The Right Scoop
Again. Its so sad that republicans like john mccain are a dying breed. I have great respect for him and think he would have been a fine president. He lost my respect when he picked palin. The republican party has lost my respect by catering to the teahadists. I used to be a vocal republican supporter because of abraham lincoln but now... I'm more liberal than ever. I repeat. Every single gop signed the ryan-akin "personhood" bill that would make miscarriages homicide and allow a rapist to sue her victim preventing her from aborting. My ex had a miscarriage and I'm appalled that after going through something so tragic and heart wrenching the gop would convict her of homicide. Wake up people. The gop are nuts.
Thank you for leaving the Republican party - it makes the possibility of salvaging the party and going back to a conservative base much easier.
Good riddance~~~~
I haven't been following this Akin story very closely, but from what I've seen so far it's just the "pro-life" viewpoint stated more explicitly - That if a woman gets raped and becomes pregnant as a result, the pro-life crowd are happy to ban abortion for that woman. Sure, that's a more extreme pro-life view than more moderate pro-life advocates out there who say that 'certain exceptions' should be made - but quite frankly, if your view is that abortion should be banned "from conception" then this is the consistent result from that, not to mention that the woman (who is the victim here) would become an ever greater victim because of the pro-life movement's use of government to force her to give birth to the child.
Akin just made the pro-life argument more explicit, it blew up in the face of the Republican party, and now there are probably going to be some dire consequences as a result of it.
Yet the "moderate" position is illogical. There is at least one study if not more that demonstrate that a woman who is raped has a better chance of healing by going through with the pregnancy than not. There are many testimonies of women who have vocalized that going through the pregnancy was the right choice.
You mistaken to think that it is okay to murder the innocent one who is not at fault for their father's sin.
I don't know what study that is, so I can't comment on any specifics to do with it, but even if it's true, I think it's absurd for a woman to go through with the pregnancy over something like it being "better healing". One has to measure the relative values, and being "better healed" is something I'd consider to be far lower value than the greater value of not having the child of one's rapist.
Also, I don't consider it murder to remove pre-viable forms of human life. I consider it consistent with the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, since the woman is an individual and therefore has those individual rights, whereas non-viable forms of human life are not individuals and therefore don't have individual rights. Disagree with that all you want, but that's how I view it, and nothing will change that view.
To force a woman to have the child of a rapist... is an incredibly egregious violation of the woman's individual rights. I have nothing but contempt for those who argue for it.
All you do is attack my posts. You never take the time to actually consider what I'm saying. You try to pick your little holes over semantic issues, thinking that to score one little victory, no matter what it is, is a total victory on your part. I've won this argument, hands down - Not because I've convinced either of you - Nobody can convince religious ideologues; they reject reality and reason - But simply because I've learned a lot from it, and have refined my arguments thusly.
Actually, I do think that life has value, but it isn't the priceless value that you put upon it. Each individual values things differently. One might view your own life very highly (if they're a family member for instance), but a total stranger would view your life as very low value, since you have little to offer him, except that unstated human potentiality. You apply this mystic sense of value to "life", without actually thinking about what it means to value things, without thinking whether that value differs from individual to individual. Atheism is not depressing - Living a life through the lens of mysticism is depressing, since you reject reality, reality is just a "veil of tears" to you mystics, the "afterlife" is all you really care for, even though you have no evidence at all for its existence. Atheists exist in this reality, they love this reality, this is what they value - the here and the now, the real, the tangible - Not some mystical fantasy world where there are alleged rivers of wine and honey.
Quote: "It's a 'separated entity' you are looking for, not a separate entity"
It's the same thing. If you're a separate entity, then you're separated from other entities. Why is this so hard for you to wrap your head around? Look how pathetic your argument has become that you need to squabble over incredibly trivial semantics, because you know that your own argument is defeated.
I've 'discussed' this issue with Kordane many times before and the argument is always the same. I was late to this one, but I enjoyed reading your posts, as frustrating as it can be talking to a person who constantly changes to keep ahead of the axeman. That's why you see very few responses to him. Most people ignore this argument of Kordane's, but people, like you and I, jump in until we get tired and then just walk away. Have a Blessed day and thanks for the effort.
