Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 13, 2016, 04:57:38 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
92699 Posts in 2301 Topics by 1080 Members
Latest Member: Tedbo
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Abortion
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 49978 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7502


« Reply #200 on: October 01, 2015, 11:22:16 AM »

This nation is crumbling before us. The embrace of evil by mainstream society shocks me.

They would have us believe it is not a living thing at the front door while selling body parts from it out the back door.

It's not only legal; it's taxpayer funded - even while they run it at a profit and give money back to the politicians who support them.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/planned-parenthood-pours-cash-to-clinton/

What could be more evil and corrupt?

55,772,015  57,762,169  slaughtered since 1973.  You should be able to watch the number going up just like the debt clock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

PP: "you made a wise decision."

    - No.  Men have no say in it whatsoever.  Nor does the life to be 'terminated' and sold off for parts.

"What defines life? When does it begin? When the egg is fertilized, when it attaches to the wall, at a specific time period of development, or when it becomes a viable living entity outside of the womb? "

   - The closer science looks at it, the closer to conception we get with that answer.  Certainly all honest observers can agree that by the time that the 'body parts' are removable and marketable, there is a separate and distinct human being involved.  Thinking life begins at birth is sun-revolves-around-the-earth era science.  It just isn't so.

Even if it isn't one conservative's issue, Reagan understood it is part of the winning coalition.  There is plenty of room to narrow the legality in terms of states and stage of development. 

Roe v Wade has no foundation in the constitution.  What's wrong with having the regulation and political debate of this go back to the states and have the federal work on things like the powers granted to it in the constitution?

The issue doesn't go away by funding it.  And the issue doesn't go away by selling off the useful parts.

Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #201 on: October 01, 2015, 12:10:45 PM »

Good point that you make on the life issue with the selling of viable body parts. I had not considered that.

I agree that it is a States Rights issue. But the damage has already been done by Scotus and the DC powers have no desire or incentive to revisit that question in a legislative manner. It is like the Gay Marriage issue. California voted to ban it, but SCOTUS said otherwise.

I am just looking at all of this from a pragmatic view. What can or could be accomplished? I don't see anything coming soon either way since the will in DC does not exist.
Logged

PPulatie
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7502


« Reply #202 on: October 01, 2015, 01:27:37 PM »

"I am just looking at all of this from a pragmatic view. What can or could be accomplished? I don't see anything coming soon either way since the will in DC does not exist."


As a pragmatic matter, the President appoints Justices and Senators confirm them.  Roe v Wade a wrongly decided case for anyone reading the constitution for what it says.  The issue will go back to the states someday if conservatives ever win elections and govern accordingly.  States then will choose different levels of restrictions.  The issue shouldn't be the center of this election except to know where everyone stands on it.

Further on the politics is the idea of a conservative coalition.  At the end of the current battle for the nomination, the various groups need to come together to win.  If you want secure borders, sitting out or voting Dem won't get that done.  If a pro-lifer wants to advance that cause, electing Dems won't do that.  If you want a freer economy, sitting out or voting Dem doesn't get you there.  For those who want a return to constitutional principles, same.  If you are in any of these groups, you need to know who your friends and enemies are.

Pro-life is not a losing issue.  Gallup says 54% want abortion either banned completely or banned in all but a few circumstances (generally understood to mean rape, incest and life of the mother).  29% want abortion legal in all circumstances.  Most notably, only 2% don't have an opinion!  (The remainder want looser restrictions.)
http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/kumnfvvm1eydfzllqmittw.png
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #203 on: October 01, 2015, 01:47:05 PM »

I love this:

"As a pragmatic matter, the President appoints Justices and Senators confirm them.  Roe v Wade a wrongly decided case for anyone reading the constitution for what it says.  The issue will go back to the states someday if conservatives ever win elections and govern accordingly.  States then will choose different levels of restrictions.  The issue shouldn't be the center of this election except to know where everyone stands on it.

Further on the politics is the idea of a conservative coalition.  At the end of the current battle for the nomination, the various groups need to come together to win.  If you want secure borders, sitting out or voting Dem won't get that done.  If a pro-lifer wants to advance that cause, electing Dems won't do that.  If you want a freer economy, sitting out or voting Dem doesn't get you there.  For those who want a return to constitutional principles, same.  If you are in any of these groups, you need to know who your friends and enemies are."

Rather an optimist aren't you? Does the name Souter or Kennedy mean anything? They were thought to be conservative. And as to the Pubbies, they don't care about the base. Look at Boehner and McConnell, plus all the others. Look how they treat the Tea Party and Ted Cruz.
Logged

PPulatie
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 13275


« Reply #204 on: October 01, 2015, 03:05:55 PM »

Doug,

A beautiful young lady. Congrats...............you made a wise decision.

The subject of abortion is such a personal issue that most discussions become highly charged and emotion. Add to that the "conflict" between government, religion, morality and science, and there is no ready answer.

With the availability of many different contraception devices today, abortions should be greatly reduced. However, so many people decry the use of contraception especially on religious grounds, it remains a problem.

What defines life? When does it begin? When the egg is fertilized, when it attaches to the wall, at a specific time period of development, or when it becomes a viable living entity outside of the womb?  Everyone has a different opinion and science or law cannot answer that question yet. So the "conflict" will continue.

As to Planned Parenthood, yesterday proved my point on abortion never being banned. Overwhelmingly, Congress approved continued funding for PP. The consequences of defunding PP was too much for even the Pubbies to consider.

Abortion funding for PP is barred by law. But this is such a joke. One simply changes bookkeeping entries showing that the abortion costs came from sources other than the government, and everything is fine. The politicians know this, but they don't care.

Unfortunately, the abortion divide will continue............and both advocating sides will profit from it.



I think we can agree that when body parts are harvested, it is well beyond a "clump of cells".
Logged
ppulatie
Power User
***
Posts: 1002


« Reply #205 on: October 01, 2015, 04:15:39 PM »

I will agree to that.
Logged

PPulatie
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7502


« Reply #206 on: October 02, 2015, 11:58:46 AM »

On abortion I would concede that laws won't be changed radically anytime soon.  First you charge hearts and change minds which takes time and requires taking an honest look at the facts.  It isn't murder with criminal intent if people don't even know they are doing something wrong.  My intent with many posts here is to draw attention and logic to what is happening and see if people can see that convenience abortions (98% of abortions) are wrong.

Planned Parenthood proved my point by selling body parts.

Women already have control over their own bodies, except in the context of rape.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 35910


« Reply #207 on: October 26, 2015, 12:53:32 PM »

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz-CaZn4CvE
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7502


« Reply #208 on: December 23, 2015, 10:26:17 AM »

First a small footnote,  200,000 abortions 'performed' since the last post in this thread 2 months ago, with black children three times as likely to be killed as white children.  Black lives matter, whatever, I digress...


It was interesting to catch Justice Breyer a few years back calling the woman involved in an abortion a "mother', begging the question, mother of what?

Now we have Pres Obama's administration referring to the unborn as a child - when it involves increased federal spending on social programs.  (There is a human in there!)

This should go under cognitive dissonance of the left but I will keep it in its subject thread.

Same President previously called a fetus that survives an abortion a child and corrected himself, it is a "fetus living outside the womb".  Good grief.

If you call them children, no one would be allowed to kill them, and that is the religion of the left.  Science, photography, DNA and common sense be damned.


Whoever proofread the new White House paper on food stamps must not have been briefed on this argument.

The paper says women are "mothers" while still only pregnant. And one of the paper's key points -- printed in bold in the executive summary -- is: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's "positive impact on children begins even before birth and lasts well beyond their childhood years."  (Who knew?!!)

The paper elaborates: "Recent research focusing on the rollout of the Food Stamp Program in the 1960s and 1970s shows the benefits begin even before a child is born: mothers who receive Food Stamps during pregnancy have a reduced incidence of low-birth weight babies by between 5 and 12 percent."  (Mother of what?  It's a baby in there??!!)

http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2015/12/23/white-house-inadvertently-admits-that-a-child-is-a-child-even-before-birth-n2096482/page/full


If we had more free food assistance, we would have healthier body parts for the taxpayer funded industry of growing and harvesting small humans for profit.  Maybe we can balance the budget and fix healthcare with higher quality and healthier, aborted fetus organs...
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 10:36:10 AM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 7502


« Reply #209 on: January 26, 2016, 11:38:34 AM »

Mrs. Clinton, just a few questions:

A new Marist poll shows that 81% of Americans support some restrictions on abortion.  Do you disagree with 81% of Americans on this issue?  If not, what restrictions on abortion would you support?
 
The same poll found that 66% of pro-choice Americans would restrict abortion to the first three months of pregnancy.  Do you stand with the majority of pro-choice Americans on this issue?
 
Your husband famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.”  Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
 
If you agree that abortion should be safe, would you support legislation that would require abortion clinics to meet minimum standards for patient safety and sanitary conditions?
 
Why should abortion be rare?

Do you condemn China’s policy of forced abortion as a violation of a woman’s right to choose?
 
The movie Gosnell comes out later this year. As you know, Kermit Gosnell was convicted of the first degree murder of three babies. The Grand Jury report alleged that Gosnell killed hundreds of infants by sticking scissors into their necks. Do you support Kermit Gosnell’s actions? Why not?
 
Would you support legislation that protects a woman’s right to post-birth abortion?

https://catholicvote.org/8-abortion-questions-that-hillary-needs-to-be-asked/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!