the Truth,You seem to be talking in circles. I particularly like
how in your first comment you say Nazis saw communists as a sibling and say
"I think they knew more than you who they were", and now "what Nazis
called other people is irrelevant." Like I said, just because
both systems were used to oppress their people, does not mean they are both
"baseball players" to use your analogy. Like I said, Theocracies are
just as guilty, but they are as conservative as you can be. Nazism
is absolutely fascism. Mussolini was also a fascist, you are correct. That is
why he initially reached out to Hitler during WWII, because they were both
fascists. As I pointed out previously, they actually are
significantly different ideologically. One is international, and draws its
ideology on the basis of class. The other draws lines on the basis of race and
nationalism. In Nazi Germany, private property was fiercely protected (as long
as you were of a proper race). In the Soviet Union it was abolished. Fascist
ideology was centered around an all powerful state, Soviet ideology saw as the
end result the dissolution of any form of government.
@OHBUThat doesn't change anything.Nazis wanted that
all power for themselves,what Nazis called other people is irrelevant, the
left here calls the right here all sorts nemes that doesn't mean they are
right.Anyone not a Nazi or supportive of the Nazi state were enemies of
the state and treated accordingly.Let me give you an analogy:
Baseball player 1 is a yankee (Nazi), player 2 is red sox (Communist),they are still baseball players (leftests siblings), they play for
different teams and are competitors (enemies) fighting each other. Because they fare ighting for political power and control, and treat each
other bad does not make them significantly different ideologically. Those who bring fascism up as some kind of proof are wrong also.Fascism is not Nazism, fascism was started by Mussolini and is neither left
nor right. but is has both.Fascism is its own thing. while fascists
and Nazis were allies they are not the same thing, not the same party, but do
share bits and pieces.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" you did not name any actual policies enacted by
Obama as evidence of anything that is even remotely center-right.Is
the NY Times also a disreputable source? They claim Obama is a liberal and
proposes liberal policies. McClatchy is also a liberal news source, and they
claim that Obama is liberal in his policies too.Are you saying that
you are more educated than the political analists at the NY Times.I
have read the articles where some people claim that Nazis are right-wing, the
sad part is every one of those papers that I have read ignore the fact that the
Nazi government controlled the unions, and had direct government control over
the large or stratigically important businesses. They also ignore the fact that
Hitler and many high ranking Nazi party officials have declared themselves
socialists. So, if you ignore large portions of history, yes you lie and say
Nazis were right wing.
@ the DesNews Moderators: So, the comment thread on an editorial about abortion
has turned into a thread about whether or not liberals - and President Obama
specifically - are Nazis, fascists, communists, or socialists and these comments
are accepted and viewed as on topic?So much for "civil
dialogue" and the rest of the standards you profess to possess.
At some enlightened point in the future the abortion mills will be viewed the
same way as the holocaust concentration camp victims. Hitler's
'right' to kill 'undesirables' didn't squelch the
conscience of the world, nor will the abortion rights crowd smother it. Life is
beautiful and exterminated babies will one day voice their opinion about it.
Redshirt - So, in review, I listed a series of actual policies enacted by the
President as evidence of his center-right leanings and you respond, not by
listing actions he has taken as a rebuttal, but rather cite randomly searched
"news" articles from the internet, including disreputable sources like
the Western Center for Journalism, op eds in Forbes, and Wiki Answers. I'm pretty sure actual policy trumps hackneyed talking points
masquerading as journalism. To be honest, your apparent attempt at research
explains a lot regarding why you take the political positions you take. Wiki
Answers is great if you want to find out whether peanut butter helps get gum out
of your daughter's hair. Political savants? Not so much. Regardless, you appear to fancy "researching" via simple google
search. Perhaps you can do me a favor and list all the various news sources
that note Obama is a center-right and/or moderate President. Oh, and while
you're at it, do some "redshirt research" and list all
citations/articles wherein Nazis are identified as right-wingers. Can you do
that for me? That'd be swell. I'll wait.
