Go to The Government We Deserve!
- Add a comment
- Go to The GOP campaign begins throwing mud....
Forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancies is a terrible act.
The viability of a fetus is dependent on many factors. The vast majority of women who allow their pregnancies to exceed the second trimester truly want to give birth and only in rare cases are those pregnancies terminated and usually because the fetus is either stillborn or can cause severe damage or death to the mother.
You should read the article in the Boston Globe magazine of a month ago of a woman who learned in her fifth month (it cannot be determined earlier) that her fetus had no spine and decided to abort. There is no justification for Bush and all his white, male friends to pass the first law in US history that has legislators dictating to doctors and their patients as to what they must do in a medical procedure - even if it means the damage or death of the mother.
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 18, 2004
at
5:14 AM
| |
reply
So at what point during the pregnancy does the fetus become alive to you?
You should
read this post on abortion if you want to know the true consequences of this terrible act.
posted by
Quiz
on
February 17, 2004
at
6:21 PM
| |
reply
Quiz: ever pass a quiz in logic?
What you choose to define as " human life" is your own subjective selection. To me a microscopic mass of cells growing inside a woman's body without a brain isn't human life anymore than an acorn is an oak tree. But if that helps you justify your terminology of "killing" and "murder" and other satisfying delusions, who am I to argue with someone who obviously is intent on allowing only their point of view?
Of course the fact that the woman's quality of life or her life itself is at risk to carry to term means nothing to you. But of course, you must be right, because God is on your side. Right?
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 17, 2004
at
2:09 PM
| |
reply
I get it now!
Sorry it took me so long to figure this out. So if the life in question is not capable of understanding that it exists, the mother should be able to kill it. So, based on your argument, this would apply to fetuses and to children with mental disabilities. You can argue the right to kill as much as you want, but I'll continue to talk about how precious human life is, wether it be a fetus, a teenager, a mentally retarded individual, and even John Kerry. And if I can say that John Kerry's life is precious, you know I really mean it.
posted by
Quiz
on
February 17, 2004
at
12:39 PM
| |
reply
Quiz & MHW can't tell the difference between a baby & a fetus.
I'll take it real slow for you two guys. A fetus, especially in the first three months, is little more than a non-sentient mass of cells that's far smaller than some of the pimples on your obviously adolescent faces. Non-sentient means it does not have a brain. It doesn't think. It doesn't feel. It doesn't even know what it exists!!!
Now a baby is something else. It has been born. It has a brain and it coos and cries and is great to hug (I know I hugged my kids). A woman who is old enough to give birth to a baby is an even more sentient being than a baby because she thinks, feels and has friends, relatives, husbands and others who know her and care about her.
Now if this woman decides to remove the non-sentient mass of cells growing in her womb because she simply doesn't want another baby that is her right and neither of you two have any right to tell her not to, or even worse, use the government to force her to endure an unwanted pregnancy.
You don't speak for God and if you think you do you are even more daft than I thought. We live in a complex world and an even more complex universe and life is very short. Governments have no more right to force women to stay pregnant than other governments have to force them to abort (China). Live and let live and stop being so doctrinaire about something you know so little about.
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 17, 2004
at
10:36 AM
| |
reply
Spy, What If Your Mama Had Aborted You? That Would Have Been A Terrible
thing because, today, there would be one less Bush-basher on the scene. And a Bush-basher is a terrible thing to waste, right?
posted by
Feenix
on
February 17, 2004
at
9:34 AM
| |
reply
Quiz, Great Analogy.
posted by
Feenix
on
February 17, 2004
at
9:28 AM
| |
reply
You're right, the mother should have the right to choose...
And a mother has a child, but gets tired of it 2 years later, she should have the right to end it's life right then and there. I mean, what right does the government have to say she must take care of the burden? Sure, it was her choice to have sex in the first place, and most people know what some of the consequences of sex can be, but if a mom wants to end a babies life, either in the womb, or years after it's born, why shouldn't she be able to? At least that's what the Democrat's argument implies...
posted by
Quiz
on
February 17, 2004
at
9:22 AM
| |
reply
MHW: What about the woman's life?
You are not a woman. I'd bet that if you were and were made pregnant by someone you didn't want to know any longer or if having a child didn't fit into your plans, you might look at abortion a lot more differently.
The fact is that all women put their lives at risk to birth a baby and it is their bodies that the fetus feeds off for the 9 months prior to birth. No person should be forced by the government to endure that unless they choose to. All women should be allowed access to safe and quick abortions.
It's strange how you rightwingers are so protective of a fetus which is essentially a non-sentient being but after a baby is born you don't care whether it has healthcare or whether it's poor parents can afford to feed the child on regular basis because of the low pay or unemployment they suffer.
