. Shifuimam's argument addressed abortion in general, including late-term abortions only as an extended conclusion.

[Shaddim]

Your attempt to substitute a superficially similar proposition. There are pro-lifers from all walks of life, not just the outwardly religious.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I can't see how this is relevant unless you have some belief that being genetically human entitles you to something. A culture of cancer cells is genetically human, but nobody wants to give it rights. Ergo, this argument is not compelling.

Ah, but at what point does that clump of cells in the womb become a baby, thus abortion is no longer considered socially or morally acceptable?

Most people seem to be pretty against late-term abortion. Why is that? Is it because the unborn baby looks too much like an actual baby? Is it because it might be viable were it to survive an actual birth at that point?

[So you believe in cautiously ruining and ending women's lives — much like Nero took a cautious approach to Rome burning.

No, I believe in women taking full responsibility for their actions. A woman who chooses to have irresponsible, unprotected sex runs the risk of getting pregnant. Abortion is effectively a band-aid to keep her from taking responsibility for her choice to have unprotected sex. She ruined her own life by doing so, as she knew that it could get her pregnant.

You know what really amazes me (and makes me sick)? Hearing about some broke-ass, low-income, welfare-dependent single mother who has four or five kids. How in the hell did she not figure out after the first time that penis + vagina + male orgasm = baby?

I realize that this argument doesn't take into account when a pregnancy is the result of rape, but again - most abortion cases aren't from rape. They're from wholly irresponsible actions.

You could say just as well that caution means not jeopardizing the woman's future over fuzzy philosophical questions. The fact is that you prioritize a non-sentient bunch of cells over a thinking, breathing woman.

The ability to think (sentience) does not define humanity, or else we should have no problem euthanizing the severely retarded, the mentally dead (e.g. Terri Schiavo, Sunny von Bulow, etc.), and newly born babies (you really think that a baby at birth is some how more sentient than she was two weeks before labor started?).

Why should we terminate a "bunch of cells" that are quite rapidly developing into a recognizable human being simply because the mother chose to have unprotected sex?

I will still say that abortion in the case of rape is still murdering an innocent life, but at least there is at least some sense to why the mother might choose to end the child's life. In the multitude of cases where a woman was simply stupid, immature, and irresponsible, however, abortion should never be an option. She chose that path, and she should take responsibility for it.

Why? He's still got human DNA. Why does genetics protect a lump of undifferentiated cells but not a full-grown man who made a mistake? If that argument is so compelling that it overrides a woman's best interest, it should apply here. I posit that you only use it in the abortion case because it justifies what you already believe, not because of its logical soundness. In the case where it conflicts with your conservative Christian values, you chuck it out the window.

How is "don't murder" strictly a Christian value? Does this mean that those who profess explicitly to be not Judeo-Christian are therefore exempt from all laws regarding ending the life of another human being?

An individual who makes the conscious decision to end the life of another is quite different from an individual whose life is ended through no fault of their own. When you choose to murder, you take on the responsibility of the repercussions of that choice. An unborn infant, however, has done absolutely nothing to deserve having their skull crushed, their brain sucked out with a syringe, and their tiny body ripped apart with a pair of hemostats and sucked out of the womb with what is essentially a sterilized vacuum cleaner.

And you can be a KKK supporter without being white, but it generally doesn't work out that way, does it?

So it's illogical for someone to believe that an unborn baby is alive if they don't believe in God?

The argument that only Christians are anti-abortion is pretty moot, since the huge majority of the American population claims to be Christian. Many of them are undoubtedly not Christian, but simply check the box stating they are out of habit, guilt, or some kind of unspoken expectation from a family member or friend. A belief in God is not required to believe that abortion is morally wrong and an unacceptable option when a woman purposely has unprotected sex and ends up preggo. Simply because the most vocal opposition to abortion is very Christian does not mean that everyone who opposes abortion is Christian.

I see logical and pretty objective reasons for why ending the life of an unborn baby is unnecessary, selfish, and wrong. You can say that my belief in God has made me see things that way, but that's kind of a cop-out. And, again, the religious history of the United States infiltrates every corner of it. Unless you want to take away every law and mandate that is in some way related to some part of the Bible (you know, things like raping, murdering, and stealing), you simply can't avoid it.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I know atheists who are pro-life, so obviously that isn't entirely true.

Yeah, I'm pro-life. But I support the option for abortion.

I don't think anyone supporting killing any living human being is pro-life.

Let's just call it anti-abortion because that's what it is.

[screener]

The above post by shifuiman is a prime eg. of lack of real, empathy for anyone.

You make it sound so easy for the harlots to choose late term abortion when it can't be an easy decision.

You put the onus on the harlots to give their lover, rapist, a condom even though they aren't 100% effective.

You think the wife that needs Chemo, but the treatment won't be given to a pregnant woman, should be denied her chance at life.

What about would be parents that are told the fetus will likely die soon after birth or live a miserable existence.

You believe children should be told they have to have daddy's baby because why?
Remember the 9 year old in Brazil, the Catholic Church excommunicating everyone involved in the abortion, but the father was absolved.

And then the comment about the "broke-ass, low-income, welfare-dependent single mother"
that really shows what you lack.

Hopefully people like you are in the minority.

[hyteckit]

Well, Frank Schaeffer was on Rachel Maddow's show today and said the killing of Dr. Tiller has a lot to do with the Christian anti-abortion movement, and the Christian Manifesto that his father Francis Schaeffer wrote.

If anyone doesn't think the anti-abortion movement has anything to do with religion, they are just deluding themselves.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

The abortion issue is all about religion, and you know it. To suggest otherwise shows how disingenuous you are.

It is? Is the religion Buddhism OldMan? Hinduism? Reformation Lutheranism? Which one? Some of the most vocal of opposition to abortion are "religious", but this doesn't mean the issue is all about religion. Considering the fact that the Dr. was murdered while serving as an usher in his Church, to suggest this is all about religion shows how moronic you are.

[Shaddim]

Oh NO! Don't call Buddhism a religion, you'll get some of the atheists all in a twist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by screener 

Surprise, religion.

Y'all realize this Dr. was serving as an usher in a Church... of a religion right? I'm just checking. It seems there's so much kneejerk desire to make an opportunity out of this poor man's death that you can't see the forest through the trees here.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Yeah, I'm pro-life. But I support the option for abortion.

I don't think anyone supporting killing any living human being is pro-life.

Let's just call it anti-abortion because that's what it is.

Late term abortion is killing another living being.

Now, if you want to pose that 1st trimester abortion isn't murder, I think you have some valid points. I'm pro-choice, within the first 3 months, because after thinking about it for years it seems like a logical compromise.

However, if we can take the baby out and it would survive on it's own, then we'll just call it what it is, killing.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Late term abortion is killing another living being.

Now, if you want to pose that 1st trimester abortion isn't murder, I think you have some valid points. I'm pro-choice, within the first 3 months, because after thinking about it for years it seems like a logical compromise.

However, if we can take the baby out and it would survive on it's own, then we'll just call it what it is, killing.

I'm pro-life. Saving the mother's life is more important to me than a saving an unborn fetus.

Dr. Tiller was performing late-term abortions on pregnant women who had medical needs for an abortion.

I'm support late-term abortions when there is a medical need to do so, like when they mother's life is in danger and it's the mother's choice to analyze her own risk. Other cases, I would agree late-term abortions after 3 months is a gray area.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is? Is the religion Buddhism OldMan? Hinduism? Reformation Lutheranism? Which one? Some of the most vocal of opposition to abortion are "religious", but this doesn't mean the issue is all about religion. Considering the fact that the Dr. was murdered while serving as an usher in his Church, to suggest this is all about religion shows how moronic you are.

What? Because the Dr. was murdered while serving as an usher in his Church, this has nothing to do with religion?

If one man kills another man in Church, then it has nothing to do with religion? Is that the logic here?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

However, if we can take the baby out and it would survive on it's own, then we'll just call it what it is, killing.

If they can really take the baby out and it would survive on its own, why don't they? They can then put it up for adoption or whatever, it's equivalent from the mother's perspective, unless they're too vain to let any of their DNA escape, but I really don't think that's a large phenomenon.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Y'all realize this Dr. was serving as an usher in a Church... of a religion right? I'm just checking. It seems there's so much kneejerk desire to make an opportunity out of this poor man's death that you can't see the forest through the trees here.

