Indiana GOP Rep Thinks Women Will Fake Rape Or Incest To Get An Abortion

AssHatZombie said:
Pro choicers really do themselves a disservice when they deny the science based fact that life begins at conception. that's biology, not religious zealotry.
Click to expand...

Let's get something straight. There is no "fact" life begins at conception. We have simply attached whatever terms we like to certain events.

Between the time of conception and the dividing of the cell it does not qualify as an organism and all life is supposed to qualify as an organism so life does not begin at conception. There is approximately a 24 hour period between the sperm entering the egg (cell) and the cell dividing.

Organisms have to have the ability to cell divide and we know 50% (+/_) fertilized cells do not divide. They spontaneously abort.

But beyond all that the sperm and the egg are alive even before they join so to say life begins when they join is arbitrary, to say the least.
 
bravo said:
Well, thats the MO of the Democrats .... state every difference between the partys in the 'extreme'.... Schumer was just caught on an open saying exactly that.....thats why they can never negotiate...they lie from the onset about every issue and express the opposition as extremists....
Click to expand...

Because both sides are at extremes and so they should be. We do not negotiate the value of human life. Either a fetus is a human being and entitled to the same rights as all human beings or they are not human beings. There is no room for "partial human beings" or "human beings except...., or "human beings whose life is worth less than other human beings" or all the other nonsense put forward trying to squeeze something that is not a human being into the category of a human being.

Society has been down the "equal but different" road before. It invariably results in disaster. The only way fetuses can be considered human beings is if we change the laws/rules that currently apply to all human beings and that will result in diminishing every other human being.
 
King of Hoops said:
Yup.

09_nicole_pollard.jpg
Click to expand...

That's what i admire about you, Hoops, your open mindedness and non-prejudice attitude. :D
 
WinterBorn said:
Liberalism is certainly not faith in human beings. Liberalism, at least your version, shows a complete lack of faith in many people. Your trust is that the gov't can fix problems created by people on their own, and relieve people of being responsible for their own mistakes. You want to tell the population that you (and other liberals) know what is best for them and their lives will be fine if they just relinquish control over their lives and their freedoms.
Click to expand...

We have to remember the human race started out with absolutely no government of any kind. As time passed people saw the benefit of tribes and communities and countries. Fast-forward to the 20th century and we saw, during the Great Depression, the individual approach to life wasn't exactly beneficial so governments implemented programs.

When people talk about government interference, for example Social Security, the reason we have it is because the alternative didn't work. The same applies to medical care. The reason government wants to get involved is because the alternative does not work. It's not a matter of wanting to control people. If things were/are working well the government wouldn't be concerning itself with them.

Sometimes posts/posters give the impression the government has always had control and things were never left to individuals but such is not the case. Things were always left to individuals and because of the dismal results governments stepped in. The most current example is medical care. Medical care has always been left to the individual and we see the current situation with people uninsured or in massive debt.

Rather than looking at the Liberals as them saying they know a better way it should be seen as them saying the present way isn't working so let's take a look at what government can do to improve it.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

WinterBorn said:
Since you are using the phrase "...you right wingers" allow me to educate you on my own beliefs. I am not in favor of cutting all social programs, denying care for those who cannot help themselves, nor do I not care about those who crawl or walk. So you might want to observe more than the few details you get from when I argue with you, and actually try and figure out the truth.



This is absolute bullshit. There is plenty of human capital in conservative solutions. The difference between my views and your views is that I do not believe the gov't is the solution to all problems, nor am I willing to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't. I believe in the freedom to make our own choices. If those choices pay off, then we enjoy the fruits of our labors. If they fail we take the consequences and move on. In your version, we all get the same thing so why work hard?



You continually make the claim that conservatives do not trust people, think people are evil, or whatever. And yet, you continually brand conservatives as evil people unworthy of trust and in need to strict controls by the gov't. Can you see the hypocrisy?

