Defend your right to own a car.

[.blank cd]

How about you go tell the Mayo Clinic that they don't know what abortion is.

"Medical abortion is a procedure that uses various medications to end a pregnancy." - Mayo Clinic - Medical abortion: Ending pregnancy with medication - MayoClinic.com

So that you don't try to play on semantics....

You can also inform the University of Maryland and the US National Library of Medicine.

"A surgical abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus)." - University of Maryland Medical Center - Abortion - surgical

"Surgical abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus). Surgical abortion is not the same as miscarriage. Miscarriage is when a pregnancy ends on its own before the 20th week." - US National Library of Medicine - Abortion - surgical: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia

Notice that they say that the procedure ends the pregnancy - not that the child was already dead (miscarriage).

Now, go tell them that they are wrong, and that you know better - and show them your medical degree also. It is probably in the same drawer that holds your degrees in science and psychology - you know, the drawer that doesn't exist.

Let me quote someone here: "If you plan on having a serious discussion about it, learn what it really means." - YOU

None of those definitions are wrong.

[David88vert]

None of those definitions are wrong.

I know that. You were the one that kept bringing up the removal of an already dead fetus as being abortion. You also stated that miscarriage was abortion by definition.

[.blank cd]

I know that. You were the one that kept bringing up the removal of an already dead fetus as being abortion. You also stated that miscarriage was abortion by definition.

It is

[David88vert]

It is

Go tell that to the Mayo Clinic, the University of Maryland Medical Center, and the US National Library of Medicine.

Have you ever noticed that "spontaneous abortion" always has quotes around it, yet medical and surgical do not?

You keep attempting to use a failed argument that women somehow would not be able to get an abortion in situations of miscarriage, or where their health was at risk, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that there have always been stated exceptions, and health of the mother, and cases of rape have been considered exceptions. Dead fetus removal would not be at risk either. The only question is whether or not a mother could choose to end the pregnancy due to her not wanting the baby. Any other discussion is a waste of time and serves only to create tangents.

[.blank cd]

You keep attempting to use a failed argument that women somehow would not be able to get an abortion in situations of miscarriage, or where their health was at risk, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that there have always been stated exceptions, and health of the mother, and cases of rape have been considered exceptions. Dead fetus removal would not be at risk either. The only question is whether or not a mother could choose to end the pregnancy due to her not wanting the baby. Any other discussion is a waste of time and serves only to create tangents.

Im not using any failed argument. If a bill is proposed that doesn't put those situations at risk, then it doesn't. Thats fine. Whoop-de-doo. But I'm not opposed to letting a woman choose what she wants to do in any other situation either. And I wouldn't support anything that removes that choice from her in any situation.

I am opposed to the "name" of the bill, as with a lot of bills, it uses politically and emotionally charged nomenclature (it probably wouldn't have been voted on if it were the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" act) to receive support.

As far as from a personal moral standpoint, abortion in any situation would probably be the last option I would consider if I were a woman faced with that decision, dependent upon the circumstances, but I will NEVER be in that situation, so I can't necessarily be sure of what I would do. Judging abortion solely by its gruesomeness or obscenity falls short of judging it dispassionately, and I'll never judge something or base my opinion on something based on emotions alone.

[David88vert]

Im not using any failed argument. If a bill is proposed that doesn't put those situations at risk, then it doesn't. Thats fine. Whoop-de-doo. But I'm not opposed to letting a woman choose what she wants to do in any other situation either. And I wouldn't support anything that removes that choice from her in any situation.

Ok, so you support women having the choice no matter what. Why do you not support the average American in having a choice as to whether they want to own an assault style weapon or not?

I am opposed to the "name" of the bill, as with a lot of bills, it uses politically and emotionally charged nomenclature (it probably wouldn't have been voted on if it were the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" act) to receive support.

I agree on this. Politics plays a role in these naming conventions.

As far as from a personal moral standpoint, abortion in any situation would probably be the last option I would consider if I were a woman faced with that decision, dependent upon the circumstances, but I will NEVER be in that situation, so I can't necessarily be sure of what I would do. Judging abortion solely by its gruesomeness or obscenity falls short of judging it dispassionately, and I'll never judge something or base my opinion on something based on emotions alone.

If the majority of women getting abortions had the same outlook as you on the above bolded part, this discussion would not even be in the public eye.