It would seem that Kordane is just further down the path of the proper conclusion of the atheistic worldview that life has no intrinsic value, then some atheists are willing to go down. It is why atheism is such a depressing worldview.
Since you have no clue as to what you are talking about, always changing definitions. It would seem impossible to continue this discussion.
Also, I refuse to accept your premise of the "reader response" you espouse into the DoI. If you want to reject the Creator, fine! But, the Founding Fathers did not and your issue lies with them as well. You cannot argue from the DoI your position and then deny their position at the same time, it fails miserably.
As Nukeman has demonstrated and I have pointed out, you change your definitions at will never keeping them the same. For if a child attached at the umbilical cord is not a separate entity than a person hooked to a life support machine is not either. But, hey, logic does not seem to be your strong point.
Just continue to carry on in your post-modern mindset that it is all about "You" and watch the world continue to go right by you.
Ahhh, so now your definitions change again. It's a 'separated entity' you are looking for, not a separate entity. Entity is the key noun here, not separate or separated. They are merely the adjectives and not the key nouns. Separate and separated are two totally different words and meanings.
If your reasoning worked at all, a person hooked up to a life support system would merely be that life support system and not a person. Every time you try to argue something and change it, someone comes along and shoots it down, causing you to change again.
But therein lies the argument, doesn't it. You like to parse arguments and argue over the words rather than the ideas. It's no wonder you haven't seen it after all this time. You are just parsing words in your little game. I knew as much.
Quote: "What you have failed to realize, and apparently will never realize is that once a person is conceived, they are a separate entity. It doesn't require attachment or non-attachment to anything"
Actually it does, because "separate entity" requires, y'know... SEPARATION.
That zygote/embryo/foetus is very much NOT separated.
I don't know how much you know about biology, but it is attached to the host via the umbillical cord. If it were a "separate entity" then it would be capable of existing separately from the host, meaning without the umbillical cord.
Your position is so illogical. There you are seriously trying to argue that an organism attached via the umbillical cord is separate from the host. You're just denying reality now.
I get into too many long and wasteful discussions with you about this issue, but I have to say this one thing and then let you rant on about your Objectivist 'viable survivability' meme and the governments' definition of 'individual'.
'I said "exist as a separate entity", not "be independent". It's impossible to be completely and utterly independent, but it's not impossible to exist as a separate entity' - k
What you have failed to realize, and apparently will never realize is that once a person is conceived, they are a separate entity. It doesn't require attachment or non-attachment to anything. A sperm cell or a female egg are each a part of an individual, much like an arm, a leg or a liver is. But, once that sperm and egg meet to conceive (the zygote phase of human growth), they are no longer in existence. What is in existence has a different DNA from the mother, from the father, from any other entity anywhere. Even identical twins, while having the same genotype, have different phenotypes and hence are separate entities.
Just spewing something that Ayn Rand has to say and then claiming your independent study doesn't really prove the facts that exist. And claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is merely an anti-abortion 'zealot' is just living in denial.
I'm okay with you having your jaded point of view, but you should at least get your facts straight. Going through life with faulty reasoning doesn't bode well for you down the road. How's that for objectivism.
1. "if an alien life form did come down, you cannot think that the government could not then extend the idea of human DNA to accept alien DNA as well? How myopic is that?"
You said that government protection only applies to "human DNA". Now you're expanding it to "alien DNA". Well, why not "plant DNA" or other "animal DNA"? There's no principle / logical reasoning for why government should protect human DNA, or even protect any specific DNA in the first place. It's just "Hey, let's protect human DNA, because it fits my anti-abortion agenda". Face it: You're just making stuff up. You don't have a philosophical understanding about the role of government. If you did then you'd be able to provide some logical reasoning to support your claim that government's role is to protect human DNA.
I mean, one other criticism I'd thought about over the week is how far it would go if government's role was to protect human DNA - It would mean that the government would also have to protect human sperm, human eggs, human organs, human blood cells, human organs, human skin cells, and so on. All of these things have "human DNA", so therefore, according to you, government's role is to protect it all. This is the point at which you make amendments to your entire argument btw ;)
2. "The biggest fallacy you have is your refusal in acknowledging the creator, God. You want to argue for inalienable rights without Him and it fails miserably. You instead insist that your definition of "individual" is god. It cannot be done."
