Ram Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Slavery was protected by Law and legal too' date= didnt make it right. Was..That's the operative word. Not 'is'.
Macj Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Was..That's the operative word. Not 'is'. Abortion is legal, might not always be so.
graphic23 Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Abortion is legal' date= might not always be so. If it is made illegal by the US Govt., then progressing backwards, not forwards.
Ram Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Abortion is legal' date= might not always be so. You cannot compare abortion and slavery, they’re completely different animals. I can understand if you compare abortion to euthanasia or slavery to universal franchise, but no way is abortion comparable to slavery.
Macj Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 You cannot compare abortion and slavery' date=' they’re completely different animals. I can understand if you compare abortion to euthanasia or slavery to universal franchise, but no way is abortion comparable to slavery.[/quote'] Look up 'predecent' in the field of jurisprudence.
Macj Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 If it is made illegal by the US Govt.' date=' then progressing backwards, not forwards.[/quote'] Not necessarily, the moment a foetus' heartbeat is detected (usually in the 3rd month), saving it isnt criminal. Conversely social behaviour is better controlled and pregnancy prevention is better than terminating a foetus this way.
graphic23 Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 Not necessarily, the moment a foetus' heartbeat is detected (usually in the 3rd month), saving it isnt criminal. Conversely social behaviour is better controlled and pregnancy prevention is better than terminating a foetus this way. Agreed. But with regards to banning abortion, my feeling has been that a woman is well within her rights to do what she wants before the child is born. The government has no business telling anyone what to do in this situation. My medical/biological knowledge is very limited so whatever I said here can be interpreted in different ways I guess.
Macj Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 You cannot compare abortion and slavery' date=' they’re completely different animals. I can understand if you compare abortion to euthanasia or slavery to universal franchise, but no way is abortion comparable to slavery.[/quote'] Comparing euthanasia to abortion in itself is incorrect. Euthanasia is usually administered with the consent of the party willing to be euthanised and usually due to a medical condition not because someone made a mistake one night(1). (1) There are exceptions to the rule of course.
kumble_rocks Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 The issue of abortion has been bastardized by neo-cons who bring jesus and bible into the equation . I can understand why someone can be against abortion because within 6 weeks , one can hear the heartbeat and the brain starts developing. But at the same time, I can also understand why some women want to abort their babies . But I am against repeated or late term abortion simply because in the case of the former , it can have adverse affect on the development of the baby during future pregnancy .Partial term abortion should not be encouraged unless until the mother's health is at risk . Having said that , I find it difficult to support the pregnancy of Sarah Palin. Here is a case where in, owing to religious reasons , she did not terminate her pregnancy knowing fully well that the child is a down syndrome baby.
Macj Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 The issue of abortion has been bastardized by neo-cons who bring jesus and bible into the equation . I can understand why someone can be against abortion because within 6 weeks ' date=' one can hear the heartbeat and the brain starts developing. But at the same time, I can also understand why some women want to abort their babies . But I am against repeated or late term abortion simply because in the case of the former , it can have adverse affect on the development of the baby during future pregnancy .Partial term abortion should not be encouraged unless until the mother's health is at risk . Having said that , I find it difficult to support the pregnancy of Sarah Palin. Here is a case where in, owing to religious reasons , she did not terminate her pregnancy knowing fully well that the child is a down syndrome baby.[/quote'] What Palin and her ilk peddle gives the broader cross section a bad name.
