Hillary: Kill the brown babies or you get no aid

[fossten]

Link

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe. The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements? …

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs. But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus. Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” …

When top U.S. officials change the subject away from important global policy and development work to push for favored hot-button political issues, it gives the appearance of using American taxpayer funding to promote social engineering, bypassing public debate about the best way to achieve development worldwide and address the very real unmet needs of the developing world. Does Hillary Clinton think it is more important to promote liberal Western ideologies than to address the critical needs of the women and children of Africa and Asia? Does she prefer to promote the tired, old eugenic orthodoxies of the largely discredited population-control movement? Is Hillary Clinton — and the Obama administration — willing to hold up funding for maternal and infant health because of a dogmatic commitment to a universal right to abortion on demand? What about the rights of countless women all over the world who want to bring children into the world safely, without risking their lives and the lives of their children?

And really, what does abortion have to do with maternal health? Seems abortion would have the opposite effect of 'health' on a baby. Ah, the irrational left. Gotta protect their holy grail of abortion at all costs, even if it means starving some African babies.

It takes a village idiot.

 

[FIND]

I take it you are pro-life....

Can I ask you something? Should government be able to tell you what to do?

 

[fossten]

I take it you are pro-life....

Can I ask you something? Should government be able to tell you what to do?

No loaded, overly broad, obviously open ended questions please. If you have a point to make, make it. Don't set traps. And don't try to make me believe that is a serious question, because if it is, then you're a moron.

 

[shagdrum]

I take it you are pro-life....

Can I ask you something? Should government be able to tell you what to do?

I can get to that later, but I am about to rush out the door.

However, here is another question; is respect for a Right to Life (as in Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness) a necessity in your view for a civil society?

Also, personally (not politically) are you "pro-choice" or "pro-life"? If you personally had to make the choice of weather or not to abort, which would you go with?

 

[aztecknight]

I'm pro-life. I believe in personal responsibility. When we make a choice to have sex, we know that there is always a chance a life will be created, for this reason I also believe in sex education, but that's a whole other topic.

I also understand that there are cases where consent was never an option, but I believe that there are other options to abortion. Having said that, I do understand that as a man, my view is limited.

When it comes to pro-choice/pro-life argument, I have a hard time telling others what to do. I don't believe government should be involved in this decision in any way. No support and no laws against.

I basically see this as an argument of what is our greatest right. Is it life or is it freedom. I believe it to be freedom. Give me liberty or give me death.

 

[Calabrio]

Life or freedom?
I think you've framed this wrong.
There's a second life involved competing against the wishes or convenience of another person, the mother.

It's not merely a body issue.
If you want to get tattoos, body implants, or a sex change, then it's your body, your right. Technically, if the proponents of "get your hands off my body" were consistent, they'd also say an individual should have the right to sell their body organs too... but I digress.

If there's another life involved, you don't necessarily have the "right" to terminate it out of convenience. And if you think that such a decision is justifiable, it needs to be explained and rationalized.

I think it's a weighty moral issue and not one that can be dismissed with a "more freedom" justification, because it's an example of competing interest, competing rights.

 

[shagdrum]

When given a conflict between social values like "life" and "choice" most any rational thinking person would choose 'life'. It is to abstract yourself from reality to choose the opposite. All the choice in the world; all the freedom in the world is meaningless without life.

Also, the Constitution already prioritizes Rights; LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The most important of those is Life; and for the reason I just spelled out above.

This is why the pro-choice crowd focuses their efforts in this debate on delegitimizing the notion that a fetus is actually "life" while in the womb. If they can do that, then they have an argument. If they can't do that, they have no argument.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

When someone states their age, they say I am such and such.
I was born on a certain day of the month, in any given year.
They don't say I am 51 and nine months.
That being said, life as we know it, and celebrate it, begins at birth.
Some say it begins at conception.
If that were the case, we would celebrate conception, not birth.
When you are born, you enter this earth, and when you die, you leave it.
So until we start celebrating the day of conception, I will stick with life begins at the point of birth.
So what is that thing crawling around in the womb?
I think it could best be described as a "developing" life form that is in the stages of becomming human life.
Many state it is life in the womb.
Not very many, unless late term, could live outside the womb.
Life is living, and breathing, and until such time as a fetus can live outside the womb, I don't feel it can be considered a life.
Should it be protected?
Perhaps so, but not by any government intervention.

Bob.

 

[shagdrum]

That being said, life as we know it, and celebrate it, begins at birth.
Some say it begins at conception.
If that were the case, we would celebrate conception, not birth.

One-sided anecdotal evidence doesn't prove that life does or does not begin at conception.

You could also point out that people don't talk about the "fetus" growing in the womb, but about the baby. You don't 'hear the heartbeat of the fetus" or "feel the fetus kick". Kids don't talk about a "fetus growing in Mommy's belly that will be my brother or sister', they talk about their "brother or sister growing in mommy's belly".

If anecdotal evidence is the standard of judgment, then the truth is inconclusive at best.

 

[fossten]

When someone states their age, they say I am such and such.
I was born on a certain day of the month, in any given year.
They don't say I am 51 and nine months.
That being said, life as we know it, and celebrate it, begins at birth.
Some say it begins at conception.
If that were the case, we would celebrate conception, not birth.
When you are born, you enter this earth, and when you die, you leave it.
So until we start celebrating the day of conception, I will stick with life begins at the point of birth.
So what is that thing crawling around in the womb?
I think it could best be described as a "developing" life form that is in the stages of becomming human life.
Many state it is life in the womb.
Not very many, unless late term, could live outside the womb.
Life is living, and breathing, and until such time as a fetus can live outside the womb, I don't feel it can be considered a life.
Should it be protected?
Perhaps so, but not by any government intervention.

Bob.

Using 'feelings' and verbal customs to define life and determine whether or not to legalize a very controversial procedure is rash and thoughtless.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founder of NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, was personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. He had a change of heart and rejected abortion on scientific grounds, admitting that life begins at conception.

"There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists from the very onset of pregnancy."

From the very moment of conception, the fetus contains all the genetic information that baby will have for the remainder of his or her lifetime. Any embryology book in any medical school will confirm that this human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete, and growing.

The new developing baby has the same 46 human chromosomes he or she will have until death. In fact, the baby has separate and unique chromosomal structures from his/her mother, which destroys the 'part of a woman's body' argument.

This baby has the same rights to life that other individuals enjoy. Even if somebody has doubts, there are enough reasonable biological facts to give an unborn baby the benefit of the doubt. If you're not sure somebody's alive or dead, you don't bury them, right?

 

[aztecknight]

Life or freedom?
I think you've framed this wrong.
There's a second life involved competing against the wishes or convenience of another person, the mother.

It's not merely a body issue.
If you want to get tattoos, body implants, or a sex change, then it's your body, your right. Technically, if the proponents of "get your hands off my body" were consistent, they'd also say an individual should have the right to sell their body organs too... but I digress.

If there's another life involved, you don't necessarily have the "right" to terminate it out of convenience. And if you think that such a decision is justifiable, it needs to be explained and rationalized.

I think it's a weighty moral issue and not one that can be dismissed with a "more freedom" justification, because it's an example of competing interest, competing rights.

Well I happen to disagree, it is a matter of freedom vs. life. I think you've simplified my argument too much by framing it as a "my body" issue.

At what point does the second life involved stop competing against the wishes or convenience of another person, in this case the parents? When does the government stop protecting the competing interests/rights of the child? Do parents have a right to raise a child as they wish? Can the government dictate how we raise our children under the guise of protecting the child's rights and interests? This isn't just about termination, it goes beyond that.

I do agree with you though, this is a weighty moral issue, one that is between the individual, those who hold an interest, and God (or any other guiding principles). No place for government in this group.

 

[fossten]

Well I happen to disagree, it is a matter of freedom vs. life. I think you've simplified my argument too much by framing it as a "my body" issue.

At what point does the second life involved stop competing against the wishes or convenience of another person, in this case the parents? When does the government stop protecting the competing interests/rights of the child? Do parents have a right to raise a child as they wish? Can the government dictate how we raise our children under the guise of protecting the child's rights and interests? This isn't just about termination, it goes beyond that.

I do agree with you though, this is a weighty moral issue, one that is between the individual, those who hold an interest, and God (or any other guiding principles). No place for government in this group.

Wow. You're actually arguing that the parent has the right to kill a life out of convenience.

The abortion issue can be reduced to a very simple concept - is the child a human life. If so, then it's murder to kill the child. If not, then it is not illegal to kill the child. The SCOTUS, five unelected, non-medical lawyers in robes, decided that it is not a human life, and presto! 50 million killed babies later, we're still arguing this.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao think we're a bunch of murderers.