[.blank cd]

Ok, so you support women having the choice no matter what. Why do you not support the average American in having a choice as to whether they want to own an assault style weapon or not?

I do. But I kinda don't really have that choice to begin with. I can't go out and get an YF22, or an F-118 or an M1 Abrahms. We decided as a nation that weapons like that are an aspect of commerce we can regulate if its in the interest of national safety and security. And if I can still buy one after they've been regulated, I guess I still have that choice. And if the right is to "bear arms", even if assault weapons were gone, I could still "bear arms"

If the majority of women getting abortions had the same outlook as you on the above bolded part, this discussion would not even be in the public eye.

Female psychology is different than men's, and that has to play a role. So I, as a man, look at abortion inherently different than a woman. So we can look to science to remove that variable for legislating our safest and best options. Roe v. Wade has got it pretty figured out, and I would doubt that any new scientific evidence and information is going to overturn that decision.

[Sinfix_15]

I do. But I kinda don't really have that choice to begin with. I can't go out and get an YF22, or an F-118 or an M1 Abrahms. We decided as a nation that weapons like that are an aspect of commerce we can regulate if its in the interest of national safety and security. And if I can still buy one after they've been regulated, I guess I still have that choice. And if the right is to "bear arms", even if assault weapons were gone, I could still "bear arms"

Law abiding citizens being armed is only a national security risk in the eyes of a tyrannical government. Citizens being armed improves national security.

[.blank cd]

Law abiding citizens being armed is only a national security risk in the eyes of a tyrannical government. Citizens being armed improves national security.

Is there ANY legislation being proposed that effectively disarms Americans? Yes or No?

[David88vert]

I do. But I kinda don't really have that choice to begin with. I can't go out and get an YF22, or an F-118 or an M1 Abrahms. We decided as a nation that weapons like that are an aspect of commerce we can regulate if its in the interest of national safety and security. And if I can still buy one after they've been regulated, I guess I still have that choice. And if the right is to "bear arms", even if assault weapons were gone, I could still "bear arms"

Tanks and jets are not semi-automatic rifles. Do not confuse the issue.

If you really want a tank, go here: Armor Page 1 and buy one. They are legal to own.

Female psychology is different than men's, and that has to play a role. So I, as a man, look at abortion inherently different than a woman. So we can look to science to remove that variable for legislating our safest and best options. Roe v. Wade has got it pretty figured out, and I would doubt that any new scientific evidence and information is going to overturn that decision.

The only thing that RvW did scientifically is say that abortions were legal in the early trimesters, right? Only a vague "viability of the fetus" was mentioned, which is hardly a line in the sand, as we now are better prepared to medically care for premature babies, which in theory, would shift viability to an earlier pregnancy date. More importantly, neuroscience has show that fetuses can feel pain, and this scientific argument may be made in the future against RvW. I'd hardly say that RvW has it figured out enough to stand the test of time for another 25 years.

[David88vert]

Is there ANY legislation being proposed that effectively disarms Americans? Yes or No?

I'm only aware of it being at the state level currently - all federal level bills have been defeated for now.
New Jersey
N.J. Assembly plans to send four gun control bills to Christie | NJ.com
New Jersey: Gun Control Package Advancing in Trenton
Maryland
O?Malley plans to sign Maryland gun-control, transportation bills Thursday - Washington Post

[Sinfix_15]

Is there ANY legislation being proposed that effectively disarms Americans? Yes or No?

Yes.

Democrats will never put forth a bill containing the truth regarding guns. Every bill put forth is intentionally deceptive, with the purpose of either going unnoticed or manipulating the wave of public opinion. The goal is and always has been to limit guns as much as possible anytime the opportunity prevents itself. It's a process that gets easier each time you're successful in any measure.

[.blank cd]

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm talking about legislation that removes ALL guns, everything, from legal gun owners and expressly makes it illegal for anyone to have anything that fires a projectile. Complete disarmament. Where is that? Does this exist?

Not looking for "oh this might turn into a registry/gun grab" kind of legislation.

[David88vert]

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm talking about legislation that removes ALL guns, everything, from legal gun owners and expressly makes it illegal for anyone to have anything that fires a projectile. Complete disarmament. Where is that? Does this exist?

Not looking for "oh this might turn into a registry/gun grab" kind of legislation.