@the truth,I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out on
that. Being convicted of being a communist was an offense that carried a prison
sentence in Nazi Germany. In fact, as John Toland has chronicled, Hitler
routinely referred to the primary enemy of the state being "Jewish
communism" (a majority of bolsheviks in Russia were Jewish). Likewise, the
communists in that era in the Soviet Union were very much against fascism.
Fascism is a hyper-patriotic ideology that relies on the superiority of your
people. Communism was inherently international and diverse (the first national
anthem was actually called The International). Fascism is a far right ideology
interested in race, communism is far left interested in class. They are not the
same.Perhaps the confusion is that both were terribly dictatorial,
so you assume similarity. But autocracy can arise in fascism, communism,
theocracy, or with a military junta. Heck, even our own country has a history
in which elected leaders called for the extermination of entire peoples.
@Noodlekaboodle"No wonder the Nazis and Russian were such strong
allies during WW2. "Hitler attacked the Soviets...@RedshirtDW-NOMINATE scores measure how conservative (+1 is fully
conservative) or liberal (-1 is fully liberal) a member of Congress is. The
current Republican caucus has a score closer to the extreme than the current
Democratic caucus so... you're completely wrong. It's the
conservatives that are extremists.
To "Stalwart Sentinel" if you want to consider policy, read the
following:"The most left-wing President ever: Obama policies
undermine democracy, security, and the rule of law" in the Examiner."Obama Surrounds Himself With The Most Extreme Appointees In
American History" Center for Western Journalism"Obama Offers
Liberal Vision: ‘We Must Act’" NY Times. Why would a center
right person offer a liberal agenda?"Barack Obama's
Election And The Looming Crisis Of Liberalism" - Forbes"Are
you more (or less) liberal than President Obama? Take our quiz!" CS monitor.
You should take this and see where you sit in relation to Obama."Who are the most liberal presidents in history?" Wiki Answers, list
Obama as one of the most liberal Presidents."Obama's
inagural speech a call to a new liberal era." McClatchy.All of
the liberal sources call Obama a liberal, why don't you?
To "Tyler D" you seem to be in the group that is moving further left.Obama is an example of the liberals moving further left.Prior to being elected President, Obama was named as the left most leaning
Senator, with Joe Biden coming in second. If the Democrats were not moving
further left, why would they nominate the left most leaning senator for
President?Since you don't want to believe me, would you trust
Hitler himself? On May 1, 1923 Hitler said "Our will is to be National
Socialists - not national in the current sense of the word - not national by
halves. We are National Socialist fanatics, not dancers on the tight-rope of
moderation!" He embraced his socialism, why do you reject it? Read
"Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History" in Forbes. He
explains how Hitler was a socialist, highly left wing.He also said
"the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of
the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel
himself to be an agent of the State" that is another socialist/collectivist
principal. How can you say he was anything but socialist?
Redshirt - You do realize that people participating on this comment board
inherently have access to the internet, correct? Therefore, we all have the
ability to perform the most tertiary of searches online to quickly confirm that
your grasp of the subject matter is wanting. As your foundation is unfit, there
is no reasonable discussion to be had. Further, if you believe we
liberals are the ones moving further to the left, I guess that explains why the
current President, who's policies have almost with out exception been
center-right, is viewed as a socialist. Under this Administration, corporations
have reaped all-time high profits, DJIA has hit an all-time high, wealth gap
continues to widen thanks to continued Reaganomics, unions continue to dissolve,
taxes are at their lowest level in two generations, non-renewable energy
production has skyrocketed, deportations are up, wanton military power abuse is
up, conservative health care mandate is in place, the largest tax cut in
American history was passed, among so many other conservative things. Conservatives ought to start looking at policy, not politician because you
guys are so blinded by anger for Obama that you no longer recognize your own
@RedShirt – “Since todays liberals are going further
left…”Sounds like you’re experiencing what
physicists call the relative motion illusion. The fact is it is the
Republican Party who has moved to the far right and so more moderate politicians
like look socialists by comparison (e.g., compared to Michelle Bachman or Rick
Perry, Bob Dole looks like Che Guavara). And for everyone is still
thinks the Nazi Party was left wing, if reading a history book is too time
consuming at least consult Wikipedia (see Fascism) to get some facts.And for you straw man creators who keep saying that anyone who does not
believe all abortions should be outlawed (from conception on) must want abortion
on demand until birth, I have not seen anyone on this thread advocating this
past viability or ~26 weeks (unless absolutely medically necessary).Reached comment limit...
