Well...I think it matters. Not diminishing how men feel on the subject, theres no way one can relate to a woman who actually carries, feels something growing in them. No way a guy can even comprehend that.

Its a moral decision that has waaaay too many factors...rape, incest, health of mother and/or child

Sad situation when there are so may who cant have kids, while others can and not necessarily want them.

 

Well since TAM can't answer the question, maybe you'll take a stab at it.

 

If a pregnant women is assaulted to the point that it kills her unborn child, why would the killer be charged with the murder of said unborn child?  After all, liberals say that an unborn child is "just a bunch of cells".

 

As far as men being involved in the conversation, I think that the biggest divide here is that most conservative men probably look at this from a conservative point-of-view, that being a husband or perhaps father.  Do we care about a woman's body?  Absolutely and it's usually because she is our wife, mother, daughter or someone else and we care about her health.

 

Liberals?  Not so much.  They tend to think that a woman can be promiscuous and even if being so ends up with the woman being impregnated, she could easily abort (murder) her unborn child.  Abortion has become a form of "birth control".

 

High school girl spreads her legs and gets pregnant?  Abort (murder) the baby.

 

Some college aged girl parties a bit too much and ends up pregnant?  Abort (murder) the baby.

 

Say in either case above the high school aged girl or the college aged girl is pregnant, gets assaulted and loses the baby.  The perpetrator is charged with murder.

 

Why is the law different from intentional murder of another and the unexpected murder of another?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I thought you said this was only a woman's conversation.  That means you should leave.  Or maybe you're confused about your own gender like so many of your friends.

Testes getting testy/...Where did I say that?  Only a womans conversation?, My point was Id like their point of view as well. As much as you like giving it, perhaps use your head once in a while

---

Blakes Life Matters

Just to clarify, was there an exception written into the 13th amendment to allow the ownership of slaves by black people?

---

Well since TAM can't answer the question, maybe you'll take a stab at it.

 

If a pregnant women is assaulted to the point that it kills her unborn child, why would the killer be charged with the murder of said unborn child?  After all, liberals say that an unborn child is "just a bunch of cells".

 

As far as men being involved in the conversation, I think that the biggest divide here is that most conservative men probably look at this from a conservative point-of-view, that being a husband or perhaps father.  Do we care about a woman's body?  Absolutely and it's usually because she is our wife, mother, daughter or someone else and we care about her health.

 

Liberals?  Not so much.  They tend to think that a woman can be promiscuous and even if being so ends up with the woman being impregnated, she could easily abort (murder) her unborn child.  Abortion has become a form of "birth control".

 

High school girl spreads her legs and gets pregnant?  Abort (murder) the baby.

 

Some college aged girl parties a bit too much and ends up pregnant?  Abort (murder) the baby.

 

Say in either case above the high school aged girl or the college aged girl is pregnant, gets assaulted and loses the baby.  The perpetrator is charged with murder.

 

Why is the law different from intentional murder of another and the unexpected murder of another?

I'll disagree that conservatives have higher morals than others, liberal or whatever. Maybe I higher self image .

 

I havent jumped into the good, bad argument so answering your questions is not in my expertise. There are too many variables...Either child get aborted or mother dies? Stuff like that...not something a free for all gang bang, girl dont care, she just gets the Big A. 

You want it illegal and I'm on the fence. 

If anyone assaults a pregnant woman and does harm to her or the child and it dies...?? Whether it dies or not the perpetrator should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. 

As far as intentional vs unintentional, Im guessing it falls under the same law as murder one, vs 2nd degree or manslaughter.

This debate will rage on. Its a moral issue in my view, but then so is murder , in which we have laws.

Got nuttin else

---

Blakes Life Matters

I'll disagree that conservatives have higher morals than others, liberal or whatever. Maybe I higher self image .

 

I havent jumped into the good, bad argument so answering your questions is not in my expertise. There are too many variables...Either child get aborted or mother dies? Stuff like that...not something a free for all gang bang, girl dont care, she just gets the Big A. 