Has any democratic country removed all legal guns and just done it with only one bill, and not stepped removal?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm talking about legislation that removes ALL guns, everything, from legal gun owners and expressly makes it illegal for anyone to have anything that fires a projectile. Complete disarmament. Where is that? Does this exist?

Not looking for "oh this might turn into a registry/gun grab" kind of legislation.

[Sinfix_15]

So you're saying i shouldnt be worried until they openly say theyre taking all of my guns in one big swoop?

[.blank cd]

So you're saying i shouldnt be worried until they openly say theyre taking all of my guns in one big swoop?

What would be the benefit of completely disarming American citizens? A measure like that would be astronomically expensive. So why would they do it? There would have to be a reason. I'm being dead serious here. Give me a serious answer.

[.blank cd]

Has any democratic country removed all legal guns and just done it with only one bill, and not stepped removal?

Before I look it up, to my knowledge, no democratic constitutional semi capitalist republic, as developed and industrialized as the United States has ever done it with one bill, or at all.

Same question. What would be the benefit of disarming American citizens. Complete disarmament of a country of our size and power would be incredibly costly and lengthy. What would be the benefit of spending this time and money?

[Sinfix_15]

What would be the benefit of completely disarming American citizens? A measure like that would be astronomically expensive. So why would they do it? There would have to be a reason. I'm being dead serious here. Give me a serious answer.

" If we're ever going to install socialism, we must first disarm anyone who would oppose "


These current scandals should be painfully obvious evidence that our government has no issues with "imposing its will" on american citizens. Disarming them makes that goal easier. This had been said many times throughout history...... every tyrant shared the notion that citizens are easier to control when disarmed. I honestly do not understand how you do not understand this concept? What do you think our founders meant when they said "the government should fear its people".... do you think they meant "fear that you're going to send a letter to your congressmen"

[Sinfix_15]

theoretical question.

I am a celebrity fashion designer who makes fur coats. I am worried that someone is going to attempt to splash me with red paint to protest so i hire security guards to follow me around. How closely should my security detail follow me and how far away from me should they observe to prevent me from being splashed with paint? Answer in terms of a perimeter around me that my security guards would need to defend to keep me out of reach of a potential protester.

[bu villain]

While science may impact the abortion debate, it will never solve it. It is primarily a value judgement. Science can't tell you when an embryo or fetus deserves the same rights as a fully conscious human. Some people talk about the sanctity of life but that is so nebulous a term as to be nearly meaningless. Many people who use such arguments don't believe in the sanctity of life for convicted murderers (despite the number of historical false convictions) or for enemy combatants on a battlefield (despite their political beliefs or whether they hold a gun or not). These debates are usually devoid of much logic.

[Sinfix_15]

While science may impact the abortion debate, it will never solve it. It is primarily a value judgement. Science can't tell you when an embryo or fetus deserves the same rights as a fully conscious human. Some people talk about the sanctity of life but that is so nebulous a term as to be nearly meaningless. Many people who use such arguments don't believe in the sanctity of life for convicted murderers (despite the number of historical false convictions) or for enemy combatants on a battlefield (despite their political beliefs or whether they hold a gun or not). These debates are usually devoid of much logic.

Combatants are choosing their own fate and yes we do value the sanctity of life when it comes to enemy combatants, that's why we allow surrender. Same applies to convicted murderers, if the law is "commit X crime and you get the death penalty" you are deciding the death penalty for yourself when you commit X crime.

So the criminal can chose not to commit a crime, combatants decide their own fate....... what voice or option does the unborn child have?



outside of that i agree. This is 100% a value judgment / social issue.

[bu villain]

Same applies to convicted murderers, if the law is "commit X crime and you get the death penalty" you are deciding the death penalty for yourself when you commit X crime.

Except that it is a known fact that some convicted criminals were actually not guilty of any crime and later exonerated. Honestly I probably shouldn't have made those comparisons because people like to focus on the misalignment of comparisons and ignore the overall point which in this case is that we don't all agree life is an absolute right and we can't even agree when life begins anyways.

what voice or option does the unborn child have?

Your question assumes the unborn child has the capacity to have an opinion either way which clearly fetuses don't.

[Sinfix_15]

Your question assumes the unborn child has the capacity to have an opinion either way which clearly fetuses don't.

Next time i see a 1 year old i'm gonna ask them if they want to live or die.

