Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: House District 48 race

  1. #31
    Administrator Clamato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3,581
    Quote Originally Posted by GEman View Post
    Sorry you don't get it. The problem is not an individual's religion, it's the zeal to impose those beliefs on others.
    Trying to figure out why you and I don't get along . . . and I think it boils down to the police station. We obviously agree on most everything else.

  2. #32
    Forum All Star jombl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,576
    Quote Originally Posted by jombl View Post
    (personally, I'm moderately pro-choice, I support the right and I support reasonable limitations. But that's a lonely position in a sea of absolutists.)

    Quote Originally Posted by GEman View Post
    Is that only for women that are moderately pregnant?

    It means I'm opposed to the abortion technique of partially birthing an infant that's in the ninth month of gestation before busting it's skull open and vacuuming out the brains. For example.

    I'm also opposed to this:

    After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

    Conclusions
    If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the foetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.

    Journal of Medical Ethics
    That's a surprisingly acceptable position for many extremists.
    Last edited by jombl; 10-27-2017 at 05:40 PM.

  3. #33
    Forum Regular GEman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    418
    Maybe you can let us know who is a proponent of partial birth abortions.

    Though, the assumption has to be that your boy Breen, from the Thomas More Society, is dreaming of a world that outlaws all forms of abortion, Plan B, contraception, and sex education. All knowledge needed in life for a woman is what she is told by her priest and husband.

  4. #34
    Forum All Star jombl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,576
    Quote Originally Posted by GEman View Post
    Maybe you can let us know who is a proponent of partial birth abortions.
    .
    Hillary Clinton to start with.

    It's both legal and a common and widely held position, and for some it's the true litmus test of one's commitment to the cause.

  5. #35
    Forum Regular GEman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    418
    You are posting long debunked statements. Partial birth is a made up term.

    I would like to know if they support Trump and seek endorsements from Joe Walsh and Dan Proft.

  6. #36
    Forum All Star jombl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,576
    Quote Originally Posted by GEman View Post
    You are posting long debunked statements. Partial birth is a made up term.
    Yeah, sorry, it's the legal term used in federal law. It's also the term Hillary responds to. It's widely used and even predates it's synonym: Intact Dilation and Extraction.

    MODERATOR: I want to ask you, Secretary Clinton, I want to explore how far you believe the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term, partial-birth abortions. Why?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case.


    It's a partial birth abortion (rare to non existent in many places), that's how the law and society expresses it, and it's how Hillary Clinton understands it.

    So, are you and your candidate extremists on this issue - as indicated by your political refusal to acknowledge the procedure as a distinct and extreme act? Is my moderate, secular and widely held pro-choice position unacceptable in your extremist eyes?


    Last edited by jombl; 10-27-2017 at 08:27 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •