Thanks, Dub.... I, for one, enjoy the exchange of opinions. My goal is not to convert but to converse.

I do in fact appreciate and recognize that "pro-life" does not by definition translate as "against choice." That would be far too simple a conclusion to draw from such a particularly complex issue.

I am simply of the opinion that the luxury of choice should be afforded equally to the bearer as well as the borne.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 02-23-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Butter: snip

To fund or not to fund is the issue, not abortion, not cry me a river politics. My point was that far too many things are being funded that don't need to be, and this is certainly one of them.

Here weremy questions: Where does the line get drawn in helping everybody that needs help and everyone that wants help? Should the government (i.e. YOU) pay for the nation's health care?

Any ideas?

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Wow.....two pages of biological men discussing what they would allow biological women to do or not do with their ovaries. Would you guys be so judgmental if you were discussing testicles? The government shouldn't fund abortions....agreed....but the present movement in the House goes FAR beyond a simple funding issue. If those on the right are going to complain about the left's attempts at "social engineering," you have to be "fair and balanced" (pardon the reference) and recognize the current efforts for what they are as well.

Seems that all the people who are talking about this are alive.

If this were a hundred years ago, your first sentence could have been:

"Wow....two pages of white men discussing what they would allow black me to do with their lives."

Back then, human beings were property because of the color of their skin. Now human beings are property because of the space that they occupy.

A baby who is preborn has unique DNA, the same as you and me. By the time the largest percentage of abortions happen, she exists with her her own brain and nervous system that can feel pain, a heart beats in her chest, and she has (typically) ten distinct fingers and ten distinct toes. Unfortunately, she has not passed through a birth canal.

Even if a guy pulls her by her ankles and out until only her head is still inside, then the guy jabs a sharp instrument into the base of her skull to suction her brain out so that the pressure of her mother's "plumbing" crushes her head, she is not a person. She is property.

Seriously?

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Seriously?

Apparently. And because we are MEN, we are not allowed to discuss it. I don't understand either.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: If this were a hundred years ago, your first sentence could have been: "Wow....two pages of white men discussing what they would allow black me to do with their lives."

Come on, man....gimme a break.

For you to determine what my first sentence on this or any other subject could be at any point in history, even you would admit, smacks as being rather presumptuous and not a little bit condescending.

I give you and your position more credit than that.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: You are talking about statements that are in some cases over 70 years old. Do you believe the mission of any foundation or organization that existed back then has not changed, or is it possible that their mission changed with the times? For example, Our country was founded with the institution of slavery in place. And those who created the US gave lip service to anyone not being a white man as not being human or at least equal. Do we still believe in that? Or has things chaged? You can bring up old quotes, but do they still apply? No wrong answers, I am just curious if you think those are the missions of PP, or if they evolved into something else, like our country did? Personally, I think their prenatal and various womens health services for the poor are too valuable to completely cut funding on, regardless of how one feels about abortion. Thats just my opinion, tho. Still if planned parenthood has to go, fine. It will cost the government one way or the other when those same poor people have to have this health care and then file bankruptcy on their medical bills. And they will.

With respect, comparing the founding of the USA with the founding of PP is a straw man. If a country changes direction, it is either by the will of the people (Egypt?) or by political coup. If a foundation or organization changes direction, is it still the same organization?

The Salvation Army, for instance, still serves the needs of the poor. Religious services are held, and its constituents are invited to attend. What if they gave up the faith element? Would they still be The Salvation Army? "Salvation" wouldn't mean much, if it did.

And Obummercare won't let the people in your example fall. We'll be picking up the tab....

quote Originally posted by Flamberge: To fund or not to fund is the issue, not abortion, not cry me a river politics. My point was that far too many things are being funded that don't need to be, and this is certainly one of them. Here weremy questions: Where does the line get drawn in helping everybody that needs help and everyone that wants help? Should the government (i.e. YOU) pay for the nation's health care? Any ideas?

To fund or not to fund is the issue. As one congressman pointed out, de-funding was possibly a bill of attainder which illegally singled out a group for punishment without a trial.