You didn't read my reply to you, did you.

[ironknee]

believers who think there's an invisible man in the sky think they know what he thinks

just astounding...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Well, Frank Schaeffer was on Rachel Maddow's show today and said the killing of Dr. Tiller has a lot to do with the Christian anti-abortion movement, and the Christian Manifesto that his father Francis Schaeffer wrote.

If anyone doesn't think the anti-abortion movement has anything to do with religion, they are just deluding themselves.

Then Rachel Madcow, Kieth Doberman, MSDNC, Arianna Hufington and the rest of the left wing media are responsible for Abdulhakim Muhammad (AKA Carlos Bledsoe) murdering Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past"

Man pleads not guilty to killing new Army soldier | AP | 06/02/2009

CHUCK BARTELS

The Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - A Muslim convert who pleaded not guilty to killing a soldier outside a recruiting center had the firepower to take out many more while on a mission to "kill as many people in the Army as he could," police said.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then Rachel Madcow, Kieth Doberman, MSDNC, Arianna Hufington and the rest of the left wing media are responsible for Abdulhakim Muhammad (AKA Carlos Bledsoe) murdering Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past"

are you still defending the murder of Tiller?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

are you still defending the murder of Tiller?

Are you still defending the termination of babies that can survive outside the womb?

There are those who are trying to tie the murder of Dr Tiller to pro life groups. By this standards, that makes: Rachel Madcow, Kieth Doberman, MSDNC, Arianna Hufington and the rest of the left wing media responsible for Abdulhakim Muhammad (AKA Carlos Bledsoe) murdering Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past"

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I'm pro-life. Saving the mother's life is more important to me than a saving an unborn fetus.

Dr. Tiller was performing late-term abortions on pregnant women who had medical needs for an abortion.

I'm support late-term abortions when there is a medical need to do so, like when they mother's life is in danger and it's the mother's choice to analyze her own risk. Other cases, I would agree late-term abortions after 3 months is a gray area.

The vast majority of late term abortions are not done for the reason you list. Most of them are done for reasons of convenience. The odds are against Dr. Tiller only doing late term abortions for women whose life is in danger.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If anyone doesn't think the anti-abortion movement has anything to do with religion, they are just deluding themselves.

Conversely, if anyone doesn't think that the pro-abortion movement has anything to do with lacking religion, they are just deluding themselves.

(Devil's Advocate here)

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Are you still defending the termination of babies that can survive outside the womb?

yes... if the mother's health is in danger...if the fetus will suffer some deformation... it's the mother's choice... and it's a hard choice...

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There are those who are trying to tie the murder of Dr Tiller to pro life groups. By this standards, that makes: Rachel Madcow, Kieth Doberman, MSDNC, Arianna Hufington and the rest of the left wing media responsible for Abdulhakim Muhammad (AKA Carlos Bledsoe) murdering Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton I. Ezeagwula "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past"

stay on topic

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Conversely, if anyone doesn't think that the pro-abortion movement has anything to do with lacking religion, they are just deluding themselves.

(Devil's Advocate here)

That's not the devil's advocate position — it's agreeing with the statement you quoted. People from certain religious traditions generally oppose abortion, nonreligious people generally don't.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

yes... if the mother's health is in danger...if the fetus will suffer some deformation... it's the mother's choice... and it's a hard choice...

Then we would not have Beethoven.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then we would not have Beethoven.

Or Hitler. Playing the hypothetical game is futile.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's not the devil's advocate position — it's agreeing with the statement you quoted. People from certain religious traditions generally oppose abortion, nonreligious people generally don't.

Given that the majority of America is "religious", consider themselves "pro life" and the Constitution is silent in regards to abortion, it would seem that the rational thing to do would NOT to side with the minority in this case.

[Chuckit]

You're going to have to spell out the logic a little more on that one, because I don't follow.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Then we would not have Beethoven.

Can you back up anything you say or is it just combustible hot air.

Here, for you and that other guy stupi..... whatever,
Late-term Abortions: Facts, Stories, and Ways to Help | RHRealityCheck.org

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

are you still defending the murder of Tiller?

He wasn't, but maybe that's the way you people look at it.