Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Usbek_de_Perse]

You are right. Yet, look what happened to Sarah Palin. She actually gave a great example by having her child despite what she knew, and she was criticized and ridiculed anyway. She was not admired and became the brunt of jokes. Feminists did not think her choice was fantastic. The mindset of women who are poisoned by godless ideologies is very difficult to overcome. And it goes round and round. This is gonna sound naive but they need Jesus. Really.

With respect, Sarah Palin was toast before her courageous decision to give birth to a child with serious problems was known. What happened to her had nothing to do with that. She was an untested politician with so little knowledge of the world as to be frightening in her first term as governor. Now, she isn’t properly even a politician.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

With respect, Sarah Palin was toast before her courageous decision to give birth to a child with serious problems was known. What happened to her had nothing to do with that. She was an untested politician with so little knowledge of the world as to be frightening, and only in her first term as governor. Now, having resigned before the end of that term, she isn’t properly even a politician.

 

[gakroeger]

With respect, Sarah Palin was toast before her courageous decision to give birth to a child with serious problems was known. What happened to her had nothing to do with that. She was an untested politician with so little knowledge of the world as to be frightening in her first term as governor. Now, she isn’t properly even a politician.

And yet, she was eminently more qualified to be President (not even VP that she was running for) than what we got.

And it sounds like you bought into the personal character assassination that her political opponents are so good at.

 

[sauce]

What on Earth are you going on about and how is it relevant to the thread?

The ancients also thought that sperm was the “seed” of humanity, i.e. the thing that contains the whole individual, and that the woman’s contribution was only provide the “ground” in which it could grow.

It seems to me that their understanding of human reproduction wasn’t exactly equivalent to modern understanding.

I thought it was relevant as a play on words earlier and that you identify yourself as a Humanist (Atheist). I just connected the dots. It would help to have a little faith when talking about children. Otherwise, it’s just so “barren.”

The ancients must have had some respect for the “ground.” No ticky, no laundry.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

And yet, she was eminently more qualified to be President (not even VP that she was running for) than what we got.

And it sounds like you bought into the personal character assassination that her political opponents are so good at.

And for that I apologize. I do not wish to assassinate her character, but to bring into focus the realities of life in our national political gold-fish bowl.

Nonetheless, her handlers (including John McCain) should have forseen that their move would have had both the positive effects that they were hoping for and negative effects as well.

Let’s follow your good counsel and avoid discussing the qualifications of politicians.

 

[sauce]

This is exactly why the politically correct term they use for themselves and insist that we pro life people use for them, “pro choice” is bogus. Because they are not pro choice as your example of Sarah Palin proves. They do not approve of a legitimate choice for life, they only approve of one choice “death”.

This is not “pro” anything. It is not pro choice because they deny Sarah Palin and women like her a choice, it certainly is not pro life, and it is not even as they claim pro women. Most women, who have been talked into an abortion, live many years afterward with regrets and often physical damage to their reproductive systems. The correct term is pro abortion. Pro death.

Nothing naive about needing Jesus, we all do. America is finding out it needs Jesus also, it is time to let Him back into our daily lives. We desperately need to reestablish a “Culture of Life”.

You are right on! Right on!

 

[gearhead]

This is exactly why the politically correct term they use for themselves and insist that we pro life people use for them, “pro choice” is bogus. Because they are not pro choice as your example of Sarah Palin proves. They do not approve of a legitimate choice for life, they only approve of one choice “death”.

Who exactly is the “they” you’re referring to? Every single pro-choice person I know does truly believe in choice. They don’t want to force anyone to have an abortion or even suggest that they should have one; they simply want the option to be available to those women who would choose to take it.

 

[sauce]

And yet, she was eminently more qualified to be President (not even VP that she was running for) than what we got.

And it sounds like you bought into the personal character assassination that her political opponents are so good at.

Palin is like fresh water Salmon. She swims upstream because she can.

Like she said, dead fish go with the flow. The Alinskyites love to ridicule and target their
foes. And then they get other women to attack her because of the political dynamics.
It doesn’t really look good for a man to do it. All the more heinous the deed.
Hey, at least she sleeps with her own husband.

And anyway, the story isn’t over yet. She was right about the “death panels.”
Because that’s what they boil down to.

 

[gakroeger]

Who exactly is the “they” you’re referring to? Every single pro-choice person I know does truly believe in choice. They don’t want to force anyone to have an abortion or even suggest that they should have one; they simply want the option to be available to those women who would choose to take it.

By they; I mean the very vocal pro choice voices.

How then, do you explain the severe criticism leveled at Sarah Palin specifically because of her decision to carry a downs syndrome child to term by NOW and other leaders of the pro choice movement?

 

[gearhead]

By they; I mean the very vocal pro choice voices.

Which ones? Be specific.

How then, do you explain the severe criticism leveled at Sarah Palin specifically because of her decision to carry a downs syndrome child to term by NOW and other leaders of the pro choice movement?

I don’t recall ever seeing any criticism from NOW about her decision to not abort her child; I do recall a fair bit of criticism about her support for increasing legal restrictions on abortion, but not for her personal choice except to the extent that she used it for political cachet.