To me funding charities with public money is a slippery slope. Public money means political influence which can change with the winds. I believe the government should not provide any funding to charitable organizations because they then become instruments of the government. Singling out just one for de-funding due to political pressure is wrong. De-funding all would be right.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: With respect, comparing the founding of the USA with the founding of PP is a straw man. If a country changes direction, it is either by the will of the people (Egypt?) or by political coup. If a foundation or organization changes direction, is it still the same organization?

I dont know, but their founder has been dead as Washington and Adams for over 45 years. Do you think she still controls the foundation's ideals posthumously? If not, is it possible that their mission has evolved along with their leadership? What is their chairmen/head honcho saying about those issues, what is their mission statement? What are their feelings toward the same minorities their leader was biased against? Do we judge them by their founder or their leader?

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Wow.....two pages of biological men discussing what they would allow biological women to do or not do with their ovaries.

Well, they were shared ovaries. The content of said ovaries now contain matter from two people. Should a man have a right to stop the abortion of his child ?

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Doni, the argument has gone from "we don't know when life begins" to - now that we know - an argument of property, as in, "Who's body is it?" and "Who is worth more, the mother (and the consequences of her choice) or the child?" 150 years ago, value was placed on Human Beings for one reason. Now, we just have a different reason. "A person's a person, no matter how small." ~Dr. Seuss

Let's not assume the argument has been closed. You say "life begins..." do you mean intelligent life? If so, that argument is far from over.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Let's not assume the argument has been closed. You say "life begins..." do you mean intelligent life? If so, that argument is far from over.

There's a difference between intelligence, and knowledge. Intelligence is the capacity for learning... which all babies have more so than adults actually... children are essentially like sponges.

Where does that put your argument?

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

Well put Todd, .

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: You say "life begins..." do you mean intelligent life?

I would have said "do you mean intelligent like you ?" , being a smart azz, . Not to disparage carguy, but to draw the distinction that intelligence is relative.

There is one thing I can say for sure. I am glad I am not a woman who is in a positon where she has to make this choice, funded or not.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I am simply of the opinion that the luxury of choice should be afforded equally to the bearer as well as the borne.

How is that possible? Does this assume the (soon to be) borne casted a vote? Or do I misunderstand?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 02-24-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Flamberge: To fund or not to fund is the issue, not abortion, not cry me a river politics. My point was that far too many things are being funded that don't need to be, and this is certainly one of them. Here weremy questions: Where does the line get drawn in helping everybody that needs help and everyone that wants help? Should the government (i.e. YOU) pay for the nation's health care? Any ideas?

I strongly disagree with your position on this. To fund or not to fund is not the only options we have. To fund or not to fund is the only options presented. The issues of abortion for the wrong purposes, the sex trade, the misuse of funds, the criminal activity surrounding the program, have been sited to anyone that could be hoodwinked into defunding the program. Sir I am not that narrow minded. "Here watch this hand while I slap you with the other" mentality of politics is politics as usual as history has shown. There are other options not being discussed.

It is my intentions to try and get as many people no matter what their party affiliation is to see there are other options. If we the people want to change politics as usual then WE THE PEOPLE must demand better from our elected officials. I want to see elephants and asses working together for the people on any given issue. I chose this particular subject cause in itself it is quite controversial in nature and was a headline in our news of the day. I wanted to use a controversial issue so folks could see from the thread the details are not what it’s about. The details are what each party uses to cloud the issue to make their particular point. Everyone needs as good of medical care as can be afforded which will leave some folks out of certain medical procedures but in some situations everyone needs to be vaccinated to ensure the good health of the whole. The PP program is more akin to the later and is needed to help ensure the health of the whole for the most part.

The issues surrounding the program can present us a way to crack down on the abuse of that program and serve as a deterrent for abusing other programs. But hey you've been hoodwinked into thinking that is not an option. Step back and think about it. I'm not trying to change your point of view on the details I'm trying to change your point of view as to the options that we can have. Then I would like to see us as a whole get our elected officials to afford themselves the added options they may want to take. In fact stopping "business as usual" in our political system.

Everyone Look around you. Can you see that world politics is changing as we speak? We here in the US have had our Civil War/Revolution and our system of government has now come to the point of black and white politically fighting on any given issue of the day. While the rest of the world has their Civil War/Revolution we the US needs to progress to the next step of a colorful political system that don't just offer a narrow scope of options. We need to WORK TOGETHER to explore the options that can be taken no matter how many that may be.

Fberge I ain't pickin on you. I appreciate your post and opinion. Thanks for post for it may help me make my point.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After four paragraphs, I still have no idea what these other options are that you speak of. What are the other options besides funding or not funding? How is it that these other options neither fund nor defund Planned Parenthood?

He is saying fix it don't just cut it.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ After four paragraphs, I still have no idea what these other options are that you speak of. What are the other options besides funding or not funding? How is it that these other options neither fund nor defund Planned Parenthood?

Well use your mind and think how many options you could come up with. I speculate the Senate will fund the program. So how could the program be addressed to improve its function?

Just one idea--
Well you could fund the program and direct a portion of the moneys to use as a tool to catch the problems and those who would abuse the program Dr.s included. Wouldn't look to good to those who see this happening that had intentions of abusing other programs. Address the issues of abortion for the wrong purposes, the sex trade, the misuse of funds, the criminal activity surrounding the program just look at all of what was sited as a reason not to fund it and fix it!!

quote Originally posted by Butter: Well use your mind and think how many options you could come up with. I speculate the Senate will fund the program. So how could the program be addressed to improve its function? Just one idea-- Well you could fund the program and direct a portion of the moneys to use as a tool to catch the problems and those who would abuse the program Dr.s included. Wouldn't look to good to those who see this happening that had intentions of abusing other programs. Address the issues of abortion for the wrong purposes, the sex trade, the misuse of funds, the criminal activity surrounding the program just look at all of what was sited as a reason not to fund it and fix it!!

In other words your "other option" is really just funding it with more oversight. That is at best a subset of the funding it option. How about we defund it and have two random inspections per year at every abortion clinic? I'm sure that is not on your list of options because all of your options include funding it.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I dont know, but their founder has been dead as Washington and Adams for over 45 years. Do you think she still controls the foundation's ideals posthumously? If not, is it possible that their mission has evolved along with their leadership? What is their chairmen/head honcho saying about those issues, what is their mission statement? What are their feelings toward the same minorities their leader was biased against? Do we judge them by their founder or their leader?

Regardless of the life status of Washington, Adams (and Jefferson and Franklin, et al), their writings exist, including the charter documents of what they founded. Those writings are bound into the fabric of the laws of the land. We often refer to them - some of us when it suits our purpose, some to point out how far we've moved from them.

Our good friend, rayb, often (mis)quotes the words of Jesus of Nazareth and His apostles, in order to discredit Christianity. Occasionally, he will touch upon a later disciple, using his misinterpretation to prove his point. What ray often doesn't get is that a false teacher is a false teacher is a false teacher, no matter how many people that they hoodwink. Christ came to enlighten us as to the Way, and when a human adds or takes away from His Word, he places himself and his followers at peril.

As the teachings of Christ are the crux (so to speak) of Christianity, and the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the cornerstone of the US, so are the statements and writings of the founder of PP. If the current administration of PP thought otherwise, they would found a new entity and renounce Sanger. Since that hasn't been done in 70 years, I can only conclude that they stand by these statements.

quote Originally posted by Butter: I strongly disagree with your position on this. To fund or not to fund is not the only options we have. To fund or not to fund is the only options presented. The issues of abortion for the wrong purposes, the sex trade, the misuse of funds, the criminal activity surrounding the program, have been sited to anyone that could be hoodwinked into defunding the program. Sir I am not that narrow minded. "Here watch this hand while I slap you with the other" mentality of politics is politics as usual as history has shown. There are other options not being discussed. It is my intentions to try and get as many people no matter what their party affiliation is to see there are other options. If we the people want to change politics as usual then WE THE PEOPLE must demand better from our elected officials. I want to see elephants and asses working together for the people on any given issue. I chose this particular subject cause in itself it is quite controversial in nature and was a headline in our news of the day. I wanted to use a controversial issue so folks could see from the thread the details are not what it’s about. The details are what each party uses to cloud the issue to make their particular point. Everyone needs as good of medical care as can be afforded which will leave some folks out of certain medical procedures but in some situations everyone needs to be vaccinated to ensure the good health of the whole. The PP program is more akin to the later and is needed to help ensure the health of the whole for the most part. The issues surrounding the program can present us a way to crack down on the abuse of that program and serve as a deterrent for abusing other programs. But hey you've been hoodwinked into thinking that is not an option. Step back and think about it. I'm not trying to change your point of view on the details I'm trying to change your point of view as to the options that we can have. Then I would like to see us as a whole get our elected officials to afford themselves the added options they may want to take. In fact stopping "business as usual" in our political system. Everyone Look around you. Can you see that world politics is changing as we speak? We here in the US have had our Civil War/Revolution and our system of government has now come to the point of black and white politically fighting on any given issue of the day. While the rest of the world has their Civil War/Revolution we the US needs to progress to the next step of a colorful political system that don't just offer a narrow scope of options. We need to WORK TOGETHER to explore the options that can be taken no matter how many that may be. Fberge I ain't pickin on you. I appreciate your post and opinion. Thanks for post for it may help me make my point.

I don't take posts on the forum personally. If I did I'd have taken my ball and gone home many years ago. And for the record, I respect where you are coming from, and agree that our elected officials need to work together to represent their territories, not to decide what is best for us with this vs. that.

Where we differ is in the opinion that Planned Parenthood deserves any funding at all. Where the federal government is concerned, I want them to defend our borders, manage foreign relations, maintain our roads, give us a strong standard of currency and get the @%$# out of our way. I see no need to waste federal tax payer dollars on anything that doesn't fall under these categories (and one or two I'm probably forgetting like national parks and historical treasures.) Public schools? Gone - or at least sent to the state level. Social programs? Gone. Abortion clinics? Gone. Obamacare? Gone. At least gone as far as federal tax payers are concerned. If someone wants to donate money for whatever cause, more power to them.

You keep wanting to make this a gray issue (with more options than fund/defund) and I agree there are options. My argument is that where I stand, I say we defund all of it, not because the only other option is funding, but because the money can be better spent by the citizens of this country which will in turn fix the economy almost overnight.

Thanks for the debate. I don't normally get too wrapped up in political threads, and always appreciate lively palaver.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: Let's not assume the argument has been closed. You say "life begins..." do you mean intelligent life? If so, that argument is far from over.

No, outside the woman's body, we don't make that distinction. If my younger son is, indeed, diagnosed with Asperger's, will that change his value? His Autistic friend? His his value any less? When I was young, I worked in a Chronic Care hospital. Half the wing was Stroke Trauma, the other half was Head Trauma. Both sets of people - elderly for the Stroke Trauma and teens and early twenties for Head Trauma - has low levels of what would commonly be referred to as intelligence, especially the young girl who had been hit by a car and did little more than scream as if (and maybe she was) in pain for the sixteen hours or so that she was awake. She was probably a very beautiful and intelligent young woman before some moron hit her with at likely a high speed with a 3000 pound machine. Was she worth any less than anyone else?

Intelligence, as we commonly discuss it, is not a measure of value in this discussion. And it is not a yardstick that I use when it comes to the life of the unborn. Nor should it be used by anyone else.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: There's a difference between intelligence, and knowledge. Intelligence is the capacity for learning... which all babies have more so than adults actually... children are essentially like sponges. Where does that put your argument?

The point I was trying to make is, a one-celled organism is not intelligent. Example: show me a smart amoeba. A zygote is a one-called organism; therefore, it is not intelligent.

[This message has been edited by ktthecarguy (edited 02-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: The point I was trying to make is, a one-celled organism is not intelligent. Example: show me a smart amoeba. A zygote is a one-called organism; therefore, it is not intelligent.

How 'bout you support the argument that a fetus is a one celled organism, .

quote Originally posted by cliffw: How 'bout you support the argument that a fetus is a one celled organism, .

Most abortions don't take place in the third trimester (unless the mother's life is at risk). And I never made any argument that a fetus is a one-celled organism. Go back and (re)-read my post. I said zygote. Look it up.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: And I never made any argument that a fetus is a one-celled organism. Go back and (re)-read my post. I said zygote. Look it up.

I don't need to re read your post and Planned Parenthood does not give out "the morning after pill".

quote Originally posted by cliffw: I don't need to re read your post and Planned Parenthood does not give out "the morning after pill".

???

I never said anything about the morning-after pill. Are you maybe mixing up two people's arguments?

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: I never said anything about the morning-after pill. Are you maybe mixing up two people's arguments?

No, but perhaps I am not relating them to the thread content well.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: No, but perhaps I am not relating them to the thread content well.

Yeah, I'm definately not getting the connection. Can you clarify?

Yeah. We have a thread about fund cutting for Planned Parenthood (due to shady abortion practices) which turned into a moral discussion of abortion, and a discussion (sort of) of men having the audacity of having a role in determining what a woman does with her body.

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Wow.....two pages of biological men discussing what they would allow biological women to do or not do with their ovaries.

Of which I asked ...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Well, they were shared ovaries. The content of said ovaries now contain matter from two people. Should a man have a right to stop the abortion of his child ?

You then made the contention that the contents of the ovaries were a single celled organism. Or so it seemed to me. Even a single celled organism has life by the way.
Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. Can you clarify.
By the way Doni, ...

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Should a man have a right to stop the abortion of his child ?

After all, if a woman does not have an abortion, a man is responsible for the child.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: In other words your "other option" is really just funding it with more oversight. That is at best a subset of the funding it option. How about we defund it and have two random inspections per year at every abortion clinic? I'm sure that is not on your list of options because all of your options include funding it.

I just offered an option that included funding it. You just arguing for the sake of aguing in your last sentence and that is the BS I say we take plum out of the equation. Fact is you don't know what all I see as options. You cop an attitude about me when if you offered a valid defund option and you don't know how I might take it. It seems that our present form of government cops this same attitude without considering working together on different approaches to fix the problems. My friends working together to fix a problem is most always the best approach and in my opinion that is what our government is missing in the way it conducts business. Maybe better understood that if one party comes up with a detailed plan to address what ever issue needs addressing it seems the other side tries to debunk the idea without offering a valid counter appraoch. I'm tired of that BS in our government.

Just look back through this thread and see for yourselves how folks want to go about an aguement.

quote Originally posted by Flamberge: Where we differ is in the opinion that Planned Parenthood deserves any funding at all. Where the federal government is concerned, I want them to defend our borders, manage foreign relations, maintain our roads, give us a strong standard of currency and get the @%$# out of our way. I see no need to waste federal tax payer dollars on anything that doesn't fall under these categories (and one or two I'm probably forgetting like national parks and historical treasures.) Public schools? Gone - or at least sent to the state level. Social programs? Gone. Abortion clinics? Gone. Obamacare? Gone. At least gone as far as federal tax payers are concerned. If someone wants to donate money for whatever cause, more power to them. You keep wanting to make this a gray issue (with more options than fund/defund) and I agree there are options. My argument is that where I stand, I say we defund all of it, not because the only other option is funding, but because the money can be better spent by the citizens of this country which will in turn fix the economy almost overnight.

See now that ^^ is what I'm looking for. A defund option that could be considered in contrast to a funded one. Details could be worked out on both sides to make both options valid to choose from.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Regardless of the life status of Washington, Adams (and Jefferson and Franklin, et al), their writings exist, including the charter documents of what they founded. Those writings are bound into the fabric of the laws of the land. We often refer to them - some of us when it suits our purpose, some to point out how far we've moved from them. Our good friend, rayb, often (mis)quotes the words of Jesus of Nazareth and His apostles, in order to discredit Christianity. Occasionally, he will touch upon a later disciple, using his misinterpretation to prove his point. What ray often doesn't get is that a false teacher is a false teacher is a false teacher, no matter how many people that they hoodwink. Christ came to enlighten us as to the Way, and when a human adds or takes away from His Word, he places himself and his followers at peril. As the teachings of Christ are the crux (so to speak) of Christianity, and the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the cornerstone of the US, so are the statements and writings of the founder of PP. If the current administration of PP thought otherwise, they would found a new entity and renounce Sanger. Since that hasn't been done in 70 years, I can only conclude that they stand by these statements.

the nut christians fought tooth and nail against any form of sex ed or birth control.
they had sanger jailed for writing about birth control information in a book
the history is clear and our current american tali-ban the nut christian rightwing still wants to return to that ideal
as this attack clearly shows

btw there is NO tie between ''Christianity, and the Constitution'' simply none at all
we are not a christian nation or governed by god's laws
but our rightwing nuts do not want to simply follow their religion's ideals
BUT IMPOSE THEM ON EVERYONE exactly like the tali-ban and sharia law

and sense you brought up false teachings in your religion
you should know the mass of what you call christian is really the false teachings of a guy called saul/paul
saul/paul never met JC or yashowa ben yosef to use his real name something the christians do not do
but claim his name will save them while not useing his real name what is up with that ???
saul/paul had a heat stroke and fell off his donkey and hallucinated up the so called christian religion
fought with JC's known followers and real brother [james the just] over his false teachings
but woundup writing most of the new testament with his sock puppet luke

quote Originally posted by Butter: See now that ^^ is what I'm looking for. A defund option that could be considered in contrast to a funded one. Details could be worked out on both sides to make both options valid to choose from.

That is what you are looking for? All Ram said was he would defund it and spend the money somewhere else. That is the same thing as saying defund it.

If you makes you feel any better, I would defund it and not spend the money at all since our debt is out of control right now. Both what Ram said and what I said are both subsets of not funding it. Again, there are just two options here. I guess you are looking for some feel good stuff to go with whichever choice is made. You are clearly more interested in the process rather than the end result. That makes you easy prey to the politicians that will smile at the camera, shake their opponent's hand the whole time that they are taking money out of your pocket. I am more interested in the end result. No amount of bipartisan support, working together or group hugs is going to make a pile of crap smell any better.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 02-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: the nut christians fought tooth and nail against any form of sex ed or birth control. they had sanger jailed for writing about birth control information in a book the history is clear and our current american tali-ban the nut christian rightwing still wants to return to that ideal as this attack clearly shows btw there is NO tie between ''Christianity, and the Constitution'' simply none at all we are not a christian nation or governed by god's laws but our rightwing nuts do not want to simply follow their religion's ideals BUT IMPOSE THEM ON EVERYONE exactly like the tali-ban and sharia law and sense you brought up false teachings in your religion you should know the mass of what you call christian is really the false teachings of a guy called saul/paul saul/paul never met JC or yashowa ben yosef to use his real name something the christians do not do but claim his name will save them while not useing his real name what is up with that ??? saul/paul had a heat stroke and fell off his donkey and hallucinated up the so called christian religion fought with JC's known followers and real brother [james the just] over his false teachings but woundup writing most of the new testament with his sock puppet luke

Ray, this is going to be a bit off topic, but I'm going to try and help you understand something a little bit.

I understand that you feel that we Christians just try and impose our beliefs on others.

But it's more like this:

Let's say you believe murder is wrong, but another person doesn't see anything wrong with murder (I'm talking murder as you know it--I'm not trying to relate this to abortion). You still don't want him to commit murder, regardless of his beliefs. You believe down to the core of your heart that murder is wrong, and that he should be charged and jailed for any murders he may commit! So you start telling others to help you keep murder illegalized, because he's rallying people up to try and legalize murder. Others agree with you... but some agree with him. There are now two sides and one is saying "Don't impose your beliefs on us", while the other is saying "But it's wrong! You should be in trouble for this!"