Call me crazy.... but the answer i'm expecting is "garggglagjasggjggggg aggguugugu"

[bu villain]

Exactly, so why did you ask the nonsensical question "what voice or option does the unborn child have?". They don't get a voice or an option because they aren't capable mentally or physically of having an opinion.

[.blank cd]

" If we're ever going to install socialism, we must first disarm anyone who would oppose "


These current scandals should be painfully obvious evidence that our government has no issues with "imposing its will" on american citizens. Disarming them makes that goal easier. This had been said many times throughout history...... every tyrant shared the notion that citizens are easier to control when disarmed. I honestly do not understand how you do not understand this concept? What do you think our founders meant when they said "the government should fear its people".... do you think they meant "fear that you're going to send a letter to your congressmen"

Install socialism. This is about the most serious answer I'll probably get so ill roll with it. Based on your answer (and I would love to hear serious answers for these as well)....

1. What is socialism? Why is it a bad thing? Why is capitalism a good thing?

2. A core change in the operation of the government would obviously require the cooperation of all 3 branches of government. If this level of cooperation is achieved for such an endeavor, what makes you think they need to disarm you to get any further?

3. This level of cooperation to change the fundamentals of government from how it operates now would literally take decades. What makes you think Obama is capable of pulling something like that off in his remaining 3 years, what benefit would he receive from putting such a process in motion? He'd in all likelyhood be dead before it happened.

4. What is the benefit of having unlimited control of American citizens? If its only to "install socialism", and if socialism is such a beneficial endeavor for them, why wait until 2008?

Put your thinking cap on for 20 minutes and humor me.

[.blank cd]

Next time i see a 1 year old i'm gonna ask them if they want to live or die.

Call me crazy.... but the answer i'm expecting is "garggglagjasggjggggg aggguugugu"

Does a 1 year old infant have the same cognitive abilities as a 1 week old fetus?

12wks?

24wks?

36wks?

[Sinfix_15]

Exactly, so why did you ask the nonsensical question "what voice or option does the unborn child have?". They don't get a voice or an option because they aren't capable mentally or physically of having an opinion.

So, why not allow abortions until a kid is 5 years old and can voice an opinion against it??

The question is when do you consider a fetus a living person.

[David88vert]

Before I look it up, to my knowledge, no democratic constitutional semi capitalist republic, as developed and industrialized as the United States has ever done it with one bill, or at all.

Same question. What would be the benefit of disarming American citizens. Complete disarmament of a country of our size and power would be incredibly costly and lengthy. What would be the benefit of spending this time and money?

Those in power have one thing in common in history - they want more power. Throughout history, those in power have continuously developed a fear of losing their power, and have sought out many way s to ensure that their grip on their power remained intact. In many cultures, throughout history, that has been attempted by the removal of weapons from the people. For example, the Japanese had katanagari in the Sengoku and Meiji periods. Lookup Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, both are famous for their attempts to hold onto power.

[Sinfix_15]

Install socialism. This is about the most serious answer I'll probably get so ill roll with it. Based on your answer (and I would love to hear serious answers for these as well)....

1. What is socialism? Why is it a bad thing? Why is capitalism a good thing?

2. A core change in the operation of the government would obviously require the cooperation of all 3 branches of government. If this level of cooperation is achieved for such an endeavor, what makes you think they need to disarm you to get any further?

3. This level of cooperation to change the fundamentals of government from how it operates now would literally take decades. What makes you think Obama is capable of pulling something like that off in his remaining 3 years, what benefit would he receive from putting such a process in motion? He'd in all likelyhood be dead before it happened.

4. What is the benefit of having unlimited control of American citizens? If its only to "install socialism", and if socialism is such a beneficial endeavor for them, why wait until 2008?

Put your thinking cap on for 20 minutes and humor me.

Here you go again on your quest to feel superior.

It doesnt matter what socialism is, whether its good or bad..... it simply doesnt matter............. i know you support socialism. I know that's you're thing..... i honestly done care to continue having this debate with you. Nothing you could ever say would make me agree with this "the world is your family" socialism mentality.

The point is, the government and many governments in the past know that it's more difficult to impose your will on armed citizens. Whether the government wanted to install socialism or make me eat my vegetables..... me being armed puts more significance on "no". It's a pretty simple idea really..... if someone breaks in my house and i walk into the living room and say "no, you cant have my TV", it works differently with and without a gun.

[.blank cd]

The question is when do you consider a fetus a living person.

