Abortion petition circulating through...

Abortion petition circulating through Albuqueruqe

There are 300 comments on the KOAT-TV story from Jul 20, 2013, titled Abortion petition circulating through Albuqueruqe. In it, KOAT-TV reports that:

A BILL TO PUT TOUGH RETRICTIONS ON LATE TERM ABORTIONS EARLIER THIS WEEK. NOW A PETITION MAKING ITS WAY THROUGH ALBUQUERQUE COULD LEAD TO A BAN HERE.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KOAT-TV.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#95 Aug 5, 2013
Knightkore wrote:
http://prolife.org.nz/resource s/fetoscope-and-4d-videos/
These videos are from award-winning science documentary, The Biology of Prenatal Development, which explains the science and communicates the wonder of human development from fertilization through birth. Using six medical imaging technologies, the program features extraordinarily rare direct videography of the living human embryo and early fetus inside the womb from 4 to 12 weeks following fertilization.
Produced in conjunction with and endorsed by human development experts, this program provides a unique visual appreciation of prenatal development, while clearly explaining facts obtained from the medical literature.
For more information and to check out other videos, visit the Endowment for Human Development website.
Can you silly male religious nuts handle this? OH thats right!!! The woman/girl disappears in pregnancy and no longer matters to you phallic worshippers!

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#96 Aug 5, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You just got on someone for "twisting science", yet here you expound upon a theorem that science doesn't itself hold.
No one thinks (scientifically)that the fetus is part of the woman's body. Pregnant women don't ever have four arms, four legs, etc.
Then there should be no problem for a woman emptying HER uterus and allow what comes out to make it on its own....right???

“I ain't afraid of no ghosts.”

Since: Aug 08

Dear old mucky Drasnia

#97 Aug 5, 2013
Knightkore wrote:
Unborn child is NOT women's body.....
Finally, you say something right. From a scientific definition, it is very much a parasite.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#98 Aug 5, 2013
In the traditional sense parasitism is a highly successful mode of life with over half of all organisms on the planet having at least one parasitic phase. And it is not "very much a parasite". If so then all pregnancy for all creatures would be termed so.

And to use a term that is a part of life in over 50% of all organisms with a term with such negative connotations merely clouds rather than describes a natural process. Called fuzzy thinking. Or Daily Kos.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#99 Aug 5, 2013
A woman wants to abort her child and the medical community has such a procedure...then go for it. Makes sense. Not unlike ancient infanticide. Just a reflection of our times. The more things change....the same...
Resident

Carlsbad, NM

#100 Aug 5, 2013
Knightkore wrote:
<quoted text>
I shortened your long-winded rant because this was your essential meaning.....
One-sided? You DO get the concept of a debate right? Now, when you legitimately address the scientific points and videos posted, yes we can have some kind intelligent discussion.....
However, as you have shown here, you, like others of anti-life movement will dismiss any and all scientific and empirical evidence that does not agree with your view.....
How smug, contrite, self-serving, insulting and convenient. Again, you completely avoid my legitimate questions by accusing me, and other legitimate posters on this thread of doing the very thing you've been doing from the start of your relentless, pitiful bleats. That is dismissing any and all legitimate questions regarding your position, citing fuzzy science and disregarding "scientific and empirical evidence that does not support your view".

So I'll ask you for the third time, what do you and your ilk propose to do with the products of rape, incest or the simply unwanted? Will you all adopt, foster or otherwise care for these babies you fight for? Will you support the formation of a govt. agency to administer the situation you suggest? I'll go a bit further since you refuse to answer these questions, will you support govt. assistance for the Mother? How about the children? Tell me how this is going to work once these babies get here?

Any ideas? Any at all?

“More Brains Than .....”

Since: Sep 11

..a Zombie Thanksgiving

#101 Aug 6, 2013
Life begins at erection.

Treat it wisely.

Maturbations 4:20
Dan

Omaha, NE

#102 Aug 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the man who wouldn't even get to the core of his own argument, because he knows it's religious.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Here's a hint, "because I said so" doesn't cut it.
Find me a scientific source that corroborates your position; that a fetus is part of a woman's body.

I agree-"because you say so" certainly DOESN'T cut it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#103 Aug 6, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Find me a scientific source that corroborates your position; that a fetus is part of a woman's body.
I agree-"because you say so" certainly DOESN'T cut it.
Why, when you won't give me more of an argument EXCEPT "because I say my argument isn't religious"? Just as soon as you actually debate with me, you'll see any proof I have in the COURSE of that debate. But you must ALSO give in such a give and take. I'm not doing all the giving.

So, how about it? You ready to get to the core of your argument, or will you keep deflecting because you KNOW it's only your own personally held religious beliefs that bind no one else?

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#104 Aug 6, 2013
"...because you KNOW it's only your own personally held religious beliefs that bind no one else?"

And most of our views and thoughts are not personally held? And they bind no one else...unfortunately you can't say that for political beliefs. They can and do end up binding others...unlike religious beliefs which only bind the believer.

Political believers on the other hand who get into power...and control...are very intrusive. Read the news lately...oh yes, the tired old canard: "I have nothing to hide."

Would it be more acceptable if the petition was initiated or signed by those who opposed abortion on purely political grounds? Or does that not fit your stereotype? And then the "what might those grounds be...?" Political correctness, not far from religious correctness.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#105 Aug 6, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
"...because you KNOW it's only your own personally held religious beliefs that bind no one else?"
And most of our views and thoughts are not personally held? And they bind no one else...unfortunately you can't say that for political beliefs. They can and do end up binding others...unlike religious beliefs which only bind the believer.
Political believers on the other hand who get into power...and control...are very intrusive. Read the news lately...oh yes, the tired old canard: "I have nothing to hide."
Would it be more acceptable if the petition was initiated or signed by those who opposed abortion on purely political grounds? Or does that not fit your stereotype? And then the "what might those grounds be...?" Political correctness, not far from religious correctness.
No, political agendas are no more "acceptable" than religious.

Real science and legal considerations should apply. Facts, not beliefs.

When people attempt to pass laws based only upon religious beliefs, trying to twist science to BOLSTER those beliefs, then they ARE attempting to bind everyone with their personal beliefs. That is completely unacceptable.

It's no "sterotype". I have yet to have anyone actually present an argument that doesn't have a religious basis at it's core. Most who claim that religion plays no part in their argument don't even try beyond a volley or two. As soon as they realize that they're going to have to admit the religious foundation, they run away.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#106 Aug 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Why, when you won't give me more of an argument EXCEPT "because I say my argument isn't religious"? Just as soon as you actually debate with me, you'll see any proof I have in the COURSE of that debate. But you must ALSO give in such a give and take. I'm not doing all the giving.
So, how about it? You ready to get to the core of your argument, or will you keep deflecting because you KNOW it's only your own personally held religious beliefs that bind no one else?
You keep trawling that religious premise thing up. The core for my argument has been and will continue to be that abortion acts upon a human life that is separate and distinct from the mother. I object to it on that basis.

I can, if you insist, frame my last post with religious reference:

"Jesus, Bit, who in the Hell in the medical or scientific community actually thinks that a fetus is part of woman's body?"

There. Chock full of religious reference.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#107 Aug 6, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there should be no problem for a woman emptying HER uterus and allow what comes out to make it on its own....right???
You're describing live birth here, as the woman's "emptying" her uterus herself. I don't think you're allowed to leave an infant to its own devices, Morgana.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#108 Aug 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, political agendas are no more "acceptable" than religious.
Real science and legal considerations should apply. Facts, not beliefs.
When people attempt to pass laws based only upon religious beliefs, trying to twist science to BOLSTER those beliefs, then they ARE attempting to bind everyone with their personal beliefs. That is completely unacceptable.
It's no "sterotype". I have yet to have anyone actually present an argument that doesn't have a religious basis at it's core. Most who claim that religion plays no part in their argument don't even try beyond a volley or two. As soon as they realize that they're going to have to admit the religious foundation, they run away.
Out of simple curiosity, why do you think that a religious premise for a point of view somehow vitiates the point of view?

People have many reasons and bases for informing their view of issues. Some religions don't have issue with abortion, for example, but no PC person ever tries to quash their support of abortion rights.

Is religious belief only an invalid rationale when it comes counter to abortion rights?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#109 Aug 6, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep trawling that religious premise thing up. The core for my argument has been and will continue to be that abortion acts upon a human life that is separate and distinct from the mother. I object to it on that basis.
I can, if you insist, frame my last post with religious reference:
"Jesus, Bit, who in the Hell in the medical or scientific community actually thinks that a fetus is part of woman's body?"
There. Chock full of religious reference.
I only mention it when someone makes a claim that their argument is not religious, but scientific.

