What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- MrsSpooky, on 08/23/2008, -5/+9Of course! He's a Democrat! He's pro woman as long as that woman wants to be a man.
People like him (and Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy ad nauseum) are the reason I left the Democrat party. They have completely lost touch with humanity. - locamama, on 08/23/2008, -11/+5Sorry, pro-choice is pro-women. The anti-choicers are the one's who are against women.
- rightwingattila, on 08/24/2008, -3/+7Sorry, pro-choice is pro-DEATH. The only one's who are really for women and the innocent unborn are those who are PRO-LIFE!
- locamama, on 08/24/2008, -7/+3Well we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I flat out think you are 100% wrong.
- MrsSpooky, on 08/24/2008, -2/+8Like it or not, women are the child-bearers. It's how we are made. We carry the child to term and give birth to them. Anything that protects women and the children they carry are pro-woman.
Whether it's what YOU want or not, that's how it is. Children CAN be inconvenient, but they ARE a natural result of having sex. Don't want to get pregnant, don't want to live the consequences of having sex, keep the panties on.
- rightwingattila, on 08/24/2008, -3/+7Sorry, pro-choice is pro-DEATH. The only one's who are really for women and the innocent unborn are those who are PRO-LIFE!
- MrsSpooky, on 08/24/2008, -4/+7It strikes me as odd - you can't give a child an aspirin without parental consent, but a dangerous medical procedure can be performed on them without parents being notified.
Abortion is NOT safe - it kills women more frequently than abortion supporters want to admit. This statement doesn't even take into account the 100% fatality rate for the babies.
Think that's not a baby? Talk to a couple who have lost one to miscarriage. I doubt that will open eyes that are taped shut. - MrDuke77, on 08/24/2008, -2/+4"Digg" this: Biden is TO THE LEFT of OBAMA!!!
http://www.acuratings.org/2007all.htm#IL
At least during Obama's few yrs in the Senate: Biden had a score of 0 and 4 out of 100 in '06 & '07 from the American Conservative Union, while B.O. had a score of 7 & 8!!!
This is just too sick seeing how the MSM will be trying to pass these TWO liberal clowns off as mainstream MODERATES!!!
I pray there are enough legal voters paying attention this Nov to override the votes of ignorants and illegals who may be flocking to the polls on B.O.'s and Biden's behalf... - Seldon2639, on 08/24/2008, -2/+5Wow, someone didn't read the Roe v Wade decision very carefully:
(FTFA): "Biden put his pro-abortion views on record by voting for a Senate resolution in March 2003 that said the chamber supports the Roe v. Wade decision that allowed for virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy."
Ignoring for a moment that Roe v Wade is no longer the governing precedent, it also never allowed for "virtually unlimited abortions" nor were the limited abortions allowed "throughout pregnancy." here's what the actual ruling said: ""We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation." The decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests against the abortion right. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health", and the state can choose to restrict or proscribe abortion as it sees fit during the third trimester when the fetus is viable ("except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother"). (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_1 ...
"Biden also opposed the Child Custody Protection Act, a bill that would uphold the parental notification laws of a teenager's home state and prohibit someone other than her parents from taking her to another state for a secret abortion."
The issue being that the CCPA was by itself unconstitutional. Without a proper judicial override (which it lacked), it would never pass Supreme Court muster based on the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision (505 U.S. 833), and the concept of an undue burden.
"Biden has also repeatedly voted to force Americans to pay for embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of human life and has never helped a single patient."
Yep, because no science should be supported except that which in its very infancy had helped people. The polio vaccine did not leap fully formed from Jonas Salk's head, it took years of research to arrive at an actual working solution. In the same way, stem-cell research has the potential to bring benefits to millions of people, but only if we allow doctors and scientists to research without impediments from people who neither understand, nor care to understand science- wardawg31, on 08/24/2008, -7/+4And just like the Dred Scot case, the Supreme Court is wrong on this issue. http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/home.html
Life begins at conception if you look at it from a biological/scientific viewpoint."The state of being which begins with generation, birth, or germination, and ends with death; also, the time during which this state continues; that state of an animal or plant in which all or any of its organs are capable of performing all or any of their functions; used of all animal and vegetable organisms." http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
For example, if you remove a fish from water it dies. If you remove a fetus from the womb it dies. So if you support abortion, you support choice and death.
If Roe vs Wade were truly a good ruling, why is suicide or assisted suicide not legal?- eir574, on 08/24/2008, -2/+6The fact that someone put a dictionary on the internet that defines life as beginning at conception doesn't mean that we all must therefore accept that definition.
- flip2trip, on 08/24/2008, -3/+5Oh c'mon eir, is that the best you can do?
The online dictionary:
the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
The Merriam Webster dictionary:
1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
The American Heritage Dictionary:
1a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. b. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
Of course we all know that a fetus is nothing but a blob of tissue. I'm sure that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I wish just one pro-abortionist would say the truth,"OK, we're killing babies". - twomeyw23334, on 08/24/2008, -3/+3Pro-abortionist won't say "we're killing babies" because life != human or baby. We kill "life" all the time with no moral issues. I just pulled a weed out of my backyard for example. You need to lo define human, and a fetus may not be considered human.
In reality, it is all irrelevant anyways. To argue "when" something becomes human is ridiculous. The fact is, after conception, a human WILL develop unless something is actively done to prevent it. The arguement of "when" a fetus becomes human is like arguing that a sniper doesn't kill anyone, he just squeezes a trigger and a death just happens to occur later. Abortion prevents a developing human life from developing. A human that would otherwise be eventually walking the earth will not be so if his development is aborted.
The usual response to this is typically something like "we'll than if you don't have sex you are evil because that's the same thing." But choosing not to have sex or to use protection is choosing not to start life in the first place. Choosing not to create life is not equivalent to choosing to destroy life after you decide (and there is a decision) to create it. Destruction != Not-Creating. - eir574, on 08/24/2008, -1/+5@flip2trip
I was merely pointing out the absurdity of choosing some random online dictionary to prove one's point. Look, someone on the internet says I'm right! That must mean the issue is settled.
If I'd wanted to spend more time on it than that, I would have pointed out that many things are alive that we don't consider to be people. A tumor is alive and has human DNA (it typically it has some mutations, but so do we all). We don't consider the tumor to be a person, though. Clearly something else is required.
I'm not even arguing (at least not right now) that a fertilized egg doesn't have that something else that's necessary to call it a person. I'm just saying that it's absurd to think that a dictionary definition of life clears up the whole issue, particularly one as vague as that chosen by wardawg31. - dx74a19, on 08/24/2008, -1/+3twomeyw23334, I don't get your point. The question of "when" is a serious question. The position of the church declares that a person begins at conception ... and that would be ridiculous, if it weren't so short-sighted and dangerous.
Now you soften that position by arguing in defense of a *potential* human being; and that that in-becoming person should have a priority, no matter what. Should not there be exceptions? None whatsoever? - twomeyw23334, on 08/24/2008, -1/+3After conception, a human being is in development and will occur at some point (regardless of your definition) unless action is taken to purposely stop the development. You are destroying a developing human life which is immoral.
This is assuming choice has already occurred that caused conception. If there were rape, there would be no choice and no moral responsibility or obligation. If the mothers life was in danger, it would also be an exception, but for the majority of abortions, "exception" scenarios aren't relevant. I don't claim that *potential* humans take precedence over humans. But killing a potential human is usually morally wrong as killing humans is usually morally wrong.
The idea that the morality of destroying a developing a human life should depend on the definition of a word is ridiculous. No one can come up with a decent definition because no one with a semi-logical mind could ever defend such a definition. Would it be ok to kill the thing before it has fingernails, for example, as if fingernails determine what makes a human? If no, that what is your definition? When is it morally acceptable to kill and morally unacceptable, provided you believe at some point it is not moral to destroy a developing human or human, and please provide the point where the change in morality occurs. Or, just tell me how I'm wrong, and how it is not immoral to destroy a developing human after choosing to create it without one of the obvious exception scenarios. - dx74a19, on 08/24/2008, -2/+2If the pregnancy wasn't planed, would you count that as an exception? There was no choice to procreate, other than the choice of having sex. It happens even to grownup responsible people, not just horny teenagers.
Before we can ask questions about morality, we must understand the subject scientifically: such as the development of the nervous system, the capability to experience stress and pain, etc.
So... the question is not ridiculous at all, it is essential. But I guess we can agree that fingernails are of little indication.
While it may not be morally impeccable to destroy a developing human, consider that such choice is made by weighing between two evils. Then a lesser is chosen.
By making abortion illegal, you get illegal abortions. This is a much greater wrong in my opinion. What should the punishment for the offending woman be anyway? - twomeyw23334, on 08/24/2008, -1/+2I don't plan to lose money when I gamble, yet sometimes it happens. Should this justify me stealing my money back from the casino? Would it qualify as an "exception" to stealing, which is morally wrong?
Making abortion illegal is a different issue. Is it moral for the government to mandate moral behavior, or to punish immoral behavior? - dx74a19, on 08/24/2008, -2/+1You better not gamble than. Sex is not black-jack and yours is a bad analogy. I'm not sure the government should have any say about morality. The terms "moral" and "immoral" are too loaded when it comes to laws. Things have to be more specific there.
The government, in my opinion, should only support education, scientific research, and programs that help a woman or a family to make the right choice. - twomeyw23334, on 08/25/2008, -1/+2I thought it was a great analogy and I could say the exact same thing about sex, "you shouldn't have sex then." Protection works a very high percentage of the time, and two methods of protection used simultaneously almost never lead to pregnancy. The majority of the cases (which for some reason pro-abortionists seemed apposed to talking about), no protection is used.
There are occasional times when murder is necessary and acceptable though I think you would agree that most of the time it is wrong. While there are always gray areas, I think for the majority of situations we can determine if murder is wrong or not. Would you ever hold the position that since there are gray areas and there will always be some new exception scenarios that someone can think up that all murder should be acceptable? Only with the issue of abortion is this moral relativity arguement ever used.
"The government, in my opinion, should... help a woman or a family to make the right choice."
Declaring there is a "right choice" means there is some morality involved, so you have government involved in morality either way. - dx74a19, on 08/25/2008, -1/+1Listen, I'm tired of this. People will have sex for the pure pleasure of having sex, women will have abortions, and you better deal with it. Abortion is not murder, and destroying an organism which cannot experience pain is not an end of the world. Life is not transcendentally sacred. You know what I meant by "right" choice - I meant not aborting. It's pointless to hijack my words. I do not want the government to use the term moral, normal, etc, that is my opinion and this I defend. Have a nice day.
- twomeyw23334, on 08/25/2008, -1/+2Ok Grandpa. I can "deal with it," but that doesn't mean I need to make pretend you have any logic behind your stance. I think your comment sums up the point of view quite nicely. I didn't "hijack your words" as you clearly state you want the government to teach people not to abort. You just want them to avoid using the term moral (even though they are dealing with a moral issue). Who cares? What's the damn obsession with language (and the warping of it) of "pro-choicers." I've never met a group of people so scared of hearing words that describe what they support.
I never said that destroying something that can't experience pain is the "end of the world." You're not even hijacking my words, you just making them up, but if that is finally the answer to my question - the ability to feel pain - is it Ok to murder a 1 month year old in a manner where they feel no pain, or what about a person born with the inability to feel pain due to some defect? Of course not. You claim the definition of human is highly important but none of you can come up with one. What makes you any different then someone who is anti-abortion because a God they have no proof exists supposedly teaches it is wrong?
Whatever, just stick to "you better deal with it" line followed by statements of personal beliefs. As for the government intervening or "punishing" those who have abortions, I never said I support such a thing. I have no idea where I stand at the moment, it's obviously complicated but I'm happy you at least acknowledge that abortion is immoral. I just like arguing with people who seem to have such well formed ideas to see if they can convince me to what governments' involvement, if any, should be but it has yet to happen. - dx74a19, on 08/26/2008, -1/+1OMG, you're so touchy it's incredible. I'm sure your next post will have at least one full paragraph dealing with the word "touchy", promptly using quotes.
Destroying a bunch of cells that can't feel pain is not the end of the world. I did neither hijack your words, nor made them up. I just made a sentence. Why you attack making a sentence?
Now you don't care about using the term "moral" in legal language. Good. I do care and I want the legal definitions to be very specific.
Is it Ok to murder a 1 month year old in a manner where they feel no pain? No, it is not. Just a developing human up until the 3rd trimester, maybe up to the 26th week. And no anesthesia or analgesia of course. To be on the safe side the upper limit should be lowered somewhat. But not that abortion is all ok, lightly chosen or even encouraged, it's just that it has to be enabled and allowed.
Regarding fetal pain: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/ ... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9053416/ http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632042877&i ... - twomeyw23334, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2Thanks for the links but that would imply I bought the "ability to feel pain" is what separates killing a developing human acceptably to when it's not. I don't buy into that premise because you could kill it in the 3rd trimester with anesthesia or after it's born the same way and avoid any suffering.
- wardawg31, on 08/24/2008, -7/+4And just like the Dred Scot case, the Supreme Court is wrong on this issue. http://www.landmarkcases.org/dredscott/home.html
- DuggDowner, on 08/24/2008, -5/+3Keep abortion safe and legal. We don't need nutjob Christians taking us back to the dark ages.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is