The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > SHH Community > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2011, 10:09 PM   #101
Anita18
DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!
 
Anita18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 23,501
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
To me its not a matter of legality or otherwise or a party issue. It is a matter of our country being trillions of dollars in debt and each year 350 million dollars is given to this organization and at least some of that money funding abortions. Morality aside, if you are in a position where you need an abortion, in 9 out of 10 cases, you have no one to blame but yourself. My tax dollars should not be going to clean up someone's mistakes.
ISS has a good point, though. Repealing tax cuts for the uber-wealthy would have been the easiest way to get some money, but it's a lot easier to go after the poor people instead because they can't afford lobbyists. Don't kid yourself that it isn't partly a class issue.

As for me, I'm still hoping for a reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act so we wouldn't have a repeat of the Wall Street eff-up, but I don't have high hopes for that.

__________________
To relive the TDK virals (or learn more!) visit http://www.whysoseriousredux.com
Anita18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 10:20 PM   #102
Kelly
I'm Awake!
SHH! Administrator
 
Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 56,934
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
ISS has a good point, though. Repealing tax cuts for the uber-wealthy would have been the easiest way to get some money, but it's a lot easier to go after the poor people instead because they can't afford lobbyists. Don't kid yourself that it isn't partly a class issue.

As for me, I'm still hoping for a reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act so we wouldn't have a repeat of the Wall Street eff-up, but I don't have high hopes for that.

The problem is it "wasn't" the uber-rich, it was a huge chunk of small business owners, and that IS NOT where we need to be getting our money right now....we should be making it EXTREMELY EASY for them to expand their businesses, not lay off more people...you want more income from them, then you give them all of the opportunities you can to expand....

Upped the taxes on 2 million or even 1.5 million.....sure, that certainly could have been done, but not on all making more than 250,000 because the small business owners may SHOW making more than 250,000 but that is certainly not what they are living on, probably most of that goes right back into their business....people tend to forget that for many $250,000 is not truly what they are living on....that is their living PLUS trying to expand a business, or right now, keep a business going.

__________________
"Those who can, do...Those who can do more, teach."
Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 10:22 PM   #103
Anita18
DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!
 
Anita18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 23,501
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Eh, I think a lot of that could be argued over and over and never agreed upon because we just disagree on the approach.

Anyways, can we at least agree that reinstating Glass-Steagall would be one great idea that will never be implemented because it would hurt Wall Street?

__________________
To relive the TDK virals (or learn more!) visit http://www.whysoseriousredux.com
Anita18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 10:25 PM   #104
Kelly
I'm Awake!
SHH! Administrator
 
Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 56,934
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY View Post
Why do the GOP (and a big chunk of Dems) only want to cut funding to things that help out poor people? Also I thought the GOP said that they would only focus on jobs, why has most of their focus been on Abortion issues?

Hate or love it, Abortion is legal and I'm tired of it constantly being attacked as if it isn't. America isn't a theocracy so nobody gives a f**k what G-d one prays too. And I say this as a relegious person.
Most Republicans and Conservatives I see have actually stated that Abortion is the law and that isn't changing anytime soon, so not sure how they are attacking it "as if" its illegal. What they are attacking is the taxpayer paying for an elective medical procedure.....and as a taxpayer, I do not want my taxes going to someone's elective medical procedure. I have no problem for my taxpayer money going to many different agencies that help the "poor" but if those agencies are only perpetuating the cycle of poverty, and not empowering the people to move beyond that....then no, I want the agency audited, and either done away with, or turned into an effective, efficiently run agency that empowers people....I care what God I pray to, but no, I don't really care what God you pray to....or anyone else for that matter. Not all conservatives care....most care about fiscal problems, not how or who you pray to....

__________________
"Those who can, do...Those who can do more, teach."
Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 10:28 PM   #105
I SEE SPIDEY
HYPE AWARD WINNER!
 
I SEE SPIDEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In Superman's arms
Posts: 29,099
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
To me its not a matter of legality or otherwise or a party issue. It is a matter of our country being trillions of dollars in debt and each year 350 million dollars is given to this organization and at least some of that money funding abortions. Morality aside, if you are in a position where you need an abortion, in 9 out of 10 cases, you have no one to blame but yourself. My tax dollars should not be going to clean up someone's mistakes.
It sounds like you are against abortion though and that you don't want any woman to have one. Thats just what the vibe I'm getting, feel free to correct me.

