Franklin Graham peppered Obama about ties to Islam

I have a cousin who writes legal briefs for NARAL and she would never, ever have an abortion. She'll fight to great lengths to make sure that other people have them.

Do you know what is her motivation for doing so? For the glory? For the Constitution? Or Is it simply for the $$$? Or yet something else?

SheikBen wrote:
I am convinced that abortion is a means by which people who think themselves doing well are in fact ridding the country of millions of poor people. "Overpopulation" very rarely means "we have to have an abortion" but rather that other people should.

Of course, the Bushes were always big supporters of abortion, Planned Parenthood, and other reproductive freedoms.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/20/INGH1FEL551.DTL

"Prescott Bush won a Senate seat two years later, and his son George and daughter-in-law Barbara continued to support Planned Parenthood even after George's election to Congress from Texas. In fact, he was such an advocate for family planning that some House colleagues gave him the nickname "Rubbers." "

Was Bush a fan of Eugenics?

Bush has appointed two justices to the Supreme Court who are proving their convictions are good.

I'm aware of the elder Bushes pro-choice proclivities. Al Gore was once pro-life, too.

But, as to your point, abortion is no less a horrific practice when it is favored by a Republican rather than a Democrat. I would never have voted for Giuliani and McCain would never have been in contention for my vote (worthless as it is in Illinois) had he chosen Ridge or Lieberman as his running mate.

"...it is still the destruction of a human life."

It is the destruction of a POTENTIAL human life.

So now you're saying that a fetus isn't alive?

You know they're alive, a few months ago you compared them to parasites.

Parasites are only alive if they are "wanted."

So now you're saying that a fetus isn't alive?

Is it a human, breathing, taking in its own nourishment? You have to be BORN to be a person, Steph. Don't we start measuring our days with our day of birth?

You know they're alive, a few months ago you compared them to parasites.

They do take nourishment off of a host to that host's physical detriment (ruined my wife's teeth, for example). Do you know the definition of a parasite? Granted, a fetus isn't a parasite as it is the same species as the host, but other than that, my comparison was fairly valid and you poked any holes in it.

Parasites are only alive if they are "wanted."

As a biologist, I am here to disagree with you. Wants rarely enter into it with parasites.

I see that sarcasm is lost on you:)

Terry,

My son was born one month early. Do you believe that I should have been able to kill him legally during his first month? Why or why not? His chronological peers were still in the womb, and you think it is permissible to kill them.

My son was born one month early. Do you believe that I should have been able to kill him legally during his first month? Why or why not? His chronological peers were still in the womb, and you think it is permissible to kill them.

First, you don't know what I believe. I am against any late term abortions save to protect the physical health of the mother.

Second, once your son was BORN, it has all of the rights listed (and unlisted) in the Constitution and in state and local laws. You know that I have argued that. You made a poor analogy in an attempt to appeal to emotion

TerryRC wrote:So now you're saying that a fetus isn't alive?

Is it a human, breathing, taking in its own nourishment? You have to be BORN to be a person, Steph. Don't we start measuring our days with our day of birth?

You know they're alive, a few months ago you compared them to parasites.

They do take nourishment off of a host to that host's physical detriment (ruined my wife's teeth, for example). Do you know the definition of a parasite? Granted, a fetus isn't a parasite as it is the same species as the host, but other than that, my comparison was fairly valid and you poked any holes in it.

Parasites are only alive if they are "wanted."

As a biologist, I am here to disagree with you. Wants rarely enter into it with parasites.

Terry,

The fact that we celebrate birthdays does not diminish the value of the unborn. All that means is we are celebrating the day they joined the rest of us here on the outside

Pregnancy has positive benefits for the mother, Terry. As a biologist, certainly you would have to agree, at the very least, pregnancy provides the mother with the ability to continue her DNA. In some respects this offers a kind of immortality.

Pregnancy and childbirth are a natural part of life. The fact that your wife's teeth were ruined as a result of pregnancy is likely because of some physical defect or weakness on the part of your wife's body, not that of her children. It didn't make her a "host" or the babies "parasites".

Pregnancy and childbirth are a natural part of life. The fact that your wife's teeth were ruined as a result of pregnancy is likely because of some physical defect or weakness on the part of your wife's body, not that of her children. It didn't make her a "host" or the babies "parasites".

Parasites are a natural part of life, also.

Regardless, pregnancies DO often weaken the moms to be, even if they are perfectly healthy. Ask any OB.

Pregnancy has positive benefits for the mother, Terry. As a biologist, certainly you would have to agree, at the very least, pregnancy provides the mother with the ability to continue her DNA. In some respects this offers a kind of immortality.

And this makes humans different from any other form of life how [going back to what makes humans so much more important than any other type of life]?

TerryRC wrote:My son was born one month early. Do you believe that I should have been able to kill him legally during his first month? Why or why not? His chronological peers were still in the womb, and you think it is permissible to kill them.

First, you don't know what I believe. I am against any late term abortions save to protect the physical health of the mother.

Second, once your son was BORN, it has all of the rights listed (and unlisted) in the Constitution and in state and local laws. You know that I have argued that. You made a poor analogy in an attempt to appeal to emotion

Your middle statement has no meaning. Saying that you want to protect the "physical health" of the mother is meaningless, as in a future post you say that pregnancy often comes at the expense of even the most healthy's woman's health.

Saying that you are against late term abortions with the exception of physical health, and then going on to say that often pregnancies compromise a woman's life, is in fact saying nothing and blowing smoke.

Just say that you favor no real restrictions on abortion, which is the effect of your "physical health" exception and protected not by Roe v Wade but rather by Doe v Bolton. "health" exceptions can come in many forms and are easily claimed by anyone who wants an abortion.

To put it much better, you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to say that you disagree with some abortions while keeping every abortion legal. That's a fine position, to be sure, but it's hardly moderate.

Your middle statement has no meaning. Saying that you want to protect the "physical health" of the mother is meaningless, as in a future post you say that pregnancy often comes at the expense of even the most healthy's woman's health.

Ah, Sheik.

You do realize that most states ban abortion after "viability" (it varies from state to state) and I have always agreed with that.

I admit, I should have said "threatens the mother's life", rather than "threatens her physical health", as every pregnancy can threaten a woman's health.

I am indeed against late-term abortions, regardless of how hypocritical you may think me.

Am I any worse than the person that makes out every abortion to be a barbaric late-term abortion knowing that it is actually a tiny fraction of them, knowing that most abortions are early term when the fetus is still little more than a zygote?

I once had you agreeing that no human has the right to life at the expense of another, related or not [I believe the example I used was the government forcing you to give a long term blood transfusion to someone else]. You appear to have backed off on that since then, Mike.

"I admit, I should have said "threatens the mother's life", rather than "threatens her physical health", as every pregnancy can threaten a woman's health.

I am indeed against late-term abortions, regardless of how hypocritical you may think me."--TerryRC,

EVERY late-term abortion ban in the last 10 years that has been considered at all by Congress has included an exception for the life of the mother. The Texas law that was struck down by Roe v Wade included an exception for the life of the mother.

I think we've had this chat before and you would not concede protections for "life of the mother" over "health." Am I not remembering correctly? If indeed you are saying that a late-term abortion ought to be illegal unless the mother's life is immediately threatened, then I have misjudged your position.

TerryRC wrote:Pregnancy and childbirth are a natural part of life. The fact that your wife's teeth were ruined as a result of pregnancy is likely because of some physical defect or weakness on the part of your wife's body, not that of her children. It didn't make her a "host" or the babies "parasites".

Parasites are a natural part of life, also.

Regardless, pregnancies DO often weaken the moms to be, even if they are perfectly healthy. Ask any OB.

Pregnancy has positive benefits for the mother, Terry. As a biologist, certainly you would have to agree, at the very least, pregnancy provides the mother with the ability to continue her DNA. In some respects this offers a kind of immortality.

And this makes humans different from any other form of life how [going back to what makes humans so much more important than any other type of life]?

Sure parasites are a natural part of life. The fact they are both natural occurences doesn't make them the same.