Liberalism is certainly not faith in human beings. Liberalism, at least your version, shows a complete lack of faith in many people. Your trust is that the gov't can fix problems created by people on their own, and relieve people of being responsible for their own mistakes. You want to tell the population that you (and other liberals) know what is best for them and their lives will be fine if they just relinquish control over their lives and their freedoms.


Gov't controls do not equal freedom. No matter how much you try and demonize conservatives, freedom is not a gov't program to do what is best for the "unfortunates" in our society.
Click to expand...
 
Ice Dancer said:
The DNA tells us it a complete and unique individual human being with its own heart, brain, circulatory system and finger prints.
Click to expand...

No, DNA does not tell us that. DNA tells us it's human material. That's all. It doesn't say the donor has a heart or brain or even if it's alive.

The same way an infant develops into a toddler and a toddler into a child and a child into an adolescent and an adolescent into an adult............
Click to expand...

But a toddler is not a child and child is not an adult. The key word is develop.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
You are making light of rapists you sick pig.
Click to expand...

???...apparently you're one of our more dimwitted posters....I may be making light of those who think abortion should be permitted in cases of unreported rape, but if anything, permitting the killing of unborn children in situations where the cause is permitted to go free, is "making light of rapists"....now I'm going to overlook the fact you called me a sick pig.....primarily because I think your opinion ranks right up there with a bucket of pig slops.....but in the future I recommend you refrain from posting...it makes you look stupid....
 
apple0154 said:
No, DNA does not tell us that. DNA tells us it's human material. That's all. It doesn't say the donor has a heart or brain or even if it's alive.
But a toddler is not a child and child is not an adult. The key word is develop.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the DNA of the fetus...a known subject-not a blind philosophical solipsism. Science knows for a fact that the DNA sample of the fetus is unique in its individuality as a human being with its own heart; brain; circulatory system and finger prints.

Like all of the stages of human development there is a beginning point and a transition point: The fetus will become a toddler; the toddler a child; the child an adolescent; the adolescent an adult. That is the completed life cycle of the human being...it's potential is not in becoming a human, it is a human---its potential lies in what it will do as a human.
 
WinterBorn said:
Since you are using the phrase "...you right wingers" allow me to educate you on my own beliefs. I am not in favor of cutting all social programs, denying care for those who cannot help themselves, nor do I not care about those who crawl or walk. So you might want to observe more than the few details you get from when I argue with you, and actually try and figure out the truth.



This is absolute bullshit. There is plenty of human capital in conservative solutions. The difference between my views and your views is that I do not believe the gov't is the solution to all problems, nor am I willing to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't. I believe in the freedom to make our own choices. If those choices pay off, then we enjoy the fruits of our labors. If they fail we take the consequences and move on. In your version, we all get the same thing so why work hard?



You continually make the claim that conservatives do not trust people, think people are evil, or whatever. And yet, you continually brand conservatives as evil people unworthy of trust and in need to strict controls by the gov't. Can you see the hypocrisy?

Liberalism is certainly not faith in human beings. Liberalism, at least your version, shows a complete lack of faith in many people. Your trust is that the gov't can fix problems created by people on their own, and relieve people of being responsible for their own mistakes. You want to tell the population that you (and other liberals) know what is best for them and their lives will be fine if they just relinquish control over their lives and their freedoms.


Gov't controls do not equal freedom. No matter how much you try and demonize conservatives, freedom is not a gov't program to do what is best for the "unfortunates" in our society.
Click to expand...

You accuse a liberal of being 'willing to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't' on a thread where conservatives are calling for government to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't? REALLY WB?

I came on this thread to ask Ice Dancer if she would make abortion illegal. The reason I asked her is because there would be a huge human factor and huge economic factors.

Hey WB, if you make abortion illegal, you create a crime. When you create a crime WHO enters people's lives WB, the tooth fairy?
 
Bfgrn said:
You accuse a liberal of being 'willing to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't' on a thread where conservatives are calling for government to tell the majority of people that they are incapable of managing their own lives without interference from the gov't? REALLY WB?

I came on this thread to ask Ice Dancer if she would make abortion illegal. The reason I asked her is because there would be a huge human factor and huge economic factors.

Hey WB, if you make abortion illegal, you create a crime. When you create a crime WHO enters people's lives WB, the tooth fairy?
Click to expand...

Is that what I said? Please point out where I claimed the gov't should tell the majority of the people they are incapable of managing their own lives.


"Hey WB, if you make abortion illegal, you create a crime. When you create a crime WHO enters people's lives WB, the tooth fairy?" By this logic there should be no gov't?

And please point out where I have stated anything about making abortion illegal. I do not think it should be used as birth control. I also think, unless the mother's life is in imminent danger, abortions should be limited to early in the pregnancy.

Now then, I have stated what I think the abortion laws should be. Will you do the same?
 
Ice Dancer said:
We were talking about the DNA of the fetus...a known subject-not a blind philosophical solipsism. Science knows for a fact that the DNA sample of the fetus is unique in its individuality as a human being with its own heart; brain; circulatory system and finger prints.

Like all of the stages of human development there is a beginning point and a transition point: The fetus will become a toddler; the toddler a child; the child an adolescent; the adolescent an adult. That is the completed life cycle of the human being...it's potential is not in becoming a human, it is a human---its potential lies in what it will do as a human.
Click to expand...

Here's some science for ya ID...We still don't know the exact moment a fertilized egg becomes a human. But there are many concrete facts science has provided. The best information science has provided about pregnancy is the importance of prenatal care, the importance that a mother care for her health and eliminate dangerous habits like smoking, drinking and drug use. Carrying a child from conception to birth is not a passive journey or a cost free one. The need for frequent doctor visits to specialists, a proper diet and an active and willing role a mother must play cannot be forced on a woman. Are YOU going to pay for that ID? If not why don't you mind YOUR business?

The law is perfectly fair. If you are against abortion...DON'T HAVE ONE.
 
Bfgrn said:
Here's some science for ya ID...We still don't know the exact moment a fertilized egg becomes a human. But there are many concrete facts science has provided. The best information science has provided about pregnancy is the importance of prenatal care, the importance that a mother care for her health and eliminate dangerous habits like smoking, drinking and drug use. Carrying a child from conception to birth is not a passive journey or a cost free one. The need for frequent doctor visits to specialists, a proper diet and an active and willing role a mother must play cannot be forced on a woman. Are YOU going to pay for that ID? If not why don't you mind YOUR business?

The law is perfectly fair. If you are against abortion...DON'T HAVE ONE.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, by that logic, if I don't take my kids to the dr or to school, it should not be forced on me.
 
Bfgrn said:
Here's some science for ya ID...We still don't know the exact moment a fertilized egg becomes a human. But there are many concrete facts science has provided. The best information science has provided about pregnancy is the importance of prenatal care, the importance that a mother care for her health and eliminate dangerous habits like smoking, drinking and drug use. Carrying a child from conception to birth is not a passive journey or a cost free one. The need for frequent doctor visits to specialists, a proper diet and an active and willing role a mother must play cannot be forced on a woman. Are YOU going to pay for that ID? If not why don't you mind YOUR business?

The law is perfectly fair. If you are against abortion...DON'T HAVE ONE.
Click to expand...

So the only science that is important to you is science that proves that protecting the unborn by good habits aids in its development...implying of course that protecting the life within is the right thing to do. Bad personal habits of the mother's is certainly not healthy for the unborn-I would stipulate killing it via medical abortion is much less healthy for it.

It is everyone's business if they truly believe that mass genocide is taking place in their country. Your stupid ending rejoinder is as stupid as saying "if you don't like killing then don't kill" LAME
 
apple0154 said:
No, DNA does not tell us that. DNA tells us it's human material. That's all. It doesn't say the donor has a heart or brain or even if it's alive.

But a toddler is not a child and child is not an adult. The key word is develop.
Click to expand...

wrong... the DNA absolutely tells us that from the point of conception the embryo has the genetic code of a unique human life.

Telling whether it is alive or dead is basic. If it dies, the body will naturally discard it. If it continues to grow and develop it is alive. Even you can comprehend that, right?
 
WinterBorn said:
Hmmmm, by that logic, if I don't take my kids to the dr or to school, it should not be forced on me.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, you seem to have a really big cognitive problem. If you make abortion illegal (THAT is the premise) can you force an expectant mother to not smoke, drink or take drugs WB? Can you force her to see a doctor that monitors the health of the fetus WB? Can you force her to take care of her health and be contentious? WHO pays for all that care?
 
apple0154 said:
If I were you I wouldn’t talk about the ignorance of anyone else. A liver, a kidney, a flake of skin has “the COMPLETE genetic code of an ENTIRELY UNIQUE human life.” Such basic lack of knowledge is evident throughout your post(s).
Click to expand...

The kidney will NEVER form a heart, never form a brain, never have legs or arms or eyes etc... I admit I phrased that poorly, I should have remembered I was talking to a pro-abortionist and been more clear.

I wrote, “and even then it's absurd to kill a healthy, innocent human being so a defective one may live.”

You replied, “So a 'defective one' may live? It is absurdity to claim that the fetus is defective.”

Hello??? We’re discussing the reasons to allow abortion and anti-abortionists say a woman should have the right to abort if her life is in danger. It is the woman’s body which is defective, not that of the fetus. However, those who go on about the sanctity of life have no problem killing an innocent, healthy human being (the fetus) in order to save the life of the defective human being (the mother). That is the absurdity. Completely illogical, nonsensical, whacky thinking.
Click to expand...

Ok, my fault there, I misunderstood who you were claiming was defective.

First, when the mothers life is in danger, it again (as I stated) puts the life of the mother against the life of the child. If one must die, for the other to survive, then the choice should go to the mother. Obviously there will be situations where the mother has a better chance of survival and other times when the child does. There is nothing illogical to state that when it is life vs. life, the mother should have the choice. Most of the time, when it comes down to life vs. life, the child is not far enough along to survive with the technology we have today. If it was far enough along, they would attempt to save both.

It’s readily apparent you have neither the knowledge nor comprehensive ability to be discussing this matter.
Click to expand...

LMAO... its readily apparent that you will continue to try and come up with bizarre scenarios and descriptions to try and justify your desire to dehumanize the child. Not to worry, that is typical behavior exhibited by those who are pro abortionists
 
Ice Dancer said:
So the only science that is important to you is science that proves that protecting the unborn by good habits aids in its development...implying of course that protecting the life within is the right thing to do. Bad personal habits of the mother's is certainly not healthy for the unborn-I would stipulate killing it via medical abortion is much less healthy for it.

It is everyone's business if they truly believe that mass genocide is taking place in their country. Your stupid ending rejoinder is as stupid as saying "if you don't like killing then don't kill" LAME
Click to expand...

Well Ice Dancer, you best start telling me who will pay for all of your gross government intervention and social engineering. If abortion were illegal, that means it is a crime. A crime means government shows up at schools to arrest, handcuff and prosecute young women. It creates the most draconian government intervention; physical detention. AND, it costs about $30,000 per year to incarcerate a human being. Are YOU going to pay for it ID, because I surely don't want to be forced to pay. What if a mother forced to carry a child full term has personal medical complications that leave her incapacitated...will YOU pay for her lifelong care ID?
 
Bfgrn said:
Hmmmm, you seem to have a really big cognitive problem. If you make abortion illegal (THAT is the premise) can you force an expectant mother to not smoke, drink or take drugs WB? Can you force her to see a doctor that monitors the health of the fetus WB? Can you force her to take care of her health and be contentious? WHO pays for all that care?
Click to expand...

No cognitive problem at all. You are claiming that an expectant mother cannot be forced to take care of her unborn child. By that same logic, we cannot force parents to take care of their children once they are born.

And who will pay for it? There are medical facilities and programs that will provide free medical care and free food for expectant mothers.



Bfgrn, let me ask you again to simply state your views on what should be legal and what should not. In previous threads you refused to do so, and then pitched a fit when I made assumptions about your beliefs. State them clearly so we can continue to have this discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top