Don't you think that we should, as Anita addressed, stop giving Tax cuts to the top 2%? How is that helping the Nantional Debt? Why is the first thing cut social services that help poor people? We bail out WallStreet and the Audo-Makers because we allow them to become to big to fail but when a poor person asks for a hand out we say no, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. After we bail those f**kers out, they give eachother mega bonuses for being s**ting bussiness men! I mean how is that right or fair? Oh well, I'm one of those bleeding hearts who believe that people should have free heathcare so...what do I know?

__________________
Come think with us:http://thinkmcflythink.squarespace.com/

The Lego Movie: 8.5/10-RoboCop 6.5/10-Captain America: The Winter Soldier 9.5/10

I SUPPORT GIVING BATFLECK A CHANCE.
I SEE SPIDEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 10:34 PM   #106
Kelly
I'm Awake!
SHH! Administrator
 
Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 56,934
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
Eh, I think a lot of that could be argued over and over and never agreed upon because we just disagree on the approach.

Anyways, can we at least agree that reinstating Glass-Steagall would be one great idea that will never be implemented because it would hurt Wall Street?

As long as it doesn't screw up my stocks? Sure....but I have 10 more years before I retire, and I am an aggressive stock player, I don't want anything screwing that up....

__________________
"Those who can, do...Those who can do more, teach."
Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 10:38 PM   #107
Anita18
DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!
 
Anita18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 23,501
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel View Post
As long as it doesn't screw up my stocks? Sure....but I have 10 more years before I retire, and I am an aggressive stock player, I don't want anything screwing that up....
See, it's still the same thing - as long as I get what I want, screw everybody else!

The thing about Glass-Steagall is that sure, it keeps the banks from performing deceptively well given their size. But you've got to consider that before the stock crash, things were going GREAT, so everyone was playing along. Stocks were the way to go. And then it crashed suddenly and wiped everybody out with no warning, including banks which were holding regular folks' money and IMO should not have been speculating with it. I think I'd rather play it safe and more conservative considering that risk.

__________________
To relive the TDK virals (or learn more!) visit http://www.whysoseriousredux.com
Anita18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 11:23 PM   #108
Anita18
DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!
 
Anita18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 23,501
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt View Post
And considering that the federal government provides 1/3 of Planned Parenthood's funding, yeah, we are basically paying for the abortion aspects.
No we are not. I just remembered reading somewhere that PP doesn't get any federal funds for abortion services.


It turns out it's required by law that they already can't use federal funds for abortions.
Although I guess you COULD argue that you're indirectly paying for people to have abortions because financially supporting them for other services frees up money for them to provide abortions, but that's like saying we should repeal the tax cuts for those top 2% of earners because they MIGHT go out and buy billion-dollar yachts instead of hiring more people.

This law basically punishes Planned Parenthood for providing abortions and would cut into their clinical work which I think is more important than the abortion work.

__________________
To relive the TDK virals (or learn more!) visit http://www.whysoseriousredux.com
Anita18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 11:36 PM   #109
UltimateJustin
The Hype's Black Purist
 
UltimateJustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: TexXxas
Posts: 1,981
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

People are going to have abortions one way or the other. Human beings have been doing this for a long, long time in a galaxy we currently reside in. What's the outrage over taxes supporting something that helps many of the downtrodden and those who have been institutionally taken advantage of?

Would you rather another human life enter this world to an unprepared mother, or another lost soul enter the world into a demographic that is known to be treated more unfairly? What's the advantage for the mother or child in that situation? Think about it.

__________________
I Believe in Miles Morales.
"Miles ahead of other heroes..."
UltimateJustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 12:26 AM   #110
StorminNorman
Banned User
 
StorminNorman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 30,658
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sikyon View Post
Late response but I think I'm going to argue that line of thought.

You act as though a child and a mother are two separate entities - but while two men don't share any relation that would give them any rights to violate the freedom of the other person, a child and its mother are by default bound in a dependent relationship. Nature made it so that the fetus depends on its mother in the first stage of its life in which it is not able to provide for itself. It's a mechanism necessary to ensure the survival of the offspring which in turn is necessary for the survival of a species. What gives the fetus the right to breach the autonomy of the mother?

The mother does. When the mother exercises her freedom of choice in a conscious act that results in a pregnancy, she willingly puts her independence on the line. (This is notwithstandig rape, obviously, but rape doesn't constitute the majority of what we are talking about, thankfully. As this is a discussion of the fundamental ethics, cases of hardship are excluded.)

