jmog;1087131 wrote:You are 100% incorrect, Gore did NOT win the general election.

You failed government class in HS if you equate having more total votes across the whole nation with winning the general election. You win states and accumulate Electoral College votes, you don't win by winning the total popular vote.

There will be hell raised in the streets if the Republican candidate wins the popular vote but BHO still gets sworn in.

His wording was incorrect, but the sentiment was probably correct in that we will be hearing bloody murder cried about the system if BHO hangs onto the presidency despite losing the popular vote. In fact, I would go so far as to say it will make the Liberal reaction to Gore's lose in 2000 under those circumstances look like a walk in the park were it to happen to a Republican candidate.

Footwedge;1087127 wrote:Not even close.

What time period was better overall then?

jmog;1087131 wrote:You are 100% incorrect, Gore did NOT win the general election.

You failed government class in HS if you equate having more total votes across the whole nation with winning the general election. You win states and accumulate Electoral College votes, you don't win by winning the total popular vote.

When did I suggest that? But don't tell me that the few times that happens (has it happened other than 2000?) doesn't make it absurdly controversial. You're kidding yourself if you think Republicans wouldn't have shit their pants for years and years had Obama won in that manner.

Skyhook79;1085775 wrote:So you agree Abortion is wrong and should not be legal?

I don't agree that life starts at conception so not necessarily.

After a certain point I am not okay with abortion. But a zygote is not a person IMO.

Footwedge;1087244 wrote:Yes, I am a Pat Buchanan follower. My only problem with Pat is that I think he is an anti Semite.

As for legislating morality....no...I never said that. Look through all of my recent posts on the issue. My argument doesn't include that.

But the cultural changes that have transpired over the past 30 years or so has definitely contributed to our societal downfall.

And I'm hardly in the minority regarding the issue.

For example...as recently as last year, a full 67% agree that single parents have a deleterious effect on society. The numbers don't lie.

You know it's kind of ironic....but one of my favorite talk show hosts is none other than Walter Williams...a guy who used to fill in for the fatman.

Williams agenda was social conservatism....and he had all the numbers backing up what he claimed.

People get all wrapped up with gay people, gay marriage...and what not. What gays do affects nobody in the big picture. But the single moms (25%) effects every single taxpayer out there.

I agree with you, I was just pointing out to those who like Santorum and think we should elect him to police our thoughts and personal behavior that the government can not solve that problem, it in fact does many things to make the problem worse.

IggyPride00;1087252 wrote:There will be hell raised in the streets if the Republican candidate wins the popular vote but BHO still gets sworn in.

A lot harder now that California and several other states passed legislation requiring their states electors to cast their vote for the winner of the popular vote. Imagine the hell to be raised in the streets if the republican candidate were to narrowly win the popular vote, yet loose in one or two of these states, and their decisions taking an electoral victory from BHO.

Edit: I checked to find all the other states that voted for this type of legislation and found the California law would only go into effect if enough states that would hold a majority of the electoral vote pass similar legislation. Political move that will never happen.

IggyPride00;1087252 wrote:His wording was incorrect, but the sentiment was probably correct in that we will be hearing bloody murder cried about the system if BHO hangs onto the presidency despite losing the popular vote. In fact, I would go so far as to say it will make the Liberal reaction to Gore's lose in 2000 under those circumstances look like a walk in the park were it to happen to a Republican candidate.

I agree that it would cause an uproar. But most of the cries to reform the system would come from your big government establishment type republicans. There is still a strong core of "conservative" or "constitutional" minded limited government types that believe in the framers vision and balance of power reguarding the electoral college. Though dissapointed with the outcome most of them would acknowledge the system worked as designed.

I think you overestimate the amount of people who are able to think rationally when they/their horse/candidate loses. Either side would shit bricks so my point was just that using it as an example to deride Democrats with isn't really effective.

Cleveland Buck;1087296 wrote:I agree with you, I was just pointing out to those who like Santorum and think we should elect him to police our thoughts and personal behavior that the government can not solve that problem, it in fact does many things to make the problem worse.

I think you and many others are falling into this trap that Santorum wants to police our thoughts and personal behavior. Its not going to happen nor is he proposing any such sweeping federal legislation. If you want to get conservatives to think twice look at his federal voting record while in the Senate. All the things conservatives railed on Bush. No child left behind, Medicare part D, etc.. And much more. The media and the left are beating the "social" drum. Its not going to win over confused conservatives. If anything it is driving them to him because they see the left wing attack machine gearing up to smear him on this.

How is repeating the crazy shit that comes out of his mouth "smearing" him?

I Wear Pants;1087254 wrote:I don't agree that life starts at conception so not necessarily.

After a certain point I am not okay with abortion. But a zygote is not a person IMO.

I love it when liberals use euphemisms to justify abortion. When a human sperm cell unites with a human egg cell it doesn't become less human simply because it hasn't slipped out of the birth canal.

I Wear Pants;1087254 wrote:I don't agree that life starts at conception so not necessarily.

After a certain point I am not okay with abortion. But a zygote is not a person IMO.

So tell me then, in your opinion, when does life begin?

When the baby has brain waves? When the baby has a heart beat? When, you pick the time for sake of argument.

I Wear Pants;1087254 wrote:I don't agree that life starts at conception so not necessarily.

After a certain point I am not okay with abortion. But a zygote is not a person IMO.

A whole lot of people agree with you that life doesn't begin at conception. My take on it is simply this. People can argue and debate when a human becomes an "official" human, but nobody can argue that a 5 year old zygote is now a preschool attending, 4 year old child.

You die when your brain ceases to function, therefore you are alive when your brain starts to function. Thats my take on it.

As for Santorum. He is a clone of Bush jr. No way in hell can we go back to that.

Paul is doing better than people think. He is doing well with actual delegates in the caucus states. The odd thing is the only msm outlet really reporting this is Rachel Maddow. She had a good segment last week with Doug Wead of the Paul campaign that explained pauls strategy.

Footwedge;1087727 wrote:A whole lot of people agree with you that life doesn't begin at conception. My take on it is simply this. People can argue and debate when a human becomes an "official" human, but nobody can argue that a 5 year old zygote is now a preschool attending, 4 year old child.

I think my definition might be when it can survive outside the womb (which is getting "earlier" every year with advances in technology). At that point, arguably no less "human" than anyone with a disease or accident victim that need extraordinary intervention to save their life.

Another argument could be REM sleep, which fetuses have shown as early as 23 weeks. Of course, I suppose dogs can dream, too.

Now, most miscarriages occur within the first 13 weeks, but the body rejecting the fetus is defined as a miscarriage up to 20 weeks. So if your body can naturally abort a pregnancy then perhaps life doesn't truly begin until some time after that.

gut;1087815 wrote:I think my definition might be when it can survive outside the womb (which is getting "earlier" every year with advances in technology). At that point, arguably no less "human" than anyone with a disease or accident victim that need extraordinary intervention to save their life.

Another argument could be REM sleep, which fetuses have shown as early as 23 weeks. Of course, I suppose dogs can dream, too.

Now, most miscarriages occur within the first 13 weeks, but the body rejecting the fetus is defined as a miscarriage up to 20 weeks. So if your body can naturally abort a pregnancy then perhaps life doesn't truly begin until some time after that.

1. Your first point, as you said as technology advances how early a premature baby can be born and survive gets earlier and earlier. How in the world could someone say logically that the time it is a human and not a fetus is based on how good our current technology is? It has to be defined at some point in the fetus's development.

2. Some have stated brain activity. A fetuses brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks. The heart starts beating at 3 weeks. Average week in pregnancy that a woman finds out she is pregnant? 6-8 weeks.

3. Your final statement about body rejecting again is not a logical answer. Most of the time if a woman's body goes through a miscarraige it is either because of trauma to the woman (stress, physical trauma, etc) or there is something wrong with that particular fetus/baby. That should not decide unilaterally for all fetuses when it becomes a human.

jmog;1087848 wrote:1. Your first point, as you said as technology advances how early a premature baby can be born and survive gets earlier and earlier. How in the world could someone say logically that the time it is a human and not a fetus is based on how good our current technology is? It has to be defined at some point in the fetus's development.

2. Some have stated brain activity. A fetuses brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks. The heart starts beating at 3 weeks. Average week in pregnancy that a woman finds out she is pregnant? 6-8 weeks.

3. Your final statement about body rejecting again is not a logical answer. Most of the time if a woman's body goes through a miscarraige it is either because of trauma to the woman (stress, physical trauma, etc) or there is something wrong with that particular fetus/baby. That should not decide unilaterally for all fetuses when it becomes a human.