When it has the ability to live independently from its host.

[Sinfix_15]

When it has the ability to live independently from its host.

Does that include being able to defend itself against a doctor? Because its not independent from it's host until you cut the cord.


Sounds like you agree with partial birth abortion, just like your president. You should start a petition to release Gosnell.

[.blank cd]

Here you go again on your quest to feel superior.

It doesnt matter what socialism is, whether its good or bad..... it simply doesnt matter............. i know you support socialism. I know that's you're thing..... i honestly done care to continue having this debate with you. Nothing you could ever say would make me agree with this "the world is your family" socialism mentality.

The point is, the government and many governments in the past know that it's more difficult to impose your will on armed citizens. Whether the government wanted to install socialism or make me eat my vegetables..... me being armed puts more significance on "no". It's a pretty simple idea really..... if someone breaks in my house and i walk into the living room and say "no, you cant have my TV", it works differently with and without a gun.

Then at this point rational discussion is off the table with you, and its clear that your mission isn't to add to the discourse or understand anything or expand your knowledge, but to oppose anything and everything that doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.

[.blank cd]

Does that include being able to defend itself against a doctor? Because its not independent from it's host until you cut the cord.

What part of "the ability to live independently from its host" was unclear to you?

[Sinfix_15]

Then at this point rational discussion is off the table with you, and its clear that your mission isn't to add to the discourse or understand anything or expand your knowledge, but to oppose anything and everything that doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.

Says the delusional ego-maniac liberal. You say i have a narrow world view but you're steadily on a quest to force yours on others. You dont need a mandate to help others. You can spend your entire life feeding the poor and clothing the homeless...... the point is that you want to force everyone to do it and you want to do it under government authority. Your government realizes that the 2nd amendment.... or the constitution in general, is a big hurdle in that process.

[bu villain]

So, why not allow abortions until a kid is 5 years old and can voice an opinion against it??

Good question that most people don't bother to ask. They just assume their unexplainable disgust gives them the correct answer. Either that or it hurts their head to think about when the correct time to give full rights to a fetus is so they just say it's conception to prevent themselves from having to actually think hard about it.

The question is when do you consider a fetus a living person.

That is one of the important questions but not the only one. Other important ones are "Do all living people have the same rights to life?" and "What are a woman's rights with respect to her own body?"

[David88vert]

When it has the ability to live independently from its host.

With that definition, only a baby fully born would be "independent from its host", as "host" would mean it was inside its mother still. If that is the case, would you support an elective abortion at 8.5 months, since the baby is still inside the mother?

A three week old infant does not have the ability to feed itself, and will die if left alone, so should that be considered "ok to kill"?

[Sinfix_15]

Good question that most people don't bother to ask. They just assume their unexplainable disgust gives them the correct answer. Either that or it hurts their head to think about when the correct time to give full rights to a fetus is so they just say it's conception to prevent themselves from having to actually think hard about it.



That is one of the important questions but not the only one. Other important ones are "Do all living people have the same rights to life?" and "What are a woman's rights with respect to her own body?"

I am pro-choice. How i rationalize that decision is understanding that i do not feel i have a conclusive answer and feel that the decision is better left with the potential mother than it is our government. Morally, i feel it is wrong, but when i remove emotion and weigh the cut and dry pros vs cons of it, i not so decisively decide to be pro-choice.

With that said, people like Blank who mock people for being pro-life and act as if it's a strike against their intelligence to support this cause.... i want to punch them in the face.

[Sinfix_15]

With that definition, only a baby fully born would be "independent from its host", as "host" would mean it was inside its mother still. If that is the case, would you support an elective abortion at 8.5 months, since the baby is still inside the mother?

A three week old infant does not have the ability to feed itself, and will die if left alone, so should that be considered "ok to kill"?

He words it in a "politically correct" way, but that is exactly what they believe...... as long as the baby's head is inside a vagina, it's a lifeless fetus and terminating it is no different than having a mole removed.

[.blank cd]

Says the delusional ego-maniac liberal. You say i have a narrow world view but you're steadily on a quest to force yours on others. You dont need a mandate to help others. You can spend your entire life feeding the poor and clothing the homeless...... the point is that you want to force everyone to do it and you want to do it under government authority. Your government realizes that the 2nd amendment.... or the constitution in general, is a big hurdle in that process.

Gotcha.