You want it illegal and I'm on the fence. 

If anyone assaults a pregnant woman and does harm to her or the child and it dies...?? Whether it dies or not the perpetrator should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. 

As far as intentional vs unintentional, Im guessing it falls under the same law as murder one, vs 2nd degree or manslaughter.

This debate will rage on. Its a moral issue in my view, but then so is murder , in which we have laws.

Got nuttin else

 

It's a complex issue that is often part of "the fight" between liberals and conservatives, left/right, whatever.

 

Regarding the first part in bold.  I won't say that any morals are "higher" by any means.  If you think that conservative point-of-view morals are "higher" then that's your own opinion.  I just pointed out how a "typical conservative" (in my opinion) thinks and acts.

 

Regarding the second part in bold, I have never said that abortion should be illegal.  What I do advocate is for there to be less of them and the procedure not be a form of "birth control".  I also don't want any of my money in the form of taxes paying for any of it.

 

I would rather see an effort put forth to actually EDUCATE young people (children) regarding the issue for the purposes of birth control rather than protection against STD's.  Right now, the "education" that kids get is to protect against STD's and NOT about protection against an unwanted pregnancy.  Whether or not it's "morally acceptable" for young kids to be actively sexual, that's another issue altogether.

 

Many liberals are against teaching abstinence because it's viewed as a "religious" point-of-view because it is commonly taught in most churches.  The fact of the matter is, it should be taught in public government schools to avoid "unwanted pregnancies" as well as avoid the health risk of STD's.

 

Getting back to the topic at hand (abortion).  I haven't seen a single liberal justify the difference between an unborn child aborted (just a bunch of cells) and an unborn child being the victim of a homicide.

 

Again, my favorite quote.

 

"I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life."

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It's a complex issue that is often part of "the fight" between liberals and conservatives, left/right, whatever.

 

Regarding the first part in bold.  I won't say that any morals are "higher" by any means.  If you think that conservative point-of-view morals are "higher" then that's your own opinion.  I just pointed out how a "typical conservative" (in my opinion) thinks and acts.

 

Regarding the second part in bold, I have never said that abortion should be illegal.  What I do advocate is for there to be less of them and the procedure not be a form of "birth control".  I also don't want any of my money in the form of taxes paying for any of it.

 

I would rather see an effort put forth to actually EDUCATE young people (children) regarding the issue for the purposes of birth control rather than protection against STD's.  Right now, the "education" that kids get is to protect against STD's and NOT about protection against an unwanted pregnancy.  Whether or not it's "morally acceptable" for young kids to be actively sexual, that's another issue altogether.

 

Many liberals are against teaching abstinence because it's viewed as a "religious" point-of-view because it is commonly taught in most churches.  The fact of the matter is, it should be taught in <del>public</del> government schools to avoid "unwanted pregnancies" as well as avoid the health risk of STD's.

 

Getting back to the topic at hand (abortion).  I haven't seen a single liberal justify the difference between an unborn child aborted (just a bunch of cells) and an unborn child being the victim of a homicide.

 

Again, my favorite quote.

 

"I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph, and there is purpose and worth to each and every life."

I can appreciate what you're saying. We will just agree to disagree on the labels...liberals..conservatives. I've seen a few too many " conservatives" ( Jimmy Swaggert types) that preached and later getting caught with their hands in the honey pot. Politicians that ran off the South America to hook up. There are pieces of piss on both aisles

---

Blakes Life Matters

I'd give you universal healthcare for all children, free education into college, free contraception no questions asked, and wic assistance to anyone that needs it if you'd give me no abortions after 8 weeks.


With the day after pill, the availability of contraception, sex education and everything else there still people using g late term abortion as a form of birth control. That is the real crime to me, when someone starts out wanting the baby then 20 weeks in the boyfriend leaves or [BAD WORD REMOVED] gets real and they go get an abortion. That's not the outlier its been the norm and it's criminal.