1. A person is not "dead" when they are unable to survive without technology. Someone on life support, even brain dead, still has rights as a human being. It's a logical corollary based on an objective criteria. Why would that fetus, capable of surviving with extraordinary intervention, be denied that right simply because it has yet to take a breath outside the womb? Strikes me as a bit of a double-standard.

2. I could buy into brain waves, but animals have brain waves, too. Doesn't make them human. It's cognitive thought/self-awareness that partially defines being a human, and I don't know that we'll ever be able to say definitively when that foundation is there. It may not even be until after birth, so problematic.

3. I'm basing it on nature. For whatever reason a women's body rejects a fetus, if it really doesn't happen after 13 or 20 weeks I think that says something. In other words, nature is indicating defining life as beginning outside the womb is perhaps an arbitrary distinction. And clearly if premature babies can survive with limited intervention, then life certainly begins at some point inside the womb.

As the law stands today, if a pregnant woman on her way to an abortion clinic (where her child will be legally killed), is assaulted in the street, causing the death of her unborn child, those who assaulted her would be guilty of manslaughter.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/fetal_homicide_laws/

Skyhook79;1088721 wrote:As the law stands today, if a pregnant woman on her way to an abortion clinic (where her child will be legally killed), is assaulted in the street, causing the death of her unborn child, those who assaulted her would be guilty of manslaughter.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/fetal_homicide_laws/

The Murderer of the pregnant woman has taken the "choice" from the woman.

As far as the choice of the women goes, she could consider her pregnancy a baby, or a paresetic invasion.

The murderer of the woman would have no way to know which way she felt about it.

Skyhook79;1088721 wrote:As the law stands today, if a pregnant woman on her way to an abortion clinic (where her child will be legally killed), is assaulted in the street, causing the death of her unborn child, those who assaulted her would be guilty of manslaughter.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/fetal_homicide_laws/

That's my biggest problem with the abortion laws.

Our laws don't reflect whether or not the fetus is human, it is basically decided by the mother whether or not the fetus is human.

If the mother wants the baby and loses it due to an assault, the perp is charged with manslaughter, possibly murder. If the same mother decides the fetus is not human she can legally have it killed.

There should be a medical reason when the fetus is a baby, not a personal choice.

Devils Advocate;1088743 wrote:The Murderer of the pregnant woman has taken the "choice" from the woman.

As far as the choice of the women goes, she could consider her pregnancy a baby, or a paresetic invasion.

The murderer of the woman would have no way to know which way she felt about it.

It doesn't say anything about him killing the Mother.

Skyhook79;1088749 wrote:It doesn't say anything about him killing the Mother.

Nope, but the point as it relates to the mother stands.

jmog;1087848 wrote:
2. Some have stated brain activity. A fetuses brain waves can be detected as early as 6 weeks. The heart starts beating at 3 weeks. Average week in pregnancy that a woman finds out she is pregnant? 6-8 weeks.

This demands a reply because it is utter nonsense and it is a claim that hardcore christians repeat like zombies. This largely comes from from an article called "Fetal Brain Development" in the New England Journal of medicine in 1982 because the author said that an EEG could detect "brain function". This is not what the author meant. He simply dropped the scientific exactitude of "electrical brain activity" concurrent with the onset of neurogenesis and the more layman "brain function." Functionally and completely brain-dead humans still emit Flat EEGs.

It is functionally and biologically impossible for a fetus to have anything close to the type of "brain activity" people mean when they talk about "brainwaves" until 23 weeks when the neurocortical connections first begin to form. Until then, a fetus' neural electrical activity is not even the kind of coherent brain activity seen in shrimp or brain dead adult humans with beating hearts.

Ask yourself this, if you were to say that a fetus is a person and has brain activity that deserves consideration; if that's true and its growing inside a woman against her will, then it would be committing a battery against the woman. But of course, it can't form the requisite criminal intent to commit a battery against the woman because it doesn't have any more sentience than a skin cell.


But either way, even if a fetus is a human being and deserves rights, they cannot infringe upon the fundamental liberty of a free woman and live inside her body against her will. It is involuntary servitude of the most egregious and atrocious kind. Conservatives are concerned about their liberties when they are asked not to free load and insure their own health but they have no qualms about being forced to have another human grow inside of you against your will.