kumble_rocks Posted June 24, 2009 Posted June 24, 2009 or the junior senator from nevada... but bill'o s was a classic. when he was invited over to the colbert report, colbert jived that "there were no sex offenders at the table" (when in fact what bill had been accused of, and confessed to, was a sex related misdemeanor). furthermore, i can never look at a loofah the same way after the bill'o incident. or the the SC governor ... It got announced just now , that even he had an affair . http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_where SC Gov. Mark Sanford admits he's had an affair AP * South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admits affair Play Video Video:South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admits affair AP By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport, Associated Press Writer – 17 mins ago COLUMBIA, S.C. – Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday he's been having an affair with a woman he visited on a secret trip to Argentina and said he'll resign as head of the Republican Governors Association. Sanford, a rumored 2012 presidential candidate, refused to say whether he'll leave office. "I've let down a lot of people, that's the bottom line," Sanford said at a news conference. He said he's known the woman about eight years, but their relationship turned into something more a year ago while he was on an economic development trip to Argentina. Sanford, a 49-year-old father of four, choked up during remarks to reporters. He said his wife has known about the affair for the last five months. Sanford revealed Wednesday morning that he'd gone to Argentina for a seven-day trip. For two days after reporters starting asking questions, his office had said he had gone hiking on the Appalachian Trial. Meanwhile, first lady Jenny Sanford had told The Associated Press she did not know where her husband went for the Father's Day weekend. First elected governor in 2002, the former real estate developer has more than year remaining in his second term and is barred by state law from running again. A former three-term congressman, Sanford most recently snared headlines for his unsuccessful fight to turn aside federal stimulus cash for his state's schools. His vocal battle against the Obama administration — and libertarian, small-government leanings — won praise from conservative pundits. Ultimately, a state court order required him to take the money. Sanford's announcement came a day after another prominent Republican, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, apologized to his GOP Senate colleagues after revealing last week that he had an affair with a campaign staffer and was resigning from the GOP leadership. Sanford was born May 28, 1960, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the eldest of four siblings. He earned a bachelor's degree in business from Furman University in 1983 and a master's of business administration from the University of Virginia in 1988. After working for a couple of years in the financial world in New York, he returned to South Carolina and said he was shaped by his summers working on the family plantation. He served in the U.S. House for three terms before honoring a term limits pledge and leaving office in 2001. In 2002, he defeated incumbent Democrat Jim Hodges by 4 percentage points to become governor and won re-election in 2006, beating Democratic state Sen. Tommy Moore. As governor, Sanford has had seemingly endless run-ins with the GOP-dominated Legislature, once bringing pigs to the House chamber to protest pork barrel spending. He also put a "spending clock" outside his office to show how quickly a proposed budget would spend state money.
Brainfade Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 or the the SC governor ... It got announced just now , that even he had an affair . http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_where SC Gov. Mark Sanford admits he's had an affair AP * South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admits affair Play Video Video:South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admits affair AP By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport, Associated Press Writer – 17 mins ago COLUMBIA, S.C. – Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday he's been having an affair with a woman he visited on a secret trip to Argentina and said he'll resign as head of the Republican Governors Association. Sanford, a rumored 2012 presidential candidate, refused to say whether he'll leave office. "I've let down a lot of people, that's the bottom line," Sanford said at a news conference. He said he's known the woman about eight years, but their relationship turned into something more a year ago while he was on an economic development trip to Argentina. Sanford, a 49-year-old father of four, choked up during remarks to reporters. He said his wife has known about the affair for the last five months. Sanford revealed Wednesday morning that he'd gone to Argentina for a seven-day trip. For two days after reporters starting asking questions, his office had said he had gone hiking on the Appalachian Trial. Meanwhile, first lady Jenny Sanford had told The Associated Press she did not know where her husband went for the Father's Day weekend. First elected governor in 2002, the former real estate developer has more than year remaining in his second term and is barred by state law from running again. A former three-term congressman, Sanford most recently snared headlines for his unsuccessful fight to turn aside federal stimulus cash for his state's schools. His vocal battle against the Obama administration — and libertarian, small-government leanings — won praise from conservative pundits. Ultimately, a state court order required him to take the money. Sanford's announcement came a day after another prominent Republican, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, apologized to his GOP Senate colleagues after revealing last week that he had an affair with a campaign staffer and was resigning from the GOP leadership. Sanford was born May 28, 1960, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., the eldest of four siblings. He earned a bachelor's degree in business from Furman University in 1983 and a master's of business administration from the University of Virginia in 1988. After working for a couple of years in the financial world in New York, he returned to South Carolina and said he was shaped by his summers working on the family plantation. He served in the U.S. House for three terms before honoring a term limits pledge and leaving office in 2001. In 2002, he defeated incumbent Democrat Jim Hodges by 4 percentage points to become governor and won re-election in 2006, beating Democratic state Sen. Tommy Moore. As governor, Sanford has had seemingly endless run-ins with the GOP-dominated Legislature, once bringing pigs to the House chamber to protest pork barrel spending. He also put a "spending clock" outside his office to show how quickly a proposed budget would spend state money. What a tool. If this is what the Repub party has to offer, they can write themselves off for a long time. This guy's actions are almost as bad as John Edwards cheating on his cancer-stricken wife.
Ram Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 State after state, governor after governor, presidential candidate after presidential candidate and even presidents sometimes, the U.S has become notorious for producing some of the most notorious political leaders. If these are the people aspiring to lead the world's most powerful nation, then its scary to think how their incredibly out of balance moral compass is possibly going to drive them towards doing good for the world.
suraj Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 so O'Reilly attacks Jeremy Glick, son of a 9/11 victim. He's one conservative douchebag, putting his own spin on the answers and never lets anyone finish or counter a point 2IwIRNM5noY&feature=channel_page O'Reilly vs Joan Walsh http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906120035 Bill'O' Reilly the jerk who should never ever be seen on TV
THX_1138 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Slavery was protected by Law and legal too' date=' didnt make it right.[/quote'] no it was not. never was slavery protected by law, it was just not illegal. it was made illegal by the 13th, 14th and to some extent the 15th amendment to the constitution following the civil war. however, jim crow laws, the 'equal but separate' provisions were protected by state constitutions in the south. so you are partly correct.
THX_1138 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 Branching off from that post on Dr.Tiller, I'd like to open a debate on what people perceive to be the rights of late-term fetuses. Now, I don’t know enough to even define what a late term fetus is. Is it 6+ months or 7+ months? Be that as it may, do any of you here think a 7 month old fetus enjoys the same sort of rights (to life) as say a new-born baby? If yes, why? If no, why? here is how i see it: if you were born without a uterus, then you really cannot stake a claim to determining what a woman may do to her body. on the other hand, if you must insist upon having an opinion on abortion, especially one inspired by the argument that all life is sacred, then go the whole nine yards: become vegan or at least a vegetarian, oppose death penalty, insist upon only open farm cattle (harvested for the diary products), provide medical assistance to all pregnant mothers, and sign up to be a surrogate mother for the fetus growing in a 14 year old girl after her father raped her after consuming a few too many buds while mourning a dodger's loss.
Macj Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 no it was not. never was slavery protected by law, it was just not illegal. it was made illegal by the 13th, 14th and to some extent the 15th amendment to the constitution following the civil war. however, jim crow laws, the 'equal but separate' provisions were protected by state constitutions in the south. so you are partly correct. There were laws protecting slaveowners searching for runaway slaves who were swiftly returned to them as a property still owned by them. Freemen of colour could still return to slavery if they were in a slave state without valid documents proving their free status. Yes the emancipation proclamation ended slavery but here was a classic sentiment of morality vs property rights. As a right of property the slaveowners were right by the law in their time and in fact received compensation after abolition but morally they were wrong. Proving that morality is subjective and the yardstick moves over time.
THX_1138 Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 In an interview with Rosie O'Donnell he was supportive of gay adoption if no one else was willing to adopt. exactly what does that mean? adoption by gay parents is the last on the hierarchy? at par with group homes and assisted living? some of the gay parents who desire to adopt children are often economically quite stable, incredibly mature and super successful. why they ought to not be at par with any other applicant for adoption is something that escapes me! I believe he was quite instrumental in getting Cardinal Law removed, though to what extent is questionable. not sure what is, do ellaborate! As far as I know American Idol doesnt stand for any issue nor does it make bombastic statements as a platform of the broadcast. O'Reilly makes statements and maintains positions on various issues, and since he has 2.5million viewers watching him he tends to believe they agree with him. not sure if that judgment is correct. i used to watch his show some time back out of sheer morbid curiosity. the hate speech he spewed, which was particularly vile between 2006 and 2008 was easy to hate. in fact, reciprocating his vehemence was probably cathartic in some measure... now that we have a brotha in the house, bill'o seems quite irrelevant. he might have 2.5 million viewers, but i am sure a good number disagree with him. though nonetheless, i cannot deny that he has quite a following. but 2.5 million out of 300 million is still not a particularly large number.
Guest Gunner Posted June 25, 2009 Posted June 25, 2009 There were laws protecting slaveowners searching for runaway slaves who were swiftly returned to them as a property still owned by them. Freemen of colour could still return to slavery if they were in a slave state without valid documents proving their free status. Yes the emancipation proclamation ended slavery but here was a classic sentiment of morality vs property rights. As a right of property the slaveowners were right by the law in their time and in fact received compensation after abolition but morally they were wrong. Proving that morality is subjective and the yardstick moves over time. If that be the case it is more likely than not that abortion will be seen as a moral right of the woman.
Recommended Posts