 

[shagdrum]

The parameters of this type of debate need to be established first. Certain questions need to be explored to do that.

Is respect for life a necessity for a civilized society?

Are there any values that generally override a respect for life? If so, what are they and why? If not, what are the exceptions to that and is this issue one of them (if it is, then why?)?

Then you get to the questions about what is and is not the government's role here and how that role. Another important issue is how that role should be defined and decided; by whom, specifically.

 

[shagdrum]

This isn't just about termination, it goes beyond that.

Actually, this is about termination. Those other issues are separate and distinct. There may be some implications for those issues from this issue, but those implications are secondary.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Now, I am really going to throw a monkey wrench into the arguement.
I and many, many others are of the belief that the unborn does not have human life until the soul enters the body at birth.
Without the soul, there is no life.
What is in the womb is simply matter until it is born.
If the soul does not enter the body, the matter is what is known as "stillborn".
This theory applies to all life, be it chicken, cow, or human.
Throughout our lives, from day one, the soul is the guiding force for our lives.
Without it we cease to exist.
Just as at birth, the baby now lives because the soul has entered that body, and when death comes, that is the soul leaving the body.
Careing what happens to an unborn piece of matter in the womb is rediclous.
In the womb it is "live" matter, and nothing else, even though it possesses human genetic factors
In the womb it has no soul, it has no function other than to be nurthured by the host parent until such time as the soul enteres the body , and birth happens.
You can argue these fact till the cows come home.
Realist will want proof that this is the way it is, and common sense dictates this is devine intervention at it's finest hour.
Many discount the possibility that a soul even exist.
If you have studied this subject as long as I have, you would not have any doubts as to it's existance, and the powerful control it has in our lives.
"Soul" has nothing too do with religion although many seem to link it with religion, and that is wrong.
Many unanswered questions in our lives are answered for those who have belief of the soul's existance.
Until one studies, and grasp the enormity of the soul's existance, the answers are left unvillafied.
So, when life begins, it is not up for grabs as to what is there in the womb.
It is not a life, but rtather, matter that will one day be a human being if the soul desires it to be.
This may be way out on a limb for some of you to understand, but an abortion is nothing more than ridding the body of an unwanted piece of matter, much like when one has a bowel movement, and should not have any more importance to it than that.
The soul is the force thatcomences and controls life, and without it, there is no life.
In my studies on the subject, it is said that the soul enteres the body minutes before birth, and that decision is made by the soul.
If it declines, the body will be stillborn.
I could start an entirely new thread on this subject, but it must not stray into the realm of religion, for religion has absolutely nothing too do with the existance of the soul.
Bob.

 

[fossten]

Bob, you're spouting a lot of nonsense.

If you're not going to respond to others who have responded to you, don't expect to get the same respect.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bob, you're spouting a lot of nonsense.

If you're not going to respond to others who have responded to you, don't expect to get the same respect.

I wouldn't expect anything different from you.
I guess your point is the only one that matters.
Boy you really need to open your mind and see that there are other points to consider.
To you it may be nonsense, but for those who care to examin it further, it holds a tremendous amount of standing and possibility.
For those like you who don't understand the theory, it would be just about impossible to put forth any thing that you could find plausable because you have such a closed mind.
Bob.

 

[mark0101]

The new developing baby has the same 46 human chromosomes he or she will have until death. In fact, the baby has separate and unique chromosomal structures from his/her mother, which destroys the 'part of a woman's body' argument.

A Chimera is medical term for a person that has two different sets of DNA. Meaning different tissues from the same body may have different (DNA) genetic information. Even though it doesn't have the same genetic information, it is still a part of that person. As the baby is part of the woman body.

 

[PetesSweets86]

abortions are awsome!!!

 

[PetesSweets86]

and mores

 

[fossten]

A Chimera is medical term for a person that has two different sets of DNA. Meaning different tissues from the same body may have different (DNA) genetic information. Even though it doesn't have the same genetic information, it is still a part of that person. As the baby is part of the woman body.

Oh really? So if a woman has a baby boy inside her, she's part female and male at the same time? So you're arguing that approximately 50% of mothers are hermaphrodites for approx. 9 months? :bowrofl:

A chimera is supposed to be a rare occurrence in humans and refers to offspring, not to mother/child relationships. You're using a completely unrelated example to 'prove' your point. So you're saying that 100% of women who are pregnant are chimeras? Nonsense - bad analogy.