To "Stalwart Sentinel" you are correct that fascism does not equal
socialism, but they both come from the same parent. The only difference is one
pretends to still have capitalism, while the other is honest about
collectivism.As for liberalism not equaling socialism, you are
wrong. If you take the most hard left liberal positions, they are identical to
socialism. Since todays liberals are going further left, it is easy to say that
they are becoming socialists. Maybe that statement is a couple of years too
early, but that is the direction that liberalism is headed.
I think if a couple has unprotected sex, resulting in a pregnancy, they have
invited a human being into the world as a general principle. But I don't
like the idea of stepping in between a woman and her physician; as an outsider I
can't know all of the medical circumstances, and they are more varied than
Ranch Hand,Then either you change your behavior or take appropriate
precautions. But don't complain about the results of your actions when the
results are easily foreseeable.
@Twin Lights;What about those who don't want to let them in?
@Tyler D@NoodlekaboodleYou show you have no understanding of
who the Nazi's were, and who the left really is.Communism and
Nazism, national socialists party of the german worker (it even sounds leftist!)
were and are siblings.Two leftest brothers, leftist political
parties fighting over power and control.It's really that
simple.Even Himmler or goering, I do not remember who, but one who
was very high up in the Nazi part, stated that communism and nazi were siblings
(I think they knew more than you who they were).--@LDS
LiberalIf you abort all the babies, the future workers, who will
pay for your socialist benefits and socialist programs?With more
dependence, you will need more workers paying in to your socialist pot.
The solution is so simply, if you don't like abortion, don't have one.
If someone else wants to have one, it's none of you business. Mind you
business and stay out of others. It's not your life to live.
Well of course nobody like abortion. The disagreement is what to do about it.I say do what's proven to reduce unplanned pregnancy and educate
the young and old alike. Telling them to not do anything just isn't
@RedshirtOh, I get it! No wonder the Nazis and Russian were such strong
allies during WW2. I mean the russians were communists, which is just a beefed
up version of socialism. I mean, if the USA hadn't got there the Russians
and Germans would have taken over all of Europe. Or, Hitler was a lunatic
dictator, who had a ideology that doesn't really match up with modern US
conservatives or liberals. If you bother to look at history you can find pro and
anti communists, socialists and capitalists were all part of the Nazi party.
Turns out if there is a one party system there are still differences of opinion
that occur. They just all get lumped under Nazi.
Nearly all states have laws that prohibit abortion after the stage of
"viability." Some states are more specific. Viability can change over
time. I don't think 20 weeks is unreasonable HOWEVER, there still need to
be allowances for exceptions--at a minimum health/life issues for the mother,
fetal demise or fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. If the
LDS Church permits abortion in cases of rape, incest, health issues apparently
rape isn't the same as murder. If we seriously care about the
unborn--can we also agree on reducing unplanned pregnancies through education
and increasing the availability of contraceptives? Why are Republicans against
"pro-life people are also the same people that say that you should be
married before having children"Redshirt sitting around thinking
about the most private parts of others' personal lives, at work from the
time stamp, is creepy. You need to look to your own private life and keep your
nose out of others'.
@RedShirt – “If abortion on demand is ok at 24 weeks, why not at 30?
What changes?”Finally, a question for science and not
religion! Pragmatistferlife gave a good answer but other changes
occur prior to 24 weeks that may change the conclusion. So what counts as
“human?” - body parts, functioning organs (including heart beat),
ability to feel pain?Prior to late 1st trimester, none of these
conditions have been met. After 24 weeks, definitely a human being that should
be protected. In between is the gray area we should be discussing rationally.But the idea that a blastocyst – a collection of 100 or so cells
so small you could not see them in your hand - is an “unborn child”
is a sentiment, not a factual conclusion. RE: Nazis. They were
Fascists and fascists can be right-wing or left-wing depending on their policies
(and the Nazis were a mix). And despite their dishonest co-opting
of the name Socialist (for purely cynical political reasons), their top three
targets for extermination were Jews, Communists and Socialists. Seems strange that left-wingers would want to wipe out other
I believe that people would be more accepting of the 20 weeks if the states
implementing this limitation weren't also coming up with laws to make it
impossible to run an abortion clinic.