When a woman has an abortion, it is only after she got pregnant. I feel like that is often forgotten. It wasn't forced on her. It may have happened because of negligence or ignorance or lack of education or indifference ("When I get pregnant, I can always get an abortion") or bad luck (a busted condom maybe - rarely as it happens) but the first step is almost always one of deliberately taking action and both woman and man are not without fault regarding whatever comes out of the situation - the only innocent party in all of this is the fetus.

The analogy you gave with the toddler and the mother outside of the womb applies to cases where the mother risks her health or even her life by giving birth. That is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself, same as with rape etc. The criteria for abortion is a different one in those cases. Generally speaking, a mother doesn't have to sacrifice herself for her child. She might do it because of a maternal instinct but she has no obligation to.

Maybe I'm just in favor of someone bearing the consequences of their actions, thoughtless as they may have been, and not passing them on to the fetus.

Plus, in societies nowadays you don't even have to provide for the child once it's born. There is a thing called giving it up for adoption.

However, every case is different and I cannot and will not judge people who do whatever they feel is best in their situation. Personally, I am opposed to abortion (except in cases of rape or the mother's health being at risk) because it seems the easiest option out of something that is self-inflicted. And because we are dealing with life, existence and other abstract ethic dimensions, it's fairly problematic. But every woman should have the right to choose for herself. You cannot decide something for other people where there exists no universally applicable formula.
I actually really like this line of reasoning, and have considered (and even used it on this forum) before.

The morality of abortion is, for me, a toss up issue.

But the legality of abortion isn't. I think you essentially say the same thing. But hats off to your stellar post

StorminNorman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 02:57 AM   #111
Mystirious
Immortal Lesbian
 
Mystirious's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 25,351
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
No we are not. I just remembered reading somewhere that PP doesn't get any federal funds for abortion services.


It turns out it's required by law that they already can't use federal funds for abortions.
Although I guess you COULD argue that you're indirectly paying for people to have abortions because financially supporting them for other services frees up money for them to provide abortions, but that's like saying we should repeal the tax cuts for those top 2% of earners because they MIGHT go out and buy billion-dollar yachts instead of hiring more people.

This law basically punishes Planned Parenthood for providing abortions and would cut into their clinical work which I think is more important than the abortion work.
I think they should receive federal funding for abortion services

__________________
In the year one million and a half

Humankind is enslaved by giraffe
Mystirious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 07:38 AM   #112
Matt
The Man
SHH! Global Moderator
 
Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Camp Manuel
Posts: 75,449
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystirious View Post
I think they should receive federal funding for abortion services
Do you support government funding for nose jobs, gastric bypass, or other elective procedures?

__________________
Avatar by Hunter Rider
Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 07:41 AM   #113
Matt
The Man
SHH! Global Moderator
 
Matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Camp Manuel
Posts: 75,449
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by I SEE SPIDEY View Post
It sounds like you are against abortion though and that you don't want any woman to have one. Thats just what the vibe I'm getting, feel free to correct me.

Don't you think that we should, as Anita addressed, stop giving Tax cuts to the top 2%? How is that helping the Nantional Debt? Why is the first thing cut social services that help poor people? We bail out WallStreet and the Audo-Makers because we allow them to become to big to fail but when a poor person asks for a hand out we say no, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. After we bail those f**kers out, they give eachother mega bonuses for being s**ting bussiness men! I mean how is that right or fair? Oh well, I'm one of those bleeding hearts who believe that people should have free heathcare so...what do I know?
I'm absolutely apathetic towards abortion. If I were a woman, I probably wouldn't do it, but to each their own. None of my business either way.

I agree that there should be tax raises to the top 2 % of earners (actually, I think there should be a tax raise across the boards), but at the same time you must consider that the top 2 % of earners already pay 90 % of taxes AND employ most people in our country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
No we are not. I just remembered reading somewhere that PP doesn't get any federal funds for abortion services.


It turns out it's required by law that they already can't use federal funds for abortions.
Although I guess you COULD argue that you're indirectly paying for people to have abortions because financially supporting them for other services frees up money for them to provide abortions, but that's like saying we should repeal the tax cuts for those top 2% of earners because they MIGHT go out and buy billion-dollar yachts instead of hiring more people.

This law basically punishes Planned Parenthood for providing abortions and would cut into their clinical work which I think is more important than the abortion work.
Like I said, I support across the board tax raises. That said, I would support the tax cut on the top 2 % if they can prove that money is being used to create new jobs. Just as I would support the money going to Planned Parenthood if they used their money to create jobs (and I don't mean in the trickle down sense that they buy condoms and that provides jobs for Trojan ).