An pregnant woman should always have the right to determine whether her body is going to be used as an incubator for 9 months or not and her life is more important than that of a microscopic collection of cells that has no feelings and no idea as to what is happening.
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 17, 2004
at
6:38 AM
| |
reply
Spy, (1)Since '75, Planned Parenthood Alone Has Grossed Nearly $45 Billion
And that organization, along with its support groups (including NARAL and NOW), have handed over hundreds-of-millions of the dollars that they take in to John Kerry and other Democrats, to help ensure that their gigantic cash cow remains alive and kicking.
(2) Is it your opinion that when millions-upon-millions of human beings are murdered before they are even born, noboy gets harmed?
WOW, man! You and I have completely different attitudes when it comes to what "life" is all about.
The truth is, since 1973, far more human beings have been killed and maimed by abortion doctors than by various kinds of pollution.
posted by
Feenix
on
February 17, 2004
at
5:49 AM
| |
reply
Quiz & MHW missing the point entirely!
Guys, give me a break! When it comes to lies and hypocrisy George W. Bush and the Republican party lead the galaxy, never mind the mere planet earth. Busy takes ten times as much money from Special Interests who he then does dirty work for. For example: Bush takes huge amounts of money from the coal fired power plant companies who do not want to reduce mercury in their power plant emissions. Mercury is very harmful to fetuses, children and the elderly. It causes neurological damage that is lifelong. Bush is trying to lower the standards for emitting mercury instead of raising them as Clinton did. There is no excuse for this immoral behavior and it is obviously "bribe" driven.
Kerry takes money from NARAL but that is different. Most American citizens (myself included) believe that abortions should be available to women and should be medically safe and with the right amount of sex education and contraceptive availability they could also be made rare. Kerry is taking money from citizens who he believes have a right that is being attacked and endangered by those who don't believe that abortions should be made available. It is important to make a distinction between a Special Interest that wants to influence government so they can make more money while causing damage to the public's health (as Bush and the Coal power people do) and an Interest Group that is pushing for a point of view of citizen's rights that you may or may not agree with.
The reality is that Bush has accepted bribes from numerous Special Interest groups that harm the public (Energy, Chemical, Pharmaceutical, HMOs and more). I challenge you to show me a group that Kerry has taken money from and then show me how their agenda "harms" the public at large. You can't do it!
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 17, 2004
at
5:21 AM
| |
reply
Once again, you're missing the point.
It's not that he is taking special interest money, it's that he's hypocritical in his ads and he says he's the man to slam the door on special interests. The Bush ads simply point that out. They aren't condemning the fact that he's using special interest money, just that he lies about it.
Also, you might want to research Kerry some more before you vouch for his morals. I find it interesting that so many of his nominations and endoresoments coincide with campaign contributions. Someone gives a large Kerry contribution, and then they get an official endoresment from Senator Kerry. Hmmm, there's nothing going on there, I'm sure...
posted by
Quiz
on
February 16, 2004
at
2:59 PM
| |
reply
Actually, Spy, Kerry Has Rec'd Tens-of-Millions From Three Of The Largest
special interest groups in the country: The abortion lobby (NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood), millions of black voters and the "elderly lobby" led largely by AARP.
posted by
Feenix
on
February 16, 2004
at
2:43 PM
| |
reply
Quiz & MHW in deep denial.
If you are going to condemn Kerry for taking Special Interest money (which is a lie), how about Bush & the Republicans, who not only take ten times the Special Interest money but then SELL OUT the American people for the money they have received in return!!!
I challenge you to cite what Special Interest money Kerry has taken and then show how taking that money has led to endangering the health and welfare of the American people the way Bush has done taking money from Energy, Pharmaceutical, Health Insurance, Financial Service and other industries and then allowed these industries to pollute more, get higher prices than they deserve or outright cheat investors and pension holders the way the brokerage firms have!!!
When it comes to hypocrisy, Republicans and you guys are in a class all by yourself!!!
posted by
spyinthesky
on
February 16, 2004
at
2:32 PM
| |
reply
Quiz, I Second Your Emotion! Write On, My Friend.
posted by
Feenix
on
February 16, 2004
at
2:00 PM
| |
reply
Wait a minute now, Bush hater...
The issue is not wether or not he caters to special interests. The issue is the Kerry hypocracy. Kerry's ad says he will not stand for special interests, and he'll be showing them the door, yet he has used more special interest money than any other senator. If Kerry wasn't a hypocrite about it, there wouldn't be an issue. But we all know Kerry, don't we...
posted by
Quiz
on
February 16, 2004
at
1:56 PM
| |
reply
Copy (or write down) this comment's web address (URL), which is:
Next, go to the email or web page where you want to link to this comment, and paste
(or type) the web address.