You're just swallowing the same stuff that Planned Parenthood - which reaps over $100 million in revenue every year due to abortions - preaches inside its walls. You're simply wrong - and medical evidence proves it. There have been instances where the mother's body has tried to reject the baby inside her.

Maybe if you'd spend more time teaching personal responsibility instead of arguing for abortion on demand as a convenient (albeit painful and traumatic and dangerous) form of birth control, this wouldn't be as big an issue. Anyway, you're off topic as we're discussing Hillary holding the food hostage in exchange for more abortions in African countries. Did you have a comment on that?

I wouldn't expect anything different from you.
I guess your point is the only one that matters.
Boy you really need to open your mind and see that there are other points to consider.
To you it may be nonsense, but for those who care to examin it further, it holds a tremendous amount of standing and possibility.
For those like you who don't understand the theory, it would be just about impossible to put forth any thing that you could find plausable because you have such a closed mind.
Bob.

Bob, you're using a lot of rhetoric about the soul without so much as a shred of evidence, no source, no cite, just your say so. I too have studied for years about the soul and what I've learned directly contradicts your entire statement. Why should I believe anything you're saying?

 

[fossten]

Hey Pete,

You think it's funny - here are some pics you might really get off on.

Fun, huh?

Want to keep going?

 

[IntoxicatedPuma]

i don't think its my right to tell others how to live their life, but I think it's very irresponsible to have an abortion unless your life is threatened. I think most americans view sex anymore as just a physical activity, and don't want to accept the consequences of STD's or pregnancy. I can understand abortions in the case of rape or if the mothers life is at risk, but if abortions are legal simply because the mother doesn't want the child, then the father should be allowed to have an abortion performed as well. I'm sure women's rights people would flip out if something like that was allowed.

 

[foxpaws]

IntoxicatedPuma - I think if one of the polling groups actually took a 'true' poll regarding this subject - rather than push polls, and included the question - Do you think the government has the right to tell all women they can't have an abortion during the first trimester - most would come up with an answer similar to yours - "i don't think its my right to tell others how to live their life".

I personally don't believe in abortion, but I also believe that is a personal choice, up until the end of the first trimester, or if the mother's life is at risk (physically, not mentally). I am with foss as far as teaching personal responsibility, plus I believe we need to give pregnant women viable, and real alternatives, acknowledging that adoption may not always be a 'real' choice, and create and put into place good programs that will allow mother and child to thrive in society. I believe that we need to value the child and mother as much after the birth, as we do before the birth. That if you are gong to politicize this issue, you need to politicize the reality of single, often young, unwed mothers that will need help medically and financially, as well as help with education and life skills after the birth.

And, to get around the whole 'when does life begin' as far as the constitution - it will need an amendment - because, as of now, your rights, life, liberty and the pursuit, all begin at birth, you must be 'born' to be afforded those rights. I doubt if the founding fathers would have afforded rights to a zygote. In fact, abortion was allowed during the time of the founding fathers, without penalty, and without government interference. They understood the 'facts of life' and they believed that your rights started at 'birth' and not at 'conception'. Now, we have changed the constitution in the past with amendments, and we certainly could in the future. But, the fact that the equal rights amendment didn't get approved sort of bodes ill for a 'life' amendment.

 

[mark0101]

Oh really? So if a woman has a baby boy inside her, she's part female and male at the same time? So you're arguing that approximately 50% of mothers are hermaphrodites for approx. 9 months?

You stated that just because the baby has a "unique chromosomal structure", it can't be "part of the women's body". While there is evidence to support otherwise. Just because it has its own "unique chromosomal structure" doesn't mean it's not part of his/her body.

A chimera is supposed to be a rare occurrence in humans and refers to offspring, not to mother/child relationships. You're using a completely unrelated example to 'prove' your point. So you're saying that 100% of women who are pregnant are chimeras? Nonsense - bad analogy.

Missed the point

You're simply wrong - and medical evidence proves it. There have been instances where the mother's body has tried to reject the baby inside her.

What evidence?

you're off topic as we're discussing Hillary holding the food hostage in exchange for more abortions in African countries. Did you have a comment on that?

Funny how the "discussion" has only been about pro-life vs pro-choice:shifty: