Democrats need to drop their pro-choice stance

That's just untrue. There are not 1.5 million adoptive parents waiting for newborn children to adopt every year. Prove me wrong...

At 8 weeks old it can suck its thumb abnd emit brain waves, not before. But it is still indistinguisahble from any other primate.

The proceedures of abortion are quite specific and cause no more pain and suffering than being poped with a phaser and smacked in the head with a hammer.

This has nothing to do with wether it is part of the body. Your mitochondria have different DNA too, but they are a vital part of your cells. It eats when Mom eats, from an exchange with her blood. If she smokes crack, it smokes crack. There a a SLIM chance that a child born at 20 weeks could survive. Until that point it is a distinguishable, but in all ways connected tissue built from the mothers blood supply just like any organ.

 

They are undeveloped humans? Who? It's hard to nail down, but I do not think a single fertilized egg cell has more rights than an unfertilized eggs cell which every fertile woman on earth aborts every 28 days.

I didn't say you did eat meat, and I didn't say you were religious. I said the issue was, and I think you will find I am (more or less) right. The churches command people to vote based on this issue. I think that makes it religious.

 

was the adoption process as long as they say it is?

 

Maybe not, but many parents adopt more than one child, and many single mothers choose to keep their babies. Others place them (sometimes temporarily) with relatives. There are countless alternatives to abortion.

Except that other primates have no innate human potential.

I think I'd rather be shocked with a taser than have my arms, legs, and head ripped off, my skin slowly scalded with saline solution, or my skull punctured and brains sucked out.

Besides the differences in DNA and blood type, the unborn provide no vital biological function to the mother, unlike the mother's organs/cells/etc. It's quite a stretch to say that mother and child are one organism.

Even at implantation, the human embryo is more than "a single fertilized egg cell." Furthermore, an unfertilized egg cannot develop as a human being in any environment.

The abolitionist, labor, and civil rights movements were all largely driven by religiously inspired social consciousness.

 

Our cases were probably not typical. Our first adoption was through family connections in Mexico, and it took only 6 months. Our second adoption was a bit more complicated. We had completed all necessary paperwork for an international agency that strung us along for over a year and a half, when we finally gave up and consulted with a local agency that showed our file to a pregnant girl who interviewed us and placed her child with us in less than 2 months time, after she gave birth prematurely.

 

I've tried to find my "hypocrisy", and all I've found is your ignorance and arrogance towards this subject.

Let me break yours down piece by piece, like you so fondly did of mine.

There's a huge difference between protesting a war and protesting against rights. While a war is definitly wrong, and does take life, it does not come to your doorstep telling you that you must change the way you live your life to suit it's needs. On the other hand, you conservatives feel the need to pressure their views into everyone elses head and force their beliefs into law which directly effect the population. It regulates. War does not regulate how I live my life.

As for the cell phone issue, I was simply making a point, which apparently was too advanced for you to understand without having the urge to make some kind of crude, worthless "comeback". If you'd read my post again, you'd see the main arguement was preserving feedom and rights. That all falls into one "class" in my book. Whether it be you trying to regulate how a girl should deal with her child or whether or not a guy can smoke in his own car without breaking a law, it's all the same basic concept.

I agree completly that smoking should be banned from certain public places, places where non smokers will be affected by the smoke of smokers, because it is affected more than just the smoker. This BS about banning it from cars and whatnot is absolute crap. It affects no one but the person smoking, and he has his right to do whatever the hell he wants to do to his body in his own car and home.


BY the way, I love how you said that an unborn baby is not part of the mother. That is pure ignorance hard at work. I'd love to see you attempt to explain that to a doctor. If that unborn fetus is not part of that mothers body, tell me how the mothers diet affects the fetus? Tell me how the mothers drug use affects that unborn childs brain? And tell me what the hell that cord is there for, since that child is so obviously "not part of the mother". Grow up and figure out what you're talking about before you start bitching. Use a little bit of that brainwork.

 

Moderate what? I'm not a Democrat. I affiliate myself with no party. I make my own judgements on what is right and wrong and the best course to take.
I'm just sick of everyone thinking all democrats are pro-abortion. I seriously don't know anyone who is. OK, I know one feminist-type that practically is. But I got to know many college dems lately and most are not fond of abortion. They don't want it banned, but they also don't promote it like you see some sickos here doing.

 

awww... I must have offended you. Sorry I responded to your post, I didn't know you were so fragile that you can't handle being disagreed with.

It not protesting AGAINST rights, it's protesting FOR rights. The rights of the unborn. Where do you draw the line? My niece was 4 weeks premature. She's a beautiful baby, should she have been aborted 4 weeks before she was due to be born? Would that be OK? She was still inside her mother, still "part" of her mother... Where DO you draw the line? If 4 weeks is not acceptable, how about 5...6...7...When is a baby a HUMAN to you?

What was my "comeback"? You big baby. If you can't handle serious discussions such as this, stay the f*ck out of my thread. K?

My point is you should not be able to take the right to live away from a helpless baby. They deserve the freedom to live once they are created.

Where did I say it's not part of the mother? I said it is a separate life. I'm not the same person as my mother.
I'm minoring in Biology so STFU.

 

I'm sorry green. You don't seem to like it when someone really puts up an arguement. You really seem to have taken offence to my post. If you can't handle the heat, maybe you're the one who should drop trying to force your ideas into everyone elses life. The title "Democrats need to drop their pro-choice stance" goes to show the pro-lifes outlook on what they think they can do. They think they can run around forcing their ideas on everyone, thinking they can tell everyone what to do and how to do it. Grow the fuck up, man. Your entire last post was just one big rant about how you didnt like my post, except for a little thing you threw in there about "freedom of the unborn". How about you focus on the freedom of the soldiers dying in Iraq, why don't you foucs your time and money on cures for cancer and AIDs? If you people put half as much time and money into those causes, we'd be much further along than we are now, and be saving many more lives than you ever would with your damned unborn.

A baby is officially born when it comes out. That's why they give you "BIRTH CERTIFICATES". Wow! What a concept! Maybe you should arguee that too, that they should give mothers birth certificates when it's first 'conceved', cause, hell, it's a baby, right? It's already born in your 'mind'.

The only thing I correct is that it was HuckFinn trying to point out that a unborn child was seperate from the mother. Sorry.


Tell me what you are personally going to do when adoption agencies are filled to the brink with children they can't get rid of, and this world becomes more seriously overpopulated than it is. You don't think ahead, you don't think of the consequences. All you care about is your "unborn". Good luck with that buddy. Hopefully you'll still be living to reap the consequences of this one.

If you want me to stay out of your thread, how about you chill the fuck out and stop trying to regulate how we should live our lives.

 

lol. I certainly hope you weren't refering to your post.
I've seen decent arguments for abortion, but trust me, yours was not.

ummm....no. My title describes the inaccurate portrayal of many democrats, those that are not pro-abortion. Just how am I "forcing my ideas into everyone elses life"? By having an opinion on abortion? Okaaaaay....whateva. The title reflects my personal opinion. That's it. Nothing more, so settle down.

Believe me, I spend MUCH more time on antiwar causes than I do on abortion. I spend no time on abortion save this very thread, so stop making assumptions, it only makes you look dumb. I don't plan on becoming a doctor, so AIDS and cancer will have to be left up to someone else to cure I'm afraid....hopefully not you as you don't appear to have the mental fitness to tackle such endeavors.

Did I ask when a baby is officially born? Did I ask that? I don't think I would ask something that freaking moronic under any circumstance.
Obviously the confusion is your own. When a child is created, it is a life. No one has the right to end a life. Life begins at conception. This is a scientific fact, it doesn't really make a difference to me if someone like you disputes it.
A baby is as helpless once born as it is in the womb. Perhaps moreso in fact, in the womb at least it is protected. When born it is still dependent on another human to be fed and cared for.

My, this is entertaining. First of all, I advocate prevention. I support educating people, especially teens, about how to prevent pregnancy.
Secondly, you suggest the world is overpopulated (and abortion is an answer to that problem), yet you charged me earlier with the task of finding the cures to AIDS and cancer and war.....read your replies through a couple times before you post them, and weed out inconsistencies such as these. I have a difficult time taking anything you say seriously with such glaring discrepancies littering your posts.

By advocating education and family planning I'm attempting to regulate your life? Sure.
Post in this thread as much as you like, just don't cry when someone disagrees with you.

 

Very touchy are we? This is why I tend to avoid political topics, it's crowded with people like you who are too interested in pushing their own views through to actually really respond to opposition without getting all red faced and posting responses like that. What a wonderful waste of space you've been, thank you.

I would correct you on some parts, and sure some of the things you've pointed out need explaining to make sense to someone with your limited amount of thinking skills, but why bother, I'm just going to get more hot headed remarks. Maybe we can divert all babies headed towards the wonderful adoption agency over towards your house when they outlaw abortion. You seem to welcome them with such open arms.

But, one final thing. I have nothing against prevention, and that really has nothing to do with the legal aspects of abortion. It's what happens when prevention fails (ex. - abortion). I agree prevention will help, but it will not stop abortions all together.

Haha, I just re-read your last post. I can understand where you're coming from, you seem to have completely missed every point I was making, and then twist my words into your own little meaning. No wonder why it dosnt make sense to you.

 

i think the stance that it's just a "clump of cells" is kinda irrational to me. that "clump of cells" was still my daughter. what difference the timing? it's still alive. i've never understood that. i know people who've had to have abortions, my mom, my sis, my dearest friends. i don't judge them for it, they had a hard enough time of it anyway, they needed my love. but in my heart, i know it's wrong.

 

I agree completely. When babies are born they still have much development left, what difference does it make if they are in the womb or outside of it? I think many people know in their heart that it is wrong, yet we aren't the ones to speak out, especially if you are a democrat, because you'd be going against the grain. The pro-abortion feminists have hijacked this issue in the democratic party. I'm not saying Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, just that democrats should stress the more moral aspect of their stance-that abortion should be prevented.

Hell, I guess we ALL are a "clump of cells" aren't we?

 

**

As I keep saying the questions and answers in the US debate over abortion always seem to descend to the very simplistic. It is another example of that American way of thinking that only seems to believe in absolutes.

Either – or

Good – bad

Moral – Immoral

The thing is that is way to simplistic.

The thing is that reality can be a lot less cut and dry. Is war good or bad, to me it is always bad but it might be the right thing to do, is killing someone right or wrong to me it is always wrong but it might be necessary. And different people will have different views according to their outlook and the circumstances.

The question for me is not is abortion right or wrong but why do the people involved make the decision to have them.

Why do people get pregnant with unwanted children?

Why do people decide to terminate those pregnancy?

It is clear that many people think they already know the answer to these questions the reason being that these women are sinners that are driven by hedonistic desires and make these decisions because they are corrupted by the evil of immorality. So to them the why in the issue is not that important since the only way such people can be helped, (‘redeemed’ as one of them put it) is by finding religion and keeping to the religious codes.

It therefore seems to me that many ‘anti’s’ are not driven by a genuine desire to understand and help but to impose their own dogmatic view.


**

 

There is a lot of logic to this post..Good post. With that being said..My view on this Iraq war is it wasn't necessary, and it shouldn't have occured. I support our troops and my heart goes out to everyone of them, but I do not support this war..It went from the war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, to the war on terror..Which I believe this war made us more susceptible to terrorist threats and attacks.