Abortion Debate - Somerset, KY

Discuss the national Abortion Debate in Somerset, KY.

When should abortion be legal?

Somerset says only in exceptions.
Exceptions only...
 
38
Never
 
34
In all cases
 
30

Vote now in Somerset:

lifes a beach

Lewistown, PA

#604 Sep 7, 2012
Jrer wrote:
<quoted text>Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler all done it your way, Great job! That is if Hundred and nine million or so slaughtered in the last hundred years is your goal. All God hating atheist just the way you like them. And no Hitler was not a Christian, He said he would stomp out the disease of Christianity from the face of the earth. His hate and yours sound strangely alike.
Actually Hitler prohibited abortions among German women so in that way, you're more like him than the pro-choice crowd.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#605 Sep 7, 2012
Curious wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution is recycled junk science that exists as it does today more because of lawyers than scientists.

But, to many it is their religion. Darwin is one of their prophets along with Karl Marx.

Abortion is a sacrament. Complete rejection of God is their conversion.
To them, truth is what they want it to be, morality is a sin.

Commit whatever debauchery you want and they will applaud it and lift you up for it. Confess a belief in Christ and you are placed on the bottom of their list of human beings with worth.

Voltaire's end was a testament to the begininng of his existance in eternity but even his last words have been changed to hide the fact of what witnesses in the room testified that he said.
I'm calling Poe's Law on this piece of work. I can't tell if it's genuine or satire.
Jrer

Sikeston, MO

#606 Sep 7, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Tyrants demand worship of themselves. That is why they sometimes attack religion. If you are god then you can't have other gods before you.
It has little to do with religion or atheism.
It has everything to do with it. Godless tyrants.
Jrer

Sikeston, MO

#607 Sep 7, 2012
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Hitler prohibited abortions among German women so in that way, you're more like him than the pro-choice crowd.
But he forced them on those he wanted exterminated. With his prohibition on German women was to help evolution along with his "master race" theory. Evolution was just taking to long to suit him don't you know. So no not at all like the pro life folks but just like Margaret Sanger planned parenthood founder who wanted to exterminate the black race. Hear her own words here in the movie trailer. So YOUR apple does not fall far from Hitlers tree in this way.
Jrer

Sikeston, MO

#608 Sep 7, 2012
Here is the link to Sangers own words http://www.maafa21.com/ in the movie trailer

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#609 Sep 7, 2012
Jrer wrote:
<quoted text>Not the first transitional fossil dino (what) or otherwise. All the flowery rhetoric does not change you X to a Y. Dr. Louis Bounoure, former director of research at the French National Center for Scientific Research, calls evolution “a fairy tale for grown-ups.” I call it a cruel hoax! In fact, the arguments that support evolutionary theory are astonishingly weak.
First, the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No verifiable transitions from one kind to another have as yet been found. Charles Darwin had an excuse; in his day fossil finds were relatively scarce. Today, however, we have an abundance of fossils. Still, we have yet to find even one legitimate transition from one kind to another.
Furthermore, in Darwin’s day such enormously complex structures as a human egg were thought to be quite simple-for all practical purposes, little more than a microscopic blob of gelatin. Today, we know that a fertilized human egg is among the most organized, complex structures in the universe. In an age of scientific enlightenment, it is incredible to think people are willing to maintain that something so vastly complex arose by chance. Like an egg or the human eye, the universe is a masterpiece of precision and design that could not have come into existence by chance.
Finally, while chance is a blow to the theory of evolution, the laws of science are a bullet to its head. The basic laws of science, including the laws of effects and their causes-energy conservation and entropy-undergird the creation model for origins and undermine the evolutionary hypothesis. While I would fight for a person’s right to have faith in science fiction, we must resist evolutionists who attempt to brainwash people into thinking that evolution is science. Good luck thinking your Great grandfather lives at the zoo.
So, as to your star scientist in this post:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.h...

Apparently the quote is a mish-mash of things said by two different people, and quoted incorrectly to boot. The original intend was not to say evolution isn't true but to express a distaste or disinterest in debates over its truth. One of the people misquoted was an atheist, the other (to whom you are attributing the quote) was theist. Both were scientists.

It is very sad when Creationists stretch the truth and make s**t up to prove a point.

Here, let me demonstrate what it means to have what is called scientific consensus. This is from the National Center for Science Education. It is called Project Steve. It was meant to show how stupid it is when Creationists trot out their lists of "scientists" who reject evolution.

It is a petition bearing the following statement. It was signed ONLY by scientists named Steve. Only Steves. There are currently over 1200 practicing scientists named Steve who have signed it.