YOU inserted yourself into that conversation. If you don't want to admit that your position is based upon your religion, fine. Don't become part of the conversation.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#110 Aug 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, political agendas are no more "acceptable" than religious.
Real science and legal considerations should apply. Facts, not beliefs.
When people attempt to pass laws based only upon religious beliefs, trying to twist science to BOLSTER those beliefs, then they ARE attempting to bind everyone with their personal beliefs. That is completely unacceptable.
It's no "sterotype". I have yet to have anyone actually present an argument that doesn't have a religious basis at it's core. Most who claim that religion plays no part in their argument don't even try beyond a volley or two. As soon as they realize that they're going to have to admit the religious foundation, they run away.
"Real science" "Facts, not beliefs"

"...trying to twist science to BOLSTER those beliefs, then they ARE attempting to bind everyone with their personal beliefs. That is completely unacceptable."

I agree, thus my response to you RE: your assertion that a fetus is part of a woman's body. Fails on all three levels you lay out in your own post.

It's not science, it's simply a belief you promoted, and it's an attempt to twist science to bolster it in order to bind everyone else. Completely unacceptable.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#111 Aug 6, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
You're describing live birth here, as the woman's "emptying" her uterus herself. I don't think you're allowed to leave an infant to its own devices, Morgana.
The fact is that whether or not it's part of her body is irrelevant. So long as it's IN her body, she has the right to have it removed if she doesn't want it there, before viability as per the laws of her state, and even after that point if her health/life are in danger, or if something has gone wrong with the fetus.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#112 Aug 6, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of simple curiosity, why do you think that a religious premise for a point of view somehow vitiates the point of view?
People have many reasons and bases for informing their view of issues. Some religions don't have issue with abortion, for example, but no PC person ever tries to quash their support of abortion rights.
Is religious belief only an invalid rationale when it comes counter to abortion rights?
It's an invalid reason for laws to be enacted that will affect those who are not part of that religion, or hold that unprovable belief.

BELIEVE whatever myth you want. I couldn't care less. But don't attempt to legislate it for others to have to follow, and don't claim that your argument is not religious in nature when your beliefs form the foundation of that argument.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#113 Aug 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that whether or not it's part of her body is irrelevant. So long as it's IN her body, she has the right to have it removed if she doesn't want it there, before viability as per the laws of her state, and even after that point if her health/life are in danger, or if something has gone wrong with the fetus.
???

It was the very core of your argument on Post #71; that it's a part of her body.

"So long as the embryo/fetus is inside the woman's uterus, located inside her body, AND that embryo/fetus is attached to her via umbilical cord, AND it's organ systems cannot function without using her organ systems, AND that embryo/fetus has the potential to negatively affect her health or even cause her death, then it is a part of her body. Only SHE gets to make medical decisions for her own body. Not you. Not me. Not the gov't. Only her."

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#114 Aug 6, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Real science" "Facts, not beliefs"
"...trying to twist science to BOLSTER those beliefs, then they ARE attempting to bind everyone with their personal beliefs. That is completely unacceptable."
I agree, thus my response to you RE: your assertion that a fetus is part of a woman's body. Fails on all three levels you lay out in your own post.
It's not science, it's simply a belief you promoted, and it's an attempt to twist science to bolster it in order to bind everyone else. Completely unacceptable.
To repeat, if you want to debate, fine. But that's give and take, not just take.

Let me know when you're ready to get to the core of both our arguments, and any of my proof will come up as the debate unfolds.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rick Perry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary goes ugly early with racism claims 4 hr GoGrannyHillary 587
News GOP presidential candidates celebrate July 4 in... 7 hr private guy 1
News 2016 hopefuls react to Obamacare ruling 8 hr Cat74 22
News Perry: 'I was offended by' Trump 8 hr yourown 1
News Perry: Trump doesn't get it 9 hr wild child 1
News America celebrates July 4 with parades, hot dog... 21 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 5
News The Civil War Is Over: Let The Battle Flag Be (Nov '11) Sat Devil in my wifes... 4,029
More from around the web