I think 10 weeks is the cut off... At least for me it is. anything after that, there should be a concern for the live of the mother or unborn child... But yeah, I'm with you on all these points.


One thing, most people don't want free education. That's bogus right wing tripe that the drooling gop'ers that have been brainwashed by the propaganda have heard that liberals are demanding. In fact, the point of education is for it to be affordable. You should have a 30K debt or more to get a Bachelors. So I'd switch out free education for reforming education to make it affordable again, like back in the 80's and 90's before it became out of hand, and single payer healthcare for all.


Other than that, I'd go along with 8 week cut off for abortions. At 8 weeks, the embryo has no sex, has no arms or toes, and is like the size of a peanut.

---

Having is defined as the state of possessing, owning or holding something.

Read more at <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.yourdictionary.com/having#O1zzWeVW5POLuahq.99'>http://www.yourdictionary.com/having#O1zzWeVW5POLuahq.99</a>

Nice try, flsprts. You gave the definition of have, which does mean to posses. But "having" is the present participle for have, and does not mean to own or possess. You do not have a baby until it is born. You are having a baby, meaning that it is on the way, but has not been delivered yet.


LOL, at FBT, thought you had me. Poor FBT, he's just kinda out of touch when it comes to reading comprehension and grammar. I hope he goes to sleep not reading this, hate to have him go to bed disappointed

---

Trying to connect universal healthcare to the pro life position is grasping at straws. Sorry, but when you need to prop up a straw man like that, you've already lost the debate. It's already been pointed out that nobody is going to be refused healthcare. What you demand is that everyone get the Cadillac plan without having to pay for it.


Congratulations on you making a pretty good living, but the reality is, you want someone else to pay for your stuff so that you don't have to. Feeling the Bern is a way of life for you, clearly.


Bait and switch tactics? You brought miscarriage into the discussion, and then said you weren't talking about it. You showed just how clueless you are on the subject, but couldn't loosen your embrace on abortion because while you say you think there should be restrictions, you and I both know that's a load of crap.


Bait and switch tactics? You mean like trying to link universal healthcare to the pro life movement?


You're the welfare king of straw men.

Uh, I didn't bring up miscarriages, someone else did. I just put in my experience with it. As you did. What I do find pathetic, for you, is that I actually gave you and your family respect. But you instead used my family's experience as a way to insult me. You're a sorry hateful child, if that is the way you argue with people. I could go off on your hardship with your wife and the miscarriages if I wanted to be a jerk. But I took the high road, because I'm a man, and I understand everyone's experience on this earth is different. You did not provide the same courtesy. I feel sorry for you.


As for bait and switch, I pointed out how you were mis quoting a post I made, and ignoring my original thread. You did a great job of then ignoring the fact that you missed an entire dialogue and just went into a diatribe about how I "didn't have a clue".


Finally, you have a great ability to be a all knowing. You have decided, even though I have made it clear that I do not need or want any type of hand out, YOU know my intentions better than I do. You, the great FBT, doesn't know or want to put his neck out on anything regarding a football team we all follow... But is more than happy to tell someone else what that person is thinking.


Finally, I believe that if you are going to call yourself pro-life, then that means that life after birth is also sacred and should be protected and cherished. It's a pretty logical conclusion. One that you apparently have a hard time understanding. But then again, based on so many things you've mis-construed or made up out of whole cloth to attack me personally on, I'm not surprised.

---

I think 10 weeks is the cut off... At least for me it is. anything after that, there should be a concern for the live of the mother or unborn child... But yeah, I'm with you on all these points.


One thing, most people don't want free education. That's bogus right wing tripe that the drooling gop'ers that have been brainwashed by the propaganda have heard that liberals are demanding. In fact, the point of education is for it to be affordable. You should have a 30K debt or more to get a Bachelors. So I'd switch out free education for reforming education to make it affordable again, like back in the 80's and 90's before it became out of hand, and single payer healthcare for all.


Other than that, I'd go along with 8 week cut off for abortions. At 8 weeks, the embryo has no sex, has no arms or toes, and is like the size of a peanut.

 

So we're agreed on most things. 10 week cut off. Getting back to affordable college. Healthcare for all. 


 

We just disagree on the way to implement these things.


 

The college debt crisis was a result of the liberal mindset that everyone should go to college, along with the federal government backstopping student loans which meant that anyone could get a loan no matter what classes they attended and colleges could raise prices over and over since the payment was always in the distant future. Supply and demand worked here as well. Because of government interference the supply of college-bound teens increased a lot faster than the number of available seats.


 

Single payer health care in the US is a proven failure as seen by the VA scandal, but there are other ways to fix healthcare. We could eliminate insurance for all but the catastrophic illnesses, and let the free market decide the rates. We could save a huge amount of money just by not requiring prescriptions for most medicine.


 

Or we could use the abortionist model our nine eight rulers just mandated and allow anyone to practice medicine, no credentials necessary.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Totally ignored the question again and accused you of bait and switch. He ignores anythning that doesn't fit into his viewpoint or strawman arguements and then declares himself the winner. Comical.


Participation trophy at best.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this point... I think I've responded to every challenge from this day. Please point me to the exact post that I didn't respond to, and I'll be sure to give you my opinion on it. If you haven't noticed, I won't shy away from a debate. If I didn't respond to something, it's because I didn't see it. I'm also not afraid to concede a point if it's logically sound.

---

So we're agreed on most things. 10 week cut off. Getting back to affordable college. Healthcare for all.


We just disagree on the way to implement these things.


The college debt crisis was a result of the liberal mindset that everyone should go to college, along with the federal government backstopping student loans which meant that anyone could get a loan no matter what classes they attended and colleges could raise prices over and over since the payment was always in the distant future. Supply and demand worked here as well. Because of government interference the supply of college-bound teens increased a lot faster than the number of available seats.


Single payer health care in the US is a proven failure as seen by the VA scandal, but there are other ways to fix healthcare. We could eliminate insurance for all but the catastrophic illnesses, and let the free market decide the rates. We could save a huge amount of money just by not requiring prescriptions for most medicine.


Or we could use the abortionist model our <del>nine</del> eight rulers just mandated and allow anyone to practice medicine, no credentials necessary.

It's been a long day, I'll try to make sure I come back to this tommorrow.

---

There is mourning over the loss of a potential son or daughter, but it's not the same as the mourning over a person.

How can you possibly say how someone mourns when you haven't experienced it? Furthermore, the way you experience doesn't make it the same way someone else does. It was a baby when my mother miscarried, and it's a baby to all those mothers that come into the ER when my girlfriend (a nurse) has help them through it.

---

Nice try, flsprts. You gave the definition of have, which does mean to posses. But "having" is the present participle for have, and does not mean to own or possess. You do not have a baby until it is born. You are having a baby, meaning that it is on the way, but has not been delivered yet.

LOL, at FBT, thought you had me. Poor FBT, he's just kinda out of touch when it comes to reading comprehension and grammar. I hope he goes to sleep not reading this, hate to have him go to bed disappointed

Sorry, Webster's supercedes you. By your definition we'd be having dinner without any food.

---

How can you possibly say how someone mourns when you haven't experienced it? Furthermore, the way you experience doesn't make it the same way someone else does. It was a baby when my mother miscarried, and it's a baby to all those mothers that come into the ER when my girlfriend (a nurse) has help them through it.

Rights cannot change based on how another person "feels" about them at a given time. They're either always a person or never a person. We have an unworkable disagreement here.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Sorry, Webster's supercedes you. By your definition we'd be having dinner without any food.