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

For the win.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#610 Sep 7, 2012
And the link, in case you want to read up on it:

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#611 Sep 7, 2012
Jrer wrote:
<quoted text> But he forced them on those he wanted exterminated. With his prohibition on German women was to help evolution along with his "master race" theory. Evolution was just taking to long to suit him don't you know. So no not at all like the pro life folks but just like Margaret Sanger planned parenthood founder who wanted to exterminate the black race. Hear her own words here in the movie trailer. So YOUR apple does not fall far from Hitlers tree in this way.
Who gives two squirts about Sanger or Hitler? Seriously. It is embarrassing the way you keep desperately trying to link everyone you dislike to the frickin' Nazis.
check it out

United States

#612 Sep 7, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Who gives two squirts about Sanger or Hitler? Seriously. It is embarrassing the way you keep desperately trying to link everyone you dislike to the frickin' Nazis.
The guy's post that you were replying to is accurate. Even Hollywood from time to time will place one of the evolution posters the Nazis used in the background of a scene. Maybe Schindlers List or the Pianist, anyway the Nazis were big on using evolution theory for propaganda. I mean that's high school level stuff. Remember the Ernst Haeckel drawings that were big with the Nazis?

Also, the founder of planned parenthood was into eugenics. I mean that's just undeniable history. I haven't been following this whole thing, just these last few posts. But, the guys points follow. Hash it out with him man. This could get interesting.
check it out

United States

#613 Sep 7, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
For the win.
Whoa, genetic researchers call ID the elephant in the room. Where you been man.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#614 Sep 8, 2012
check it out wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoa, genetic researchers call ID the elephant in the room. Where you been man.
I think you meant to say SOME "genetic researchers". Post your supporting data.

Simply stating that evolution is wrong and scientists know it does not make it true. You need to show very strong evidence. This theory is 150 years old with more confirming evidence than Newt Gingrich has ex-wives. Presenting one or or even fifty scientists who dispute it is not even enough to be interesting.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#615 Sep 8, 2012
check it out wrote:
<quoted text>
The guy's post that you were replying to is accurate. Even Hollywood from time to time will place one of the evolution posters the Nazis used in the background of a scene. Maybe Schindlers List or the Pianist, anyway the Nazis were big on using evolution theory for propaganda. I mean that's high school level stuff. Remember the Ernst Haeckel drawings that were big with the Nazis?
Also, the founder of planned parenthood was into eugenics. I mean that's just undeniable history. I haven't been following this whole thing, just these last few posts. But, the guys points follow. Hash it out with him man. This could get interesting.
I'm not disputing any of his points in this post. I'm saying it's silly and desperate to keep trying to tie your opponents to the Nazis in a debate. It is a sign that you have no good arguments.

The history of Darwin's theory is long and rife with all kinds of strange bedfellows. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the theory is sound. Even if Adolf Hitler, Bin Laden, and John Wayne Gacy all spoke highly of the theory and used it in their various nefarious deeds it still would not indicate whether the theory was sound or unsound.

To prove evolution unsound you have to argue from the evidence. Comparing people to Hitler is a logical fallacy, not a good argument.

And the beliefs of the founder of Planned Parenthood, while an interesting topic, is not relevant to whether or not women should be allowed to choose to have an abortion or not. Again, it a fallacious argument to say otherwise. Even if abortion was invented by Hitler at the behest of Stalin and practiced for fifty years by Mengele it would not have anything to do with whether or not women's right to choose should be taken away.

Do you understand this point? I don't think jrer does. I don't think a lot of people do.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#616 Sep 8, 2012
Abortion is immoral.

Down with the party that wants taxpayers to buy elective abortions, supports late term abortions and won't prohibit infanticide where a child is born in a botched abortion.

All the casualties in the war on women comes from gender preference abortions.
check it out

United States

#618 Sep 8, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disputing any of his points in this post. I'm saying it's silly and desperate to keep trying to tie your opponents to the Nazis in a debate. It is a sign that you have no good arguments.
The history of Darwin's theory is long and rife with all kinds of strange bedfellows. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the theory is sound. Even if Adolf Hitler, Bin Laden, and John Wayne Gacy all spoke highly of the theory and used it in their various nefarious deeds it still would not indicate whether the theory was sound or unsound.
To prove evolution unsound you have to argue from the evidence. Comparing people to Hitler is a logical fallacy, not a good argument.
And the beliefs of the founder of Planned Parenthood, while an interesting topic, is not relevant to whether or not women should be allowed to choose to have an abortion or not. Again, it a fallacious argument to say otherwise. Even if abortion was invented by Hitler at the behest of Stalin and practiced for fifty years by Mengele it would not have anything to do with whether or not women's right to choose should be taken away.
Do you understand this point? I don't think jrer does. I don't think a lot of people do.
I got you. Like I said I didn't read this whole thing. I wouldn't say that origins are completely irrelevant though. We got to always keep going back to check things out and make sure somebody didn't slip something in on us that we're just accepting. You know what I mean? But, i do get what you're saying about bringing the arguement up to today.
I guess my question is, what does abortion mean? You know? I mean if my wifes got a tubal pregnancy, then she will die if she trys to carry it. You know what I mean? My friends sister died with that. Shewanted a baby and wouldn't let them remove it from the tube and it killed her. Then you got these people thats taking a baby out except for the head and practically chopping it's head off when it could live if they let it. You know what I'm saying? That's just brutal. I think you guys need to spell out what you all mean when you say abortion. Cause the one word means too many different things. I mean when my wife was pregnant we went in real early, I don't know how soon, but it was pretty soon after we found out that she was pregnant, and they took a picture, more like a movie of that little guy kicking around in there. You could see his heart beating and everything. He was cute as can be and they told us he was a boy and you could see it. Anyway what I'm saying is that little guy is not nothing in there. Did that make sense? I mean you can't say it's not a baby cause you can see that he is. But I do see where a living mothers life is of more value than a baby not born yet. If that baby is going to kill the mother then she has to come first. I mean that's just common sense. But, to say that the baby is not a baby cause you don't want it and you kill it well you've got a screw loose. My wife has a friend that was the product of a rape. The girl lives here in Somerset but I won't say her name. Anyway she's a real good singer, and we went to a recital cause my kids do music too. This woman has a daughter that's about 9. That little girl sings like her mother. Really awesome. So while I'm sitting there listening to this litte girl sing I start thinking about the fact that her mother came from a rape. So this little girl wouldn't be here if her grandmother had an abortion. Now, I'm a big guy, man's, man and all that. But when I started thinking about that it made me cry. I tried to hide it cause I didn't know if anybody else there knew the story or not. But that whole thing really hit me deep.
Well I'm going to get off here I'm waiting for my wife to get home and I've got some other stuff to do. I'll talk to you all later.
Jrer

Corbin, KY

#619 Sep 8, 2012
MAMMON wrote:
God seems to be a fan of rape, he sure didn't care if his people did it or not. In Judges 21 God has his people to kill everyone but the virgins. There wasn't enough women for their rape party so he tells them to hide by the road to find some more.
In Numbers 31 Moses gets mad because they didn't kill everyone so he says to keep the virgins, kill the kids. Wonder what the virgins were for?
In Deuteronomy the girl has to marry the guy that rapes her and later on in the chapter it says to kill the girl if she doesn't scream loud enough. That's real nice.
I know, that's old law blah, blah excuses. The bible also says that God doesn't change and whatever he does shall be forever. God use to be pro rape but I guess he changed his mind.
You are a disingenuous idiot! Nothing you say could be farther from the truth. You pervert context to facilitate a lie. Simply foolishness.
Jrer

Corbin, KY

#620 Sep 8, 2012
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disputing any of his points in this post. I'm saying it's silly and desperate to keep trying to tie your opponents to the Nazis in a debate. It is a sign that you have no good arguments.
The history of Darwin's theory is long and rife with all kinds of strange bedfellows. But that is irrelevant to whether or not the theory is sound. Even if Adolf Hitler, Bin Laden, and John Wayne Gacy all spoke highly of the theory and used it in their various nefarious deeds it still would not indicate whether the theory was sound or unsound.
To prove evolution unsound you have to argue from the evidence. Comparing people to Hitler is a logical fallacy, not a good argument.
And the beliefs of the founder of Planned Parenthood, while an interesting topic, is not relevant to whether or not women should be allowed to choose to have an abortion or not. Again, it a fallacious argument to say otherwise. Even if abortion was invented by Hitler at the behest of Stalin and practiced for fifty years by Mengele it would not have anything to do with whether or not women's right to choose should be taken away.
Do you understand this point? I don't think jrer does. I don't think a lot of people do.
You act as if you can not read. I made the Nazi / communist post in response to this foolish remark by anti-intellectual I mean theist's remark "Obviously, your god isn't real, but religious fanatics commit atrocities believing that they have "divine permission." ". It is clear who the murderers are and it is not Christians. He is so dishonest he likes to throw the Christians in with the Islamic way of jihad. You give him a pass to chant these slurs but act as if my pointing out the obvious and easily provable links to Hitler, Sanger and communism to your murderous movement is desperation. That's like acting as if Bin Laudin had no influence on terrorism and would be a act of desperation to point out his dirty deeds. Amazing lack of logic and honesty. When your people/founders of the death movement are found out and exposed for who they are, you feel as if they should be swept under the rug. This allows what they stood for to continue without their baggage, that is death of the innocent to be socially acceptable. That is still A-OK in your book.
Jrer