 

[CWBetts]

Which ones? Be specific.

I don’t recall ever seeing any criticism from NOW about her decision to not abort her child; I do recall a fair bit of criticism about her support for increasing legal restrictions on abortion, but not for her personal choice except to the extent that she used it for political cachet.

Did you actually WATCH any election coverage? Poor Sarah couln’t wipe her nose without being criticized for using the wrong brand of tisse

 

[Christopher68]

Did you actually WATCH any election coverage? Poor Sarah couln’t wipe her nose without being criticized for using the wrong brand of tisse

Palin was completely out of her league. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were ‘cringe-inducing’ they were so bad. What Palin’s critics did to her was nothing compared to what she did to herself.

 

[CWBetts]

Palin was completely out of her league. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were ‘cringe-inducing’ they were so bad. What Palin’s critics did to her was nothing compared to what she did to herself.

As bad as she was, she was still somehow smarter than Joe Biden

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

As bad as she was, she was still somehow smarter than Joe Biden

This sounds like “faith-based” political analysis. By what measure do you make that judgement?

This debate is silly. We have diverted the conversation from the pro-Life vs pro-abortion debate. We are now rehashing the last election. Much better that we put our efforts into assuring that we get a national health plan.

 

[CWBetts]

This sounds like “faith-based” political analysis. By what measure do you make that judgement?

This debate is silly. We have diverted the conversation from the pro-Life vs pro-abortion debate. We are now rehashing the last election. Much better that we put our efforts into assuring that we get a national health plan.

Pretty much every time Biden openede his mouth Obama had to go into damage-control mode.

 

[nickgreenwriter]

One of my favorite things to hear peoples opinions on is this:
Since laws follow the thinking of ‘killing a person is bad,
killing things that arent persons isnt bad’
(such as tumors, human hair, animals)

The question comes down to what is a person, if we want to kill something, we should check if its a person right?
Because of the separation of church and state, laws MUST be based on fact and science, they cannot be based in the supernatural.
So we must base laws on the natural, things we can see and feel and touch.
Evidence must be found and a verdoct must be reached.
In the development of human beings, from conception to the age of reason (age 6?), when does personhood begin?
This must be the point where we draw the line in the book of law, this is a person. There are legal consequences for killing this because it is a person.
So when does personhood begin? What can we prove?
The fact is, personhood is not natural.
It cannot be measured and proven the way someone could prove, for instance, ci

 

[nickgreenwriter]

sorry…
Citizenship is what i meant to say.
Citizenship can be proven with evidence and documents and testimony.
Personhood is not natural, in that it cannot be seen and touched and measured. Personhood, as I personally would say, is supernatural.
Anyway my last post was damaged somehow so I will get to my final point…
Humans as they exist as adults, are simply big blobs of cells. These cells on their own have no function of will. They cannot make decisions or reason right and wrong. These cells are very much alive and active. They are as alive as we consider single celled organisms to be.
However, the fact that these cells that make up you and me are working together in a way that is truely mindboggling. Working together in a way that defies their own individual abilities.
This sack of soulless chemical automations has a life of its own, an animation to it.
(greek translation needed)
With respect for the path all humans take, personhood must be seen to begin as close to conception as possible.

 

[gakroeger]

Which ones? Be specific.

I don’t recall ever seeing any criticism from NOW about her decision to not abort her child; I do recall a fair bit of criticism about her support for increasing legal restrictions on abortion, but not for her personal choice except to the extent that she used it for political cachet.

If you are not informed why do you ask me to do your research for you? I did one simple Google search (which you could have done) and found this article immediately, however, if you listened or paid any attention to the campaign in 2008, the attacks on Sarah Palin specifically because she chose to carry her baby to term were to say the least plentiful, hateful, and narrow minded.

Abortion Advocate Gloria Steinem Attacks Sarah Palin:

 

[gakroeger]

Palin was completely out of her league. Her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were ‘cringe-inducing’ they were so bad. What Palin’s critics did to her was nothing compared to what she did to herself.

We are getting off subject, however, since Sarah Palin was brought into this discussion because of her courageous demonstration of what a moral person and society should do; let me say in her defense that the criticism of her abilities and fitness for public office are way out of line.

She accomplished more in her public life than Obama and Biden combined. As far as the interview with Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson was concerned, the way she was set up by them reflects more on them then her.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has either bought into the character assassination or just thinks women are not fit for public office. There have been numerous male candidates that were far dumber and accomplished far less than her that were never attack in the same manner. Obama and Biden are perfect examples.

The ability to fool people with a glib tongue does not alone make for a good public servant.

 

[sauce]

If you are not informed why do you ask me to do your research for you? I did one simple Google search (which you could have done) and found this article immediately, however, if you listened or paid any attention to the campaign in 2008, the attacks on Sarah Palin specifically because she chose to carry her baby to term were to say the least plentiful, hateful, and narrow minded.

Abortion Advocate Gloria Steinem Attacks Sarah Palin:

Sounds like some people want to be spoon fed.