I asked you in the other thread if you would buy or sell a human being the way I'm confident you have bought and/or sold animals in your lifetime. If you would not buy or sell a person but eat burgers or bacon or poultry you obviously see a distinction too.

Paging Peter Singer, paging Dr. Peter Singer.

I asked you in the other thread if you would buy or sell a human being the way I'm confident you have bought and/or sold animals in your lifetime. If you would not buy or sell a person but eat burgers or bacon or poultry you obviously see a distinction too.

Sorry, kids. I've been on the road.

Since then I've been taking care of an starving abandoned kitten my wife found at Laurel Lake in a garbage can (if there is a hell, people that abandon animals deserve a special part of it). On top of that, we are trying to husband a tiny flying squirrel that fell out of the nest. That little sucker requires twice hourly feedings.

Steph - stop answering questions with questions.

Neither of you have answered what makes humans so much more important than all of the other animals.

Sheik - I'll admit that late term abortion (late second and third trimester) should be illegal unless the mother's life is at risk (that can include many conditions, though) if you will admit that, under any other condition, the government would not have the right to force you to use your body to keep another alive.

Terry,

Kudos for taking care of the critters. No wonder why I've grown so fond of you.

People are more important than animals. You think so to. Why? First, of all, we are more intelligent than the other creatures we share this planet with. True, not all of us demonstrate this all the time, but we are.

Now you're not going to tell me you don't think people are more important than animals. You do. You care for animals, you may love some. I love my dogs. I practically worship at the alter of Sylvester, the cat I've shared my life with for 17 years. However, I would never place his life over yours. You are more important than Sylvester. Your life is more important than Sylvester's life, and so isn't every other person on the planet. Including those I can't even stomach.

Just don't go ratting me out to Sylvester Kitty! I'll deny it. He can't read so you can't prove it

Terry,

I will grant no such concession. Clarifying your point is in no way going to make me change my mind. Nice try, though.

I would suggest that, as a no doubt good father and spouse, that you are not opposed to human rights over animals at all, but rather you have rejected absolute right and wrong in the first place. In the absence of such absolutes, there is no standard by which to judge the value of a human (or anything else).

Now you're not going to tell me you don't think people are more important than animals. You do. You care for animals, you may love some. I love my dogs. I practically worship at the alter of Sylvester, the cat I've shared my life with for 17 years. However, I would never place his life over yours. You are more important than Sylvester. Your life is more important than Sylvester's life,

Have you asked Sylvester which is more important- his life or Terry's? Tell us what he says.

People are more important than animals. You think so to. Why? First, of all, we are more intelligent than the other creatures we share this planet with. True, not all of us demonstrate this all the time, but we are.

Now you're not going to tell me you don't think people are more important than animals. You do. You care for animals, you may love some. I love my dogs. I practically worship at the alter of Sylvester, the cat I've shared my life with for 17 years. However, I would never place his life over yours. You are more important than Sylvester. Your life is more important than Sylvester's life, and so isn't every other person on the planet. Including those I can't even stomach.

So intelligence is what makes us [humans] so special? That is it?

I kill and exploit animals to survive. I don't think that makes me more "special" than them or more
"important", just more savage.

I also fix up animals or put them out of their misery if they can't be fixed. That is because I can't stand to see suffering - a weakness in my personality.

What makes us so special, I think, is that we make up myths to justify our need to feel special.

I will grant no such concession. Clarifying your point is in no way going to make me change my mind. Nice try, though.

You once did.

Can the government FORCE you to give me a kidney? Can it force me to give you a transfusion of my rare blood to keep you alive, even for a moment?

Absolutely not. In any other case, you would agree that the government doesn't have the right to force one person to keep another alive [with their body] against their will.

Unless you are reversing your stance that a fetus is a "person".

I would suggest that, as a no doubt good father and spouse, that you are not opposed to human rights over animals at all, but rather you have rejected absolute right and wrong in the first place. In the absence of such absolutes, there is no standard by which to judge the value of a human (or anything else).

Point to some of these "absolutes" and I might change my mind.

There certainly are no absolute "rights", human or otherwise. In the end, you have only those rights that you can defend.

What makes us so special, I think, is that we make up myths to justify our need to feel special.