This is like any issue that you think we try and shove down your throats. We aren't trying to control anyone! We just believe that some things are wrong, and others are right. Just like you. And we fight for those beliefs, just as you do. Please stop telling me that I'm trying to control you and impose everything I believe on you because I'm some crazy man who just wants to be in charge. I'm a guy just like you are, and speak up for my beliefs, just like you do. So practice some empathy, understand that, and please stop the ignorance and bigotry.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Ray, this is going to be a bit off topic, but I'm going to try and help you understand something a little bit. I understand that you feel that we Christians just try and impose our beliefs on others. But it's more like this: Let's say you believe murder is wrong, but another person doesn't see anything wrong with murder (I'm talking murder as you know it--I'm not trying to relate this to abortion). You still don't want him to commit murder, regardless of his beliefs. You believe down to the core of your heart that murder is wrong, and that he should be charged and jailed for any murders he may commit! So you start telling others to help you keep murder illegalized, because he's rallying people up to try and legalize murder. Others agree with you... but some agree with him. There are now two sides and one is saying "Don't impose your beliefs on us", while the other is saying "But it's wrong! You should be in trouble for this!" This is like any issue that you think we try and shove down your throats. We aren't trying to control anyone! We just believe that some things are wrong, and others are right. Just like you. And we fight for those beliefs, just as you do. Please stop telling me that I'm trying to control you and impose everything I believe on you because I'm some crazy man who just wants to be in charge. I'm a guy just like you are, and speak up for my beliefs, just like you do. So practice some empathy, understand that, and please stop the ignorance and bigotry.

if you study history
you clearly see every time christians get power
humanity is far worse off and has less rights and freedoms
the very people who burned the books of knowledge and closed the schools hospitals and baths in rome
were very sure they were following god's plan AND DOING GOOD
never gave a thought to what would follow as a direct result of their actions
A THOUSAND YEAR DARK AGE WAS WHAT THE CHRISTIAN'S ACTIONS GAVE US

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES some intended some unintended others unknown
like when your christians outlawed alcohol with good intent
the result was not so good despite the good intents
MOB corruption of citys and states to kids selling rotgut in the streets was the result

if you get you desired ban on abortion
abortion willnot go away
it will just move to the back alleys again

''hide witch hide
the good folk come to burn thee
their keen enjoyment hid behind
a gothic mask of duty ''
jefferson airplane 1969

Not going to engage rayb. His mind is made up; so be it. I was only using him as an example.

Back O/T, 53.7 million. That's a hell of a lot of "possessions." If removing Federal funding (for whatever reason - this is the silver lining of a poor economy) helps stem the tide, then I'm all for it.

In fact, as has been stated before, let's defund ALL social programs, leaving border enforcement, the Military and those other things specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the Feds. Let's see our money go back where ti belongs - in our own pockets. Then those who believe in PP can give them their own money, and we can give money to whomever we believe could use it better. Let the market determine the winners.

Touche, !

quote Originally posted by cliffw: You then made the contention that the contents of the ovaries were a single celled organism. Or so it seemed to me. Even a single celled organism has life by the way. Perhaps I misunderstood your argument. Can you clarify.

Well, contents of the uterus, not ovaries, to be exact. My point is that single cells are not intelligent. Example: show me a smart amoeba. So a zygote is human life, but not intelligent human life. And society does not hold non-intelligent life as sacrosanct as intelligent life. After all, cancer cells are human life; do cancer cells have the same right to exist as the human host? We have all determined as a society that, no, it is okay to kill off cancer cells.

So, a zygote grows to become a blastocyst, which grows to become an embryo, which grows to become a fetus. But at what point does an embryo develop a functional brain and nervous system? Science is still out on that one. So since it cannot be determined in advance when an embryo can be considered to be intelligent, there is no moral grounds for objection to abortion up to that point.

I would argue that since it is still human life (albeit not intelligent life) that the decision to abort an embryo should be taken with the greatest of care. And I would agree with those who say that aborting a fetus is morally wrong, but I would be okay with the abortion if it saved the life of the mother.