Corbin, KY

#621 Sep 8, 2012
Attacking people rather than arguing principles, ad hominem arguments are a trick designed to distract attention from the real issue — namely, that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Comedienne Whoopi Goldberg used this tactic when she suggested that abortion rights advocates would take pro-lifers more seriously if they were willing to adopt babies slated for abortion.
What this ad hominem argument is really saying is,“If you won’t adopt my babies, don’t tell me I can’t kill them!” That, of course, makes as much sense as forbidding me from intervening when I see my neighbor physically abusing a child unless I am willing to adopt that child.
The “adoption argument” completely evades the basic morality or immorality of abortion. Instead, it is an attempt to attack character in order to avoid the case against abortion.
Another common ad hominem attack involves the media portrayal of pro-lifers as wild-eyed fanatics.
Another ad hominem attack worth mentioning is the fallacy that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they denounce abortion while supporting capital punishment. In fact, many pro-lifers do not support capital punishment. But for the many others that do, this argument still falls on many counts. The most obvious rebuttal is that abortion involves the killing of an innocent human being while capital punishment involves the killing of someone who has been found guilty of a capital crime. By: Hank Hanegraaff

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#622 Sep 9, 2012
Abortion

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.

Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.

Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#623 Sep 9, 2012
Jrer wrote:
<quoted text>You act as if you can not read. I made the Nazi / communist post in response to this foolish remark by anti-intellectual I mean theist's remark "Obviously, your god isn't real, but religious fanatics commit atrocities believing that they have "divine permission." ". It is clear who the murderers are and it is not Christians. He is so dishonest he likes to throw the Christians in with the Islamic way of jihad. You give him a pass to chant these slurs but act as if my pointing out the obvious and easily provable links to Hitler, Sanger and communism to your murderous movement is desperation. That's like acting as if Bin Laudin had no influence on terrorism and would be a act of desperation to point out his dirty deeds. Amazing lack of logic and honesty. When your people/founders of the death movement are found out and exposed for who they are, you feel as if they should be swept under the rug. This allows what they stood for to continue without their baggage, that is death of the innocent to be socially acceptable. That is still A-OK in your book.
I am going to reply to the former poster when I get to a puter and it will cover the reason I dislike arguing with zealots.

You've been making Nazi arguments for months. If you think it is fallacious to compare Christians to Nazis why us it ok to compare every one else to them? Hitler was certainly not a humanist, skeptic, or atheist/agnostic. I personally doubt he was a Christian either.

It is foolish to use him or the Nazis to defame your opponents because it makes you sound desperate and irrational.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#624 Sep 9, 2012
Jrer wrote:
Attacking people rather than arguing principles, ad hominem arguments are a trick designed to distract attention from the real issue — namely, that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. Comedienne Whoopi Goldberg used this tactic when she suggested that abortion rights advocates would take pro-lifers more seriously if they were willing to adopt babies slated for abortion.
What this ad hominem argument is really saying is,“If you won’t adopt my babies, don’t tell me I can’t kill them!” That, of course, makes as much sense as forbidding me from intervening when I see my neighbor physically abusing a child unless I am willing to adopt that child.
The “adoption argument” completely evades the basic morality or immorality of abortion. Instead, it is an attempt to attack character in order to avoid the case against abortion.
Another common ad hominem attack involves the media portrayal of pro-lifers as wild-eyed fanatics.
Another ad hominem attack worth mentioning is the fallacy that pro-lifers are inconsistent because they denounce abortion while supporting capital punishment. In fact, many pro-lifers do not support capital punishment. But for the many others that do, this argument still falls on many counts. The most obvious rebuttal is that abortion involves the killing of an innocent human being while capital punishment involves the killing of someone who has been found guilty of a capital crime. By: Hank Hanegraaff
I think this Hank guy misunderstands ad hominem. An ad hominem is when you attack a person instead of their beliefs. So if I say you are wrong here because you are stupid that would be ad hominem, which is an irrelevant point and a fallacy. But if I said that you are wrong here because conservatives don't like peanut butter is not no ad hominem.

In your example, Whoopi's point is not really a fallacy. If might not be true, I'm not even sure about those statistics. But it is certainly not an ad hominem because she isn't addressing a specific person and attacking their character.

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.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 16 min Yes and Amen 136,117
*keep a word- drop a word* Game (Jul '11) 1 hr Red_Forman 11,055
~~*last post wins*~~ (Mar '11) 1 hr Red_Forman 14,928
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 1 hr mr goodwrench 25,637
4 word game (Jan '09) 6 hr Trouser Cough 2,123
Somerset is wet, where are the new Restaurants? 7 hr BeefStewie 121
3 word comment - (Oct '09) 11 hr Hatti_Hollerand 6,153
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]