Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Women don't even like to announce being pregnant 'till the start of the second trimester because its a well known fact that miscarriages happen all the time. Should society treat a second-month miscarriage the same as a 4 year old getting run over by a bus? Wake, funeral, casket, burial etc? If not why do some chose to toss around terms like 'murder' with no discretion?
If a person dies of natural causes, do you say he/she was murdered? No.
If a person was deliberately killed by another human being, do you say he/she was murdered? Yes.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Last edited by Real World; 06-26-2007 at 02:04 PM..
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Despite disagreeing with BelichFan's stance on abortion I have to object to this question on the ground of pointlessness.
It's like asking "If someone gave you the choice: they can kill you, or they can kill a stranger, would you want the stranger killed?" Well no I wouldn't, but I'd still have to take that over getting killed myself. What's the point of creating a false choice?
It's not pointless. Someone who unequivocally believes abortion is murder would certainly favor wasting money if that was the only way to get an anti-abortion bill passed. But, I think many social conservatives choose issues that won't cost them a thing either materially or personally. You rarely hear social conservatives condemn adultery, pornography, or avarice with the same vigor that they do gay rights and abortion. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't many social conservatives (not to mention liberals) who oppose abortion from the bottom of their hearts.
But, I think many social conservatives choose issues that won't cost them a thing either materially or personally. You rarely hear social conservatives condemn adultery, pornography, or avarice with the same vigor that they do gay rights and abortion. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't many social conservatives (not to mention liberals) who oppose abortion from the bottom of their hearts.
The second part of your statement does not follow from the first. Is it more expensive for conservatives to fight adultery, pornography, or avarice (whatever that is) than it is to fight gay rights and abortion? Otherwise I don't see how those examples support your point.
Why don't you go back and actually read what I posted. My point applies to many, but by no means all social conservatives.
You missed my point again. Let's suppose Lieberman introduced a bill to outlaw abortion and raise taxes by 10%. Let's further suppose that the bill was very carefully crafted (kind of like the immigration bill) and if it was changed at all, it would be defeated. What would you want your Senator to do? In other words, would you be willing to have the government waste another $100 billion or so if it was the only way to stop abortion?
I'd have to know the specifics of the bill. Raising taxes is not something we need to do. I'm of the opinion, and I think most others in here would agree, that we tax and spend too much. I think we could do all that you'd want to do with the tax structure we have. All we'd have to do is reorganize who gets budget money, and how it's spent. Again though, to me, abortion and finances are not one and the same. You don't kill a baby because the government won't give you welfare. That's BS. You can give the child up for adoption. People want to kill babies because they don't want the responsibility. I'd let people kill babies if they had to have their tubes tied in the process. I can guarantee you that abortions would drop 90% if that were the case.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
It's not pointless. Someone who unequivocally believes abortion is murder would certainly favor wasting money if that was the only way to get an anti-abortion bill passed. But, I think many social conservatives choose issues that won't cost them a thing either materially or personally. You rarely hear social conservatives condemn adultery, pornography, or avarice with the same vigor that they do gay rights and abortion. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't many social conservatives (not to mention liberals) who oppose abortion from the bottom of their hearts.
What maroonery logic. This is why I think some people are space shots. So the only way to get what you want is to PAAAAAAAY the ransom. What retarded, azz backwards logic. Then people wonder why we're $8+ Trillion in debt. Pols in DC use that stupidity all the time. Vote for my bill and I'll give you that $$ for your bridge. Vote for mine and I'll give you that $$ for your spinich farmer. Whatever happens to principles and accountability?
What do abortion and gay rights have to do with each other? NOTHING!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
The key word in all of that is person. I'm not about to have another debate on the merits of personhood, but that's where the disagreement lies.
Bull*****. That crap is a cop out and 99% of people know that. A "bunch of cells" is utter BS. That's just an excuse to justify murdering a baby, by making some mental simpletons feel better about themselves. Talk to a woman who's 4 months pregnant and loses her child, and try to tell her it was a bunch of cells. I don't even vote with abortion in mind. I think most politicians are forced to pick a side, and don't really feel that a single politician makes much of a difference on this issue. Politicians should focus their attention on government and not social issues like abortion. Obviously it is an important issue, but I never let it affect my voting stance. I don't hold a sign, would never blow up a clinic, and consider the issue low on my political totum pole. However, it upsets me when people refuse to see it for what it is, and that's murder, or contraception on demand.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
What do abortion and gay rights have to do with each other? NOTHING!
I'm sorry to keep chiming in, but bad logic in debates always gets me.
Quetion: "What do abortion and gay rights have to do with each other?" Answer: They are both important issues for the religious right. Now, I don't understand what cost has to do with it, but connecting abortion and gay rights isn't a leap of faith.
I'm sorry to keep chiming in, but bad logic in debates always gets me.
Quetion: "What do abortion and gay rights have to do with each other?" Answer: They are both important issues for the religious right. Now, I don't understand what cost has to do with it, but connecting abortion and gay rights isn't a leap of faith.
um, when you have a discussion about abortion, and someone mentions gay rights, it's off topic.
IRAAAAAAAAAQ!
That would have made as much sense.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Bull*****. That crap is a cop out and 99% of people know that. A "bunch of cells" is utter BS. That's just an excuse to justify murdering a baby, by making some mental simpletons feel better about themselves. Talk to a woman who's 4 months pregnant and loses her child, and try to tell her it was a bunch of cells. I don't even vote with abortion in mind. I think most politicians are forced to pick a side, and don't really feel that a single politician makes much of a difference on this issue. Politicians should focus their attention on government and not social issues like abortion. Obviously it is an important issue, but I never let it affect my voting stance. I don't hold a sign, would never blow up a clinic, and consider the issue low on my political totum pole. However, it upsets me when people refuse to see it for what it is, and that's murder, or contraception on demand.
I have no stake in the abortion debate, I'm not getting one, but I just don't see it as murder. Again, I just don't. And I bet the 50 or so % of Americans that support abortion rights don't, either. I'm not saying that a fetus is an inanimate collection of cells, but when I have to balance the right of the undeveloped fetus against the right of the mother to remove it from her body, I will always support the right of the mother. Always.