One clarification needs to be made here. there is a consensus to limit
abortions after the "20th" week. I have not seen independent polling
that says there is a consensus to limit it after the 12th week. please correct
me if I am wrong.
2 bits - "Doing what wrong?" - Being LDS.Redshirt - Fascism
does not equal socialism; socialism does not equal liberalism. If you cannot
currently understand the glaring distinctions between those political concepts,
please consider refraining from pretending to know what you're talking
To "pragmatistferlife" thanks to medical science a fetus can be viable
at 24 weeks. How do you know that consciousness enters into the child at 26
weeks? Is there a difference at 25 weeks, 6 days from 26 weeks?How
do you know when consciousness enters the child? How do you know that it is not
aware of its surroundings at 2 weeks?
Redshirt, "The questions for you and your ilk are these: If abortion on
demand is ok at 24 weeks, why not at 30? What changes?" Consciousness and
viability. Contrary to your belief Democrats and most pro choice advocates are
not in favor of on demand abortion of any unborn fetus. At 26 weeks the fetus
undergoes a synergistic coming together of all previous developing systems into
a conscious unborn child. Prior to that no it's just unconnected organs
and systems, so there's why 26 weeks and not 30. Any questions?
To "LDS Liberal" you realize that the Nazi party was a leftist
organization that Progressives and Liberals were wanting to emulate here in the
US during the 1930's.Nazi-ism was and is a liberal utopia. You
not only control those capitalists under the force of government, but you get to
put any dissidents in camps where they may never return. The people love you
because you take from those that have, and redistribute to those that
don't. The people never find fault with their leaders, and are in utter
shock to find out that something bad was going within the government.I hate to break it to you yet again, but the Nazi party was socialist and
hated capitalists. That is why in their platform they wanted to redistribute
the profits from businesses to the workers, and provide for all the necessities
of life for their followers.
If the conservative religious people commenting keep telling us not to judge,
why are they judging others each and every day on these DN forums. This gets
real confusing sometimes.
If some dictator rode into Washington and took over, and decreed that abortions
were OK before 20 weeks but not after except for certain exceptional
circumstances, the public would generally be satisfied and the issue would
mostly go away. It would be nice if someone would begin to advocate this
solution, with supporters on both sides of the question. The media have done a
terrible, and in some cases blatantly biased, job of presenting this issue. Nor
have Obama, on the one hand, and Santorum et al, on the other hand, been much
Stalwart Sentinel,RE: If you're LDS and "believe" abortion is
murder, you're doing it wrong.Doing what wrong?
No republican woman has ever had an abortion.No republican MD has
ever counseled a woman to have an abortion.No republican cleric has
ever counseled a woman to have an abortion under any circumstances.Why tie politics to a medical procedure?The republican party does
RanchHand,They do if you let them in knowing that could be the risk.
If you're LDS and "believe" abortion is murder, you're doing
To "Blue" you are wrong. The pro-life people are also the same people
that say that you should be married before having children. Your are probably
trying to figure out what those two things have to do with eachother. The
problem is that when a child is born outside of wedlock, there are many risk
factors that start to come into play for poverty and future risky behaviors.Conservatives want the child to grow up in the best possible
circumstances possible, with its biological mother and father. When that is not
possible, the next best option is for that baby to be adopted by a mother and
father.The questions for you and your ilk are these: If abortion on
demand is ok at 24 weeks, why not at 30? What changes?