Aren't you aware that human nature can be effectively argued as the source of individual rights? Ayn Rand explained it very well, but you probably never read her explanation because she was an atheist and you probably don't care what atheists have to say, no matter how much it blows apart your claim that the only source of individual rights is your mythical fairy tale "God" thing. Quite frankly, I far prefer a source for individual rights that actually exists in reality and which we can perceive and understand... rather than a source which has absolutely no empirical evidence supporting its existence / has the same amount of evidence as there is for unicorns, pixies, santa claus, etc (which is to say none).
Take the time to go and read about this reality-based objective source for individual rights, and more importantly take the time to understand it. It's just ignorant to make the claim that your "God" thing is the only source and that no other source exists.
3. "Again, you have stated that not only is one have to be independent (which by the way is completely impossible) and have reason"
I said "exist as a separate entity", not "be independent". It's impossible to be completely and utterly independent, but it's not impossible to exist as a separate entity.
What you have to realise is that you can exist as a separate entity AND not be completely and utterly independent at the same time. There is a difference between being a separate entity and being independent. The former is an actual physical detachment from other entities, whereas the latter is about not relying on others for aid/support. When you understand that difference, then maybe this discussion can actually progress.
4. "The Creator is the one who defines life, not us."
Reality defined what life could and would be like. Reality defined the physical laws of this universe, reality defined what atoms, molecules and particles could exist in this universe... and thus reality determined what life could come from that arrangement.
5. "It is so subjective that you try to turn it around and claim that human DNA is a subjective standard while your definition is not."
There's no logical reasoning for why the government should protect any specific DNA in the first place. I don't know where it's written, nor do I know on what principle it's justified, nor on what rational basis it can ever be explained.
Whereas the standard I've articulated is written right there in the declaration of independence, it's justified on principle of unalienable individual rights, and on the rational basis of an "individual" being a separate entity that is capable of reason.
6. "This DoI that you want to argue from and ignore the main premise, the existence of God. You cannot have it both ways. Do you acknowledge the Creator or not?"
"God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but have you ever asked yourself why the founders used the word "creator" in that all important line on individual rights, rather than "God"? My my, how did you not know? They did it because they were humble enough to acknowledge that they did not know what the "creator" really was, and they weren't about to impose the limiting idea of "God" on an entire nation of people.
I am desperate and absured and you want me to believe that aliens exist and therefore human DNA is subjective? Please stop reading your comic books and get your head back into reality. There are no other rational beings on this planet but humans. But, just for the simple sake of argument and I really cannot believe I am doing this, if an alien life form did come down, you cannot think that the government could not then extend the idea of human DNA to accept alien DNA as well? How myopic is that?
The biggest fallacy you have is your refusal in acknowledging the creator, God. You want to argue for inalienable rights without Him and it fails miserably. You instead insist that your definition of "individual" is god. It cannot be done.
You state that the elderly at one time was independent and so therefore worthy of living but here is the rub, your argument has no foundational support. One day it will be what you say, the next the goalposts are moved. Again, you have stated that not only is one have to be independent (which by the way is completely impossible) and have reason. Yet, you do not hold yourself to your own standard.
The Creator is the one who defines life, not us. It is the Creator who has given us these inalienable rights, not the government. It is because Human is created in the image of God that we have the very right to life. This is why your argument cannot go anywhere. It is not grounded in something foundational but is subjective. It is so subjective that you try to turn it around and claim that human DNA is a subjective standard while your definition is not.
How is human DNA subjective? It is only if there is some other life form that has "reason". Since, there is no evidence for such life form, it is therefore not subjective. Hence, you are back to square one trying to defend a definition of a word instead of the actual substance of the being in the womb.
It is sad to see that you admit that the baby is human but worthy of murder. Any and every human being is made in the very image of God who is the Creator mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This DoI that you want to argue from and ignore the main premise, the existence of God. You cannot have it both ways. Do you acknowledge the Creator or not? If you do, then you need to reevaluate your arguments based on that. If you do not, then on exactly what foundation are you standing on?
Continued:
3. "You just admitted that the baby born in a test tube would be dependent on technology is an individual but one in the womb is not. This is illogical."