Like I said, I have no stance on abortion. My stance is against the government funding a private institution and helping them offer elective medical procedures on the taxpayer's dime.

I basically think it is time we cut off federal funding to all private institutions with certain exceptions (medical research grants and what not), not just Planned Parenthood. Until our country's debt is at least managable, we shouldn't be handing out federal charity.

__________________
Avatar by Hunter Rider
Matt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 05:10 PM   #114
Kelly
I'm Awake!
SHH! Administrator
 
Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 56,934
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anita18 View Post
See, it's still the same thing - as long as I get what I want, screw everybody else!

The thing about Glass-Steagall is that sure, it keeps the banks from performing deceptively well given their size. But you've got to consider that before the stock crash, things were going GREAT, so everyone was playing along. Stocks were the way to go. And then it crashed suddenly and wiped everybody out with no warning, including banks which were holding regular folks' money and IMO should not have been speculating with it. I think I'd rather play it safe and more conservative considering that risk.
Yeah, I'm a heartless *****.....who plans on retiring with as little help from the government as possible....

__________________
"Those who can, do...Those who can do more, teach."
Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 07:21 PM   #115
SentinelMind
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North FL
Posts: 4,078
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateJustin View Post
Would you rather another human life enter this world to an unprepared mother, or another lost soul enter the world into a demographic that is known to be treated more unfairly? What's the advantage for the mother or child in that situation? Think about it.
Yes. I want people to experience the gift of life and I want the state to protect people's right. It's completely arrogant for anyone to sit there and speculate how somebody's life is going to turn out so they should just be killed during the pregnancy. You're not God, you don't know. I don't think I have to make a list of famous celebrities who were adopted do I?

SentinelMind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 07:28 PM   #116
Handsome Rob
Prepare for Razzle-Dazzle
 
Handsome Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The good old days
Posts: 1,885
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateJustin View Post
Would you rather another human life enter this world to an unprepared mother, or another lost soul enter the world into a demographic that is known to be treated more unfairly? What's the advantage for the mother or child in that situation? Think about it.
This is an irrelevant argument to someone who believes that life begins in the womb AND deserves protection. You might as well suggest that we kill 5-year-olds in these demographics, with these unprepared mothers, etc.

After all, if a living fetus can be killed for growing in an "unprepared mother," why not kill the toddler living in the home of the "unprepared mother?" Does the action of birth automatically give one more of an advantage in the same situation? Think about it.

__________________
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. -- Jack Burton
I'm a Believer.

Want to join the Revolution? Support the FairTax.

Handsome Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 11:23 PM   #117
UltimateJustin
The Hype's Black Purist
 
UltimateJustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: TexXxas
Posts: 1,981
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Handsome Rob View Post
This is an irrelevant argument to someone who believes that life begins in the womb AND deserves protection. You might as well suggest that we kill 5-year-olds in these demographics, with these unprepared mothers, etc.

After all, if a living fetus can be killed for growing in an "unprepared mother," why not kill the toddler living in the home of the "unprepared mother?" Does the action of birth automatically give one more of an advantage in the same situation? Think about it.
Yes because there is no serious debate whether or not a toddler constitutes a living human. A fetus is just lumps of tissue and like maybe an eye if you're lucky. It makes way more sense to draw the line at birth than to say anything growing inside a person is alive. By that logic we should let tumors grow in people cause they have that 'right'. Think about it.

__________________
I Believe in Miles Morales.
"Miles ahead of other heroes..."
UltimateJustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 11:41 PM   #118
SentinelMind
Banned User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North FL
Posts: 4,078
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateJustin View Post
Yes because there is no serious debate whether or not a toddler constitutes a living human. A fetus is just lumps of tissue and like maybe an eye if you're lucky. It makes way more sense to draw the line at birth than to say anything growing inside a person is alive. By that logic we should let tumors grow in people cause they have that 'right'. Think about it.
A fetus has its own DNA and distinct genetic identity seperate from the mother. The fetus is attempting to be a live separate from the mother and will naturally do so without interference.

How can you look at a 6 month old baby and then think "I would have been perfectly ok if you were terminated in the womb 9 months ago." Think about it.

SentinelMind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 02:53 AM   #119
UltimateJustin
The Hype's Black Purist
 
UltimateJustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: TexXxas
Posts: 1,981
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by SentinelMind View Post
Think about it.
Okay, I will.

__________________
I Believe in Miles Morales.
"Miles ahead of other heroes..."
UltimateJustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 03:27 AM   #120
Anita18
DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!
 
Anita18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 23,501
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by SentinelMind View Post
A fetus has its own DNA and distinct genetic identity seperate from the mother. The fetus is attempting to be a live separate from the mother and will naturally do so without interference.

How can you look at a 6 month old baby and then think "I would have been perfectly ok if you were terminated in the womb 9 months ago." Think about it.
Someone on another forum had a good suggestion - consider a sliding scale of rights for a growing embryo. When an embryo is a few days old, consider it a clump of cells because that's what it is. It can't survive on its own, it can't even really try to. When it gains a beating heart, then a brain, then starts looking like a human baby, then it gains more rights. I can live with that. I'm a biologist and even I have a hard time considering a clump of cells to be their own entity, and I handle platefuls of them every day.

Because honestly, if we're going to get up in arms over a week-old embryo dying, we might as well be like that GA nutcase politician who suggested investigating women who'd had miscarriages to make sure they hadn't aborted their fetuses. I know someone who had a miscarriage. It's simply devastating, but what it is is the body inducing an abortion by itself.

__________________
To relive the TDK virals (or learn more!) visit http://www.whysoseriousredux.com
Anita18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 06:04 AM   #121
Handsome Rob
Prepare for Razzle-Dazzle
 
Handsome Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The good old days
Posts: 1,885
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateJustin View Post
Yes because there is no serious debate whether or not a toddler constitutes a living human. A fetus is just lumps of tissue and like maybe an eye if you're lucky. It makes way more sense to draw the line at birth than to say anything growing inside a person is alive. By that logic we should let tumors grow in people cause they have that 'right'. Think about it.
If a tumor is allowed to grow and develop, it will remain a tumor.

If a clump of cells from your biceps is removed, given a proper environment and nourished, it will remain biceps tissue.

If a blastocyst is given a proper environment and nourished, it will progress through stages, becoming an embryo, then a fetus, then an infant, then a toddler, etc., etc., then an adult.

So, I'm sorry, but there is a huge difference between a tumor and a blastocyst. A tumor is a tumor. A blastocyst is a stage of human development.

And as to drawing "the line at birth," are you seriously going to argue that one day before delivery at nine months, it's a "lump of tissue and maybe an eye," and 24 hours later it's a complete, living baby?

__________________
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. -- Jack Burton
I'm a Believer.

Want to join the Revolution? Support the FairTax.

Handsome Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 03:30 PM   #122
UltimateJustin
The Hype's Black Purist
 
UltimateJustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: TexXxas
Posts: 1,981
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Handsome Rob View Post
And as to drawing "the line at birth," are you seriously going to argue that one day before delivery at nine months, it's a "lump of tissue and maybe an eye," and 24 hours later it's a complete, living baby?
Can you, in good conscience, claim that it is?

__________________
I Believe in Miles Morales.
"Miles ahead of other heroes..."
UltimateJustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 06:20 PM   #123
Handsome Rob
Prepare for Razzle-Dazzle
 
Handsome Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The good old days
Posts: 1,885
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateJustin View Post
Can you, in good conscience, claim that it is?
Have you ever seen a fetus at 8 months, much less 9?

Here's a 3D ultrasound gif of one at 32 weeks (roughly 8 months). Clearly, it's a little more than "lumps of tissue and like maybe an eye if you're lucky."



So to answer your question: Yes. I'd have to surrender my knowledge of biology in order to accept the idea that lumps of tissues (and possibly an eye!) magically transform into the shape and actuality of a baby when and only when they breach the vaginal wall and are exposed to air.

__________________
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. -- Jack Burton
I'm a Believer.

Want to join the Revolution? Support the FairTax.

Handsome Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 06:41 PM   #124
Kelly
I'm Awake!
SHH! Administrator
 
Kelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 56,934
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

That is just .... "wow", that that little person was actually growing inside someone. How cool is that?

__________________
"Those who can, do...Those who can do more, teach."
Kelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2011, 06:45 PM   #125
Handsome Rob
Prepare for Razzle-Dazzle
 
Handsome Rob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The good old days
Posts: 1,885
Default Re: Discussion: Abortion II

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel View Post
That is just .... "wow", that that little person was actually growing inside someone. How cool is that?
God works in mysterious (and sometimes extremely cool) ways.

__________________
May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. -- Jack Burton
I'm a Believer.

Want to join the Revolution? Support the FairTax.

Handsome Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:23 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.