@Lightbearer – “How many innocent children were killed? Where's
the outrage?”There is none (among believers) because whatever
God commands is moral – by definition.The most pernicious
moral relativism the world has ever known – as one of many examples,
Slavery – bad when the Egyptians were doing it to the Israelites, not so
bad when the Israelites were doing it to all their neighbors, and even their own
Re: "The crime against humanity of the slaughter of completely innocent
children in our country ..."Genesis 7: "The flood engulfed
the earth for forty days....And all living things that moved on the earth died,
including ... all humankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life
in its nostrils died."How many innocent children were killed?Genesis 19: "Then the Lord rained down sulfur and fire on Sodom and
Gomorrah....So he overthrew those cities and all that region, including all the
inhabitants of the cities and the vegetation that grew from the ground."How many innocent children were killed?Exodus 12:
"...the Lord attacked all the firstborn in the land of Egypt ... and there
was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no house in which there was not someone
dead."How many innocent children were killed?Joshua
6: "The wall [of Jericho] collapsed and the warriors charged straight ahead
into the city and captured it. They annihilated with the sword everything that
breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well as cattle,
sheep, and donkeys."How many innocent children were killed?Where's the outrage?
patriot, "This is not a matter of opinion and it matters not whether you
accept the teachings of Jesus Christ or not...there are absolute truths which
opinions don't alter such as the fact that the earth is a sphere and orbits
around the sun.". To some degree you are right, I can take scientific tools
and methods and prove that the earth orbits the sun...however, that same
scientific process proves that fetuses prior to 26 weeks aren't conscious
or viable, and therefore not children.Mr. Richards, the soul of the
aborted child doesn't have legal representation. Care to show your
scientific evidence for the soul.... if not it's your religious opinion and
doesn't belong anyway in my secular laws. Go on all you want about the evil
state of those who don't believe but your just defending your belief and
you don't get to legislate your religion into my life.
@samhillSalt Lake City, UTHeinrich Himmler and the rest of the
Nazi also outlawed abortion.As for the holocaust - Those laws were
started for cutting national medicals costs (euthanizing), and later extended to
other "undesirables" to Nazi society -- Liberals, Communists,
Homosexuals, Non-Christians, Immigrants, Addicts, etc. A regular
@Mike Richards;Does anyone have a unilateral right to demand the use
of anther person's body for 9 months?
Control, Control!Synonym for Republican Party.
2 bits says:- Without babies... who are they going to sell their
next generation of products too?- Without babies... who is going to work
in their factories, stores, or work for their suppliers, etc?---I
didn't realize that babies were nothing more than commodoties.
It's disgusting to see the bizarre attempts at justifying the killing of
unborn children by claims that pro-life people aren't willing to adopt the
children who lived. Or, that pro-life people are deficient in any other way in
caring for children the abortionists would otherwise kill.Even if we
accepted as rational the argument that children who aren't killed by
abortion are not cherished as much as we would like, how in the world does that
offer ANY justification that they should be killed!?If Heinrich
Himmler had been tried at Nuremberg for the systematic killing of over 6 million
people, mostly Jews, and offered as his defense "...they were actually
better off because there were so few countries who were offering to let them
relocate.", the response of shock and derision would have been deafening.The crime against humanity of the slaughter of completely innocent
children in our country since Roe v. Wade, in numbers that dwarf what the Nazis
could ever have dreamed of in their ultra-efficient killing facilities, marks us
as a nation as surely and even more than when slavery was tolerated. And, for
the same dehumanizing reasons.
In the end...and after you have passed through the veil of death as we ALL will
do ...then you will stand before your Savior and be judged accorrding to your
works. This is not a matter of opinion and it matters not whether you accept the
teachings of Jesus Christ or not...there are absolute truths which opinions
don't alter such as the fact that the earth is a sphere and orbits around
the sun. Another fact is Jesus will be the judge of all and those who have
participated in abortion in any way have to face the Savior with their hands
stained red with the blood of the innocent children whose lives they
'chose' to terminate then it will be the law given by the Savior (thou
shalt not kill) as well as his statement to the effect of those who would harm
one of these little ones it would be better that they would be drown in the
depts of the sea or that they had never been born. There will be no ACLU or
Supreme court or Planned Parenthood ...just you and the Savior and your guilt.