It would only be an individual in that specific (future technology) case, because we would have the technology to make it capable of existing as a separate entity from the woman. It's all about whether it's capable of existing as a separate entity - If it can do that (aided or not), then it's an individual; if it can't do that (aided or not), then it's not an individual).
Presently, with our current level of technology, pre-viable forms are simply not capable of existing as separate entities. If they're removed too early from the body (not killed by chemicals or by mechanical means) then you can clearly see that they do not survive; they die instantly, or very shortly after being removed - This is proof of their inability to exist as a separate entity; they are utterly and completely dependent on the host; they lack the essential qualities of being an individual, even though they have other things, such as "human dna" and "life".
4. "As I have stated earlier, your definition of "individual" is so subjective that you have not been consistent in your own understanding of the term. If your first definition is true, then the elderly who are completely dependent like those with dementia should be put to death."
You're being illogical. Elderly people exist as separate entities, and they have done ever since they became viable for birth. The fact that they have become completely reliant on other people for their survival does NOT have any equivalence with aborting pre-viable foetuses/cells. Quite frankly, it's just absurd and desperation on your part to compare elderly people with pre-viable foetuses/cells, but I'll endeavor to humor your absurdity:
Firstly, if anyone's helping those old people, then it is voluntary on their part. Without abortion it would not be voluntary for a woman to sustain cells/foetuses within her; she wouldn't be able to say "Y'know what, I don't want to do this any more", like carers (for old people) can choose to do. Under a 'pro-life' system, she would be forced, at the point of the government's gun, under threat of imprisonment, and under threat of being strapped to a bed for 9 months, to see those cells/foetuses to full term.
Secondly, I'm not talking about killing cells/foetuses. I'm just talking about removing them from someone who doesn't want them within their body any more. Sure, they'll die pretty quick after removal, but that's completely different from if I advocated destroying the cells/foetuses with chemical or mechanical means.
So let's compare "removal" of the cells/foetus from a woman who is unwilling to sustain them, to "removal" of an impaired elderly individual from someone who is unwilling to sustain them.
In both cases (provided nobody else aids them), then both will die from natural causes - The cells/foetuses will die from lack of sustenance, and the impaired elderly individual will die from lack of sustenance. Nobody initiated force against either of these examples - The hosts simply chose to no longer sustain them.
5. "You have missed the big picture of the Declaration of Independence for the inalienably rights are bestowed by the Creator. That creator is God."
Actually, the "creator" is reality itself. If you want to talk theoretical nonsense about some mythical "God", then you've got just about as much evidence as you do for fairies, santa claus, pixies, mermaids, unicorns, and other mysticism like that. Unlike your theoretical "creator", my creator is very much real, I 'know' that reality exists. All of my senses prove that it exists. Nothing else is necessary.
6. "You cannot get around the fact that a child is human whether born or unborn no matter what the condition he may be in at a particular time."
Actually, I fully admit that pre-viable forms are "human". What I reject is the notion that they are "individuals" that are therefore endowed with unalienable "individual" rights which government was instituted to protect.
1. "Let me get this straight you want to argue that the term "individual" is a legal term and "Person" is a legal fictional term. Nice try of trying to divert into the world of wacky semantics. "Person" is not a fictional nomenclature."
A "person" is a legal fiction, but an "individual" is what actually exists in reality. It's a minor legal point, but it's worth bringing up. Individuals don't actually exist in the legal world; only persons do. Likewise, persons don't exist in the real world; only individuals do.
2. "Sorry, we are not dealing with the hypothetical alien but with actual, evidence of the human DNA found in the baby"
No, it's utterly stupid to use "human DNA" as the standard for government protection, since the day will eventually come when either aliens come down to Earth with different DNA (which according to you, would not be allowed any protection by government, since they lack human DNA) OR if some humans sufficiently diverged genetically from the rest of the human race, they'd no longer have government protection according to you, since they lack human DNA, OR if some animals evolved rationality, they'd not have government protection, since they lack human DNA.
Yes, it's hypotheticals for future events, but it just shows why this whole "human DNA" standard is short-sighted and stupid, since it assumes that there will only ever be rational beings with human DNA, and that no other species can ever possibly develop rationality. As soon as aliens came down to Earth, your whole system regarding government protection would be thrown into chaos. I think long term and look for a system that can apply for all time, not just the immediate moment.
More to come later.
Reply to self in order to have wide enough area.
So, now that I have been talking the whole time about human life, you want to generalize the definition of what I am talking about. Since when is that a necessity. I am sorry but when I am talking about life in the context of humanity, I mean human life.
Let me get this straight you want to argue that the term "individual" is a legal term and "Person" is a legal fictional term. Nice try of trying to divert into the world of wacky semantics. "Person" is not a fictional nomenclature.
Sorry, we are not dealing with the hypothetical alien but with actual, evidence of the human DNA found in the baby. Let's keep the argument there for your hypothetical is just that, not based in the reality of the discussion. DNA is a subjective standard (and here I thought a scientific standard would work, silly me) and your definition of individual is not....try again!
Again, there is no such thing as a person who is completely independent of another. You just admitted that the baby born in a test tube would be dependent on technology is an individual but one in the womb is not. This is illogical. All you want to do is argue about location now. In other words, baby born in test tube is an individual but baby born in the womb is not.
So for you, the argument winds down to location, location, location. As I have stated earlier, your definition of "individual" is so subjective that you have not been consistent in your own understanding of the term. If your first definition is true, then the elderly who are completely dependent like those with dementia should be put to death. You said no. Then you argue that an individual is one with reason, but you say that a baby without ability to reason is an individual if able to be born by modern technology outside the womb. Do you not see the problem with your argument. There are so many holes it makes Swiss Cheese look solid.
You have missed the big picture of the Declaration of Independence for the inalienably rights are bestowed by the Creator. That creator is God. He created man in His image and all humans have this image of God in them. That is why a baby being human and therefore has the inalienably right to life. It is the government's responsibility to reflect this by protecting the life of the unborn.
You cannot get around the fact that a child is human whether born or unborn no matter what the condition he may be in at a particular time.
1. "It is the DNA that makes a person, human. If you do not have human DNA you are not a person"
A "person" is a legal term to describe the legal fiction that represents the individual in reality. MR JOHN GALT, for instance, would be the "person", but John Galt would be the "individual" the actually exists in reality.
As for government protection only being applicable if you quote "have human DNA", then I might ask: Well what about aliens? Say we discover or are discovered by aliens; they're peaceful and some live in our society - According to your approach, we can go around and kill any and all aliens we find, since the government's job is ONLY to protect those who "have human DNA". So quite frankly, the "human DNA" requirement for government protection is utter rubbish. It makes no rational sense. It's just some subjective standard that you're advocating as a way to push for your agenda. You're not actually thinking what it means in practice. You're not even considering individual rights in all of this, even though individual rights are THE limiting principle on government, bar none.
2. "You admit if a baby can grow in a test tube than it is an individual? Huh?"
It would become one because it would be capable of existing as a "separate entity" (an individual) thanks to our technology, and would thus gain individual rights protections. I mean, go ahead and remove a foetus or zygote from a womb - See how long it lasts. Removing it isn't what kills it - It's own inability to exist as a separate entity is what kills it.
3. "The government is to protect all life"
If that's so, then the government is there to protect all animals, all plants, all bacteria, all viruses, and so on and so on, since it's all "life", right?? You couldn't kill any animal, any plant, any bacteria, etc - Otherwise the government would throw you in jail. The idea that government is there to protect "all life"... is ABSURD and completely unfounded.
Government is actually there (try reading the declaration of independence) to protect the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's what the founders intended. If you disagree with that, and instead want to impose a system where government protects ALL life, then you'd better just rip up the declaration of independence right now and surrender yourself to the police, because you've just killed some bacteria in your body, or ants on the ground as you walked around, and now government must throw you in jail.
Sadly, your definition of individuality is subjective at best. It is sad to see that in your position you cannot understand humanity, or the sanctity of life. It is the DNA that makes a person, human. If you do not have human DNA you are not a person.
Even in your response in point three states, "capable". A child in the womb is reasonable because of whose image he is created in.
You see you waver in your definition depending on the situation. If a person no longer has the ability to "reason" by your own definition he is not an individual and can be put to death. Yet, you do not want to go that far and redefine your definition. You cannot have it both ways. You admit if a baby can grow in a test tube than it is an individual? Huh?
The government is to protect all life. The baby in the womb is a living human being by shear definition of who he/she is: DNA, reason, and all.
1. "So by your definition, elderly, dependent children, those with handicaps are then not individuals either because they need others for living."
They're individuals because they can exist separately from other individuals, just as an individual apple can be separated from other apples. The problem with pre-viable human life is that it can't exist separately from the woman, even with aid from others; there just isn't the technology to do that. If such technology existed so that a zygote could be saved and grown in a test tube all the way to full growth, then I'd say that it's an individual because we have the technology to facilitate/develop it as a separate entity.
2. "As well, those who may not be able to "reason" depending on some random standard, might as well die"
Reason isn't some random standard. It's the human faculty by which one perceives reality, identifies what one is perceiving, and then integrates that knowledge by forming concepts, abstractions, memories and so on.
3. "Humans are different from all other not because of your "reason" but because of your creation."
Animals were 'created', plants were 'created'. The thing that separates us from them, is that we are capable of reason.
4. "If the child's DNA human, than the government must protect the child's life because by definition he/she is a human being"
The government's role as the protector of individual rights is NOT about whether you have 'human DNA'. It's SOLELY about whether you're an individual. That's the important distinction that you and the whole pro-life movement lack. If it were 'human rights' (which are privileges granted by government) then maybe I'd agree with you, but what we have in the United States is INDIVIDUAL rights.
you have erred completely here. So by your definition, elderly, dependent children, those with handicaps are then not individuals either because they need others for living. As well, those who may not be able to "reason" depending on some random standard, might as well die.
The idea that you think you are a parasite is hilariously sad. Life is life. The child is a living being, even at its smallest point. Humans are different from all other not because of your "reason" but because of your creation.
Is the DNA of the child, human? If the child's DNA human, than the government must protect the child's life because by definition he/she is a human being. It is not reason that defines a person but their DNA, right?
It isn't about life, and I'll explain to you why it is instead about individual rights:
The government was instituted to protect the individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, thus fulfiling the mission statement of the declaration of independence.
The individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are ONLY applicable to individuals (hence the use of the word "individual" rights).
There's also the component of the individual being capable of reason, since without reason there can be no reasoning with whatever it is that is initiating force against you. This is why lions, which although they're individuals, don't have individual rights, because there's no way to reason with them to say "Hey, you're not allowed to initiate force against me, and I'm not allowed to initiate force against you"; the lion doesn't know any better, it'll just kill/eat you.
The pro-life movement is out there essentially advocating that the government protect the pre-viable cells/foetus from individuals (women) who want to use force to remove them from their bodies.
It's vitally important to figure out whether those cells/foetuses are actually individuals, since if they're not individuals then the government has NO legitimate role in protecting them in the first place. The pro-life movement would be advocating an illegitimate role of government: the protection of NON-individuals - which would be just as absurd as if the government went around protecting animals and plants (other non-individuals) from force.
Here's a simple test. If those cells/foetus are an individual, then cut the umbillical cord, remove it from the woman, and see whether it survives being a "separate entity" (an individual). Oh wait, yes, that's right - It'll die immediately or pretty quickly, because you know what? - It's not capable of being a separate entity; it's not capable of being an individual.
I mean an "individual"... think of the word "individual". How is it an "individual" if it cannot exist separately from an individual? It's a dependent; a parasite that feeds off the woman without her consent. Think of individual apples, you can pick up an individual apple without picking up other apples at the same time, because it exists as a separate entity. Those pre-viable cells/foetus are nothing like that; they lack the essential characteristic of what it means to be an individual, and so long as they are not an individual, they do NOT possess individual rights, and government therefore CANNOT act to protect them, lest it violate its original mandate and open doors to who knows what other protections of non-individuals. "You want to kill that cow to make beef so that you can survive? You're not allowed to, since you're violating the individual rights of that cow! You want to kill that carrot so that you can survive? You're not allowed to, since you're violating the individual rights of that carrot!" and so on. It's a slippery slope. The EPA are proving right now how destructive that view can be, since their whole job right now is to put animals and plants before ACTUAL individuals with individual rights.