Websters doesn't discuss grammar. Let me break it down in a way you will understand... How many guns are you having? Are you having guns? Or do you have guns? See, that's the present participle thing. You don't have a baby, yet. You are having a baby, one that will come when it's born. Then, after it's born, you HAVE a baby. Untill then, you are having a baby, but you don't have it yet.


Why do you think we call it "having a bun in the oven", because it's incubating... It's cooking... It's not "done" yet.

---

So we're agreed on most things. 10 week cut off. Getting back to affordable college. Healthcare for all.


We just disagree on the way to implement these things.


The college debt crisis was a result of the liberal mindset that everyone should go to college, along with the federal government backstopping student loans which meant that anyone could get a loan no matter what classes they attended and colleges could raise prices over and over since the payment was always in the distant future. Supply and demand worked here as well. Because of government interference the supply of college-bound teens increased a lot faster than the number of available seats.


Single payer health care in the US is a proven failure as seen by the VA scandal, but there are other ways to fix healthcare. We could eliminate insurance for all but the catastrophic illnesses, and let the free market decide the rates. We could save a huge amount of money just by not requiring prescriptions for most medicine.


Or we could use the abortionist model our <del>nine</del> eight rulers just mandated and allow anyone to practice medicine, no credentials necessary.

So first off, it's good to know that at least we can agree on the big picture stuff. Which I think most of us agree on the big picture stuff. What happens is we get caught up in this "Us" v. "Them" thing that it get's personal and attacks are made instead of talking about the policies.


As for the policies, when it comes to School costs, I've heard this theory that the increase in costs is because of "guaranteed" loans. IE student loans. I did some research on it, and while there is some merit to this arguement, it isn't the silver bullet the fixes the problem. The student tuition thing is a complex one. While I agree that curtailing loans is important, it's not a single solution thing. Other solutions are needed. If you are willing to look at other solutions, I'm willing to go along with curtailing student loans and access to them. (This could be a whole other thread)


As for single payer... Bear in mind, that VA isn't single payer, it's more Socialized medicine--- The difference being that the government is implementing the program. Single payer would allow for the private industry to deliver/administer the healthcare, but the Government is the Single or only payer for the entire population. Medicare is single payer. I'm not on Medicare, but my dad is. He seems to be doing pretty good.


I think single payer medicare would be something that we could slowly move towards, it allows the private sector to maintain some administrative control, but the government (we the people) is a powerful enough entity that none of us will get bilked. It's worked for seniors, why can't it work for the entire nation? (also a whole other thread)


So that's that... I think, these are issues that republicans and democrats can still work on... I think Repbulicans and Democrats could probably also figure out the whole 8/10 week cut-off thing too... The "life begins at conception" crowd I think is a small minority of the republican party. Most conservatives I think are more sensible than that. I could be wrong, but I think it's only the "Religious Right" that are trying to speak for the entire GOP with that arguement. And, as we've seen the religious right isn't as powerful a faction as it was once believed to be within the GOP.

---

Double post due to click happiness

---

Websters doesn't discuss grammar. Let me break it down in a way you will understand... How many guns are you having? Are you having guns? Or do you have guns? See, that's the present participle thing. You don't have a baby, yet. You are having a baby, one that will come when it's born. Then, after it's born, you HAVE a baby. Untill then, you are having a baby, but you don't have it yet.

Why do you think we call it "having a bun in the oven", because it's incubating... It's cooking... It's not "done" yet.

So a bun isnt bread, got it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this point... I think I've responded to every challenge from this day. Please point me to the exact post that I didn't respond to, and I'll be sure to give you my opinion on it. If you haven't noticed, I won't shy away from a debate. If I didn't respond to something, it's because I didn't see it. I'm also not afraid to concede a point if it's logically sound.

Did I miss your response to this question (Which was asked a couple of times previously):  

 

 

"If a pregnant women is assaulted to the point that it kills her unborn child, why would the killer be charged with the murder of said unborn child?  "    Why is killing the unborn child acceptable in one case but not the other?  Either it is a life or it isn't.

---