No lower federal court has accepted that argument yet because it has never been established that a fetus is a person. If any of these personhood bills become law you can bet your ass that pro-lifers won't know what him them when courts start knocking down these laws and make it illegal for states to outlaw abortion even after viability.

jmog;1087848 wrote:
3. Your final statement about body rejecting again is not a logical answer. Most of the time if a woman's body goes through a miscarraige it is either because of trauma to the woman (stress, physical trauma, etc) or there is something wrong with that particular fetus/baby. That should not decide unilaterally for all fetuses when it becomes a human.

Yeah but if we're serious about the fetus being a person like all other human persons, then a woman who drinks caffeine during pregnancy, knowingly and willfully gets pregnant with a uterine malformation or high blood pressure...well they're consciously disregarding what might be considered a substantial and unjustifiably high risk to human life given their odds of having a miscarriage...a sufficient mental state to be charged with murder if a miscarriage results.

That Georgia House member Bobby Franklin got a lot of criticism for his introduction of the "prenatal murder" bill that would require the investigation of miscarriages but he's being consistent if you ask me...if you're "pro-life" and consider fetus' morally equivalent to the average walking, talking American, then fetal destruction of all types should require a police investigation just like the death of a walking, talking post-fetal human.

Women who have difficulty getting pregnant and have multiple miscarriages and willingly try to get pregnant, knowing there's a high probability that fetal homicide could result are as morally repugnant as serial murderers.

Of course this sounds ridiculous to the average joe but this is the type of thinking that consistency requires on this issue if we're going to say that a fetus is a human like the average walking, talking citizen.


And the bottom line is, the best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country would be a stronger, and better safety net. Women who get pregnant and have abortions know that the surest way to a life time of lower economic opportunity if not poverty is to have an unplanned pregnancy. If society did more to make that not the case and a woman who got unexpectedly pregnant could know that, even with that unexpected pregnancy, she could have strong hope for a bright future for that child, and she could raise it and not have to give it to total strangers if she wants it to have a bright future only to have him/her hunt her down later on, etc; there would be fewer abortions.

Skyhook79;1088721 wrote:As the law stands today, if a pregnant woman on her way to an abortion clinic (where her child will be legally killed), is assaulted in the street, causing the death of her unborn child, those who assaulted her would be guilty of manslaughter.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/fetal_homicide_laws/

Yeah well this did not used to be the case. Prior to the Unborn Victims of Violence act there were numerous cases involving "fetal death" that could not be prosecuted. It was legislatures that have introduced the inconsistencies. Not the courts.

BoatShoes;1089299 wrote:Ask yourself this, if you were to say that a fetus is a person and has brain activity that deserves consideration; if that's true and its growing inside a woman against her will, then it would be committing a battery against the woman. But of course, it can't form the requisite criminal intent to commit a battery against the woman because it doesn't have any more sentience than a skin cell.

This makes no logical sense. The existence of the cognative ability to discern "right" from "wrong" has never been a measure in determining personhood. A baby taking its first breath has no greater ability to form the requisite criminal intent to commit battery against the women than it did while in the womb.

BoatShoes;1089299 wrote:But either way, even if a fetus is a human being and deserves rights, they cannot infringe upon the fundamental liberty of a free woman and live inside her body against her will. It is involuntary servitude of the most egregious and atrocious kind. Conservatives are concerned about their liberties when they are asked not to free load and insure their own health but they have no qualms about being forced to have another human grow inside of you against your will.

When two individuals choose to voluntarily engage in sexual activity and the result is the growth of another human being, it is hardly against the will of those participating in the sexual act. They had the liberty to do a lot of things to prevent pregnancy. I will add this. Is it involuntary servitude for the courts to require a male who just wanted to bang, be forced to provide financial support to a women who "chose" to let one of these fetuses grow inside them?

jmog;1088744 wrote: If the mother wants the baby and loses it due to an assault, the perp is charged with manslaughter, possibly murder. If the same mother decides the fetus is not human she can legally have it killed.

There should be a medical reason when the fetus is a baby, not a personal choice.

Spot-on. I also have a minor quibble with the man being held accountable for financial support (even if she "stole" your semen out of a condom) but having no say in the decision of whether or not to keep the baby. Essentially the law is saying the man is accountable for his actions (again, even if he has been victimized by "theft") but the woman is not. What might make more sense is if a man is willing to renounce any and all visitation/custody rights, then he should pay less child support, so pregnancy isn't a meal ticket or means of entrapment.