Sorry, it is all about when life starts. You cannot change this question. It is a nice try but it fails because the argument is all about life. One is endowed with these rights from their Creator....you may want to reread the Declaration of Independence. Accordingly, these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The child in the womb is a person whether you want to believe it or not.
Your problem then becomes when is the "viability" which is completely subjective. You have twenty doctors and thirty opinions on what makes something "viable". This is the sad road that will allow mankind to start killing their elders because they do not fit the most current "definition" of "viability". Viability does not make a person a person. What makes an individual a person is that they carry the very image of God.
The question isn't "when life starts", but is actually "when human beings become an individual", since if it is an individual then it becomes endowed with individual rights, but if it isn't an individual then it has no more individual rights than plants or animals do, which is to say none.
The status of being "an individual" depends on whether the entity can exist separately from other entities. It doesn't magically become an individual just because a sperm and an egg meet. The point of "viability" fulfils the "individual" criteria, since it can be removed and yet survive as a separate entity. Try and remove it before viability, and it will soon die no matter what is done to save it, thus proving its non-individual characteristics.
Sorry, but the child in the womb has just as many rights as the woman does and the child's rights need to be defended as well.
Murder is murder. When does life start, for you? It is sad to see you love destroying the innocent for the sake of convenience. So, I guess for you the woman can abort a child up to full-term, right?
In 2010 we learned that Reid made an openly racist comment about Obama’s “negro dialect.” And not only was it not 24/7 news; not only didn’t Dems call for his head, but Reid was backed; reelected and continues to be Dem Leader in the Senate. Here Akin argues, in poor wording, that the 12,000 pregnancies that come out every year of 300,000 real (legitimate) rapes (5%) should not be a reason to permit 1.2M annual abortions, and all of us line up to dump him. We are feeding the Double Standard beast.
I think he should stay in and fight. People calling for him to get out should forgive him then defend him as a solid Conservative.
Republicans are a bunch of wusses and frankly so is Akin if he turns tail and drops out.
Man up Todd!
Akin's just handed the Obama Administration as well as the leftist media the perfect ammunition to use against the Republicans, on a silver platter. Akin needs to go!
I think he should fight on. Why ruin your career over one dopey comment.
Why do Dems circle the wagons for way more egregious behavior, while the GOP throw a solid Conservative under the bus for a moment of stupidity?
Pathetic!
"Why do Dems circle the wagons for way more egregious behavior, while the GOP throw a solid Conservative under the bus for a moment of stupidity". Because as a former 45 year black female 66 year old democrat, I have come to realize that many Republicans have principles and most deomocrats do not. That is why and you should be proud of the fact that they do not stand for such ergregious behavior.
So when someone says something stupid and then clarifies his comments and offers a sincere apology, you think his career should be destroyed?
Egregious behavior is intentional. He spoke ignorantly not maliciously.
I stand with Todd and his stellar Conservative record.
How is it that conservative, tea party voters get conned into voting for these people in the republican primary, we lost Delaware, Nevada last time .
That cow McCaskill spent more money in the republican primary touting this fool in ads as a true conservative then did Akin himself.
So she and democrats get the candidate they want and again a safe republican pick up becomes toast, and we might lose Missouri in the Presidential race, meaning we lose the race, the media and the left are already linking this to Paul Ryan's conservative views on abortion, even if we don't lose the Presidential race we lose our chance at a Senate majority, so we then wouldn't be able to repeal Obamacare and Dodd Frank... Great another election a bust.
They lost Delaware and Nevada because they're both blue states with one of them being so corrupt. It had nothing to do with O'Donnell or Angle. Quit freaking out. You need constitutionalists in DC. Not a bunch of RINOs and socialists if you want this country to go in the right direction.
They lost Delaware and Nevada because they're both blue states with one of them being so corrupt. It had nothing to do with O'Donnell or Angle. Quit freaking out. You need constitutionalists in DC. Not a bunch of RINOs and socialists if you want this country to go in the right direction.
Maybe but the name of the game is to give yourself the best chance to won. Thosde 2 gave you all the worst cahnce of winning.
Harry Reid only won his re-election because of voter fraud. Angle would have beat him if he didn't bus in illegals and dead people. Deleware, O'Donnell was kind of goofy but RINO Castle would have probably lost too. It's a blue state.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.