If we are going to talk about abortions in Germany and France, let's be
honest and do a real comparison.Teens in Germany and France are
educated about safer sex and have easy and cheap (sometimes free) access to
birth control. Access to legal abortion is easy and cheap so there are no
financial roadblocks to a timely abortion - in France, the cost of abortion is
reimbursable, making them, in effect, free.Later abortions are
allowed to save the mother's life or in cases of severe fetal
impairment.Both France and Germany ensure paid maternity leave at
100% for 14 or 16 weeks, including time before the due date. Both France and
Germany have universal healthcare. Both France and Germany provide money to
families to help care for the children and to help pay for childcare when the
mother returns to work.In other words, they have systems that
address the concerns of pro-choice individuals in the US because their systems
address the leading causes of abortion including preventing unwanted pregnancies
and making sure families can care for their children. Also, legal abortions are
easy to get.Please, let's fully adopt one of their systems.
Does anyone have the unilateral right to destroy another human being?
Society's laws were written to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
The Court MUST appoint council for those brought before it if that accused
person cannot provide obtain his own council. But, in the case of abortion,
which by definition is the termination of life within the womb of a woman, that
soul whose life is being terminated has no legal representation. ONE PERSON and
only one person needs to demand that the life be terminated.It's easy to see how that happened. Evil and corrupt men, who wanted
sexual freedom without the responsibility to support their offspring, decided
that destroying a life before it was born would absolve them of financial
responsibility and public disgrace. Women whose motives were more important to
them than the life of an unborn baby, signed on. The Court, in total violation
to equal protection under the law, decreed that a woman could unilaterally
decide to destroy the life within her.The result, in America alone,
is that more than 55,000,000 children were NOT born, but were destroyed without
having representation AFTER life had commenced.
Liberal,- Parents buy stuff for their babies every day.- Each baby
will buy a lifetime of stuff. Why would businesses want them aborted
instead?Businesses/employers don't control your vasectomy or
your birth control, they just pay for your insurance. When was the last time
your evil employer told you you couldn't have a vasectomy or an abortion?
Maybe your INSURANCE company does, but your evil employer has never told you
what procedures you can have (that's totally in the insurance
provider's court).Evil businesses seem to have no problem
giving employees maternity leave. Has your company ever complained about
maternity leave to you? You really think they would rather their employees have
abortions than take a few weeks of maternity leave??Please... tell
us more about how businesses would rather their employees have abortions than be
punished with a baby and all that maternity leave.Blue,The
letter didn't mention medically necessary abortions. Most realize there
are medically-required abortions (usually early-term). We're talking about
consensus here... not extremes.PSThe "backup-plan" for
those who support life is called "Adoption".
The Solution: "The problem here is MURDER! Abortion is killing--is
murder...you will be accountable before God for murdering one of his
children."Really? Do you know how many pregnancies spontaneously
abort? About a third - most of the time the woman is completely unaware. And if
you really are religious, and you believe that Noah's flood was a real
historical event, how many small children and pregnant women did your God kill
in that flood? Fact is, the God you say you believe in is the biggest
abortionist/murderer of all time.Is a blastocyst a human? Seriously
- answer that.Will you acknowledge the critical role of
comprehensive sex education in lowering the abortion rates in other nations?If you're so concerned about the wellbeing of babies, will you
support the restoration of funding that Republicans are slashing for
children's healthcare programs? How about child nutrition and early
education? If your opposition to a woman's right to control
her own body really is motivated by a desire to protect babies, then where is
the evidence that you care about them after they're born?
@The SolutionHalf of abortions are obtained by Catholics or evangelicals.
Let's face it, abortions will happen, the methods just get more desperate
if you reduce access to safe, legal abortions. The nation with the lowest
abortion rate isn't even one where it's illegal, it's Belgium.
Maybe if you actually cared about reducing abortions you'd support methods
proven to work like expanded access to birth control through universal coverage.
Instead you conservatives care about nothing more than shaming women who have
abortions, and then shaming women who are single parents on welfare. Guess what,
they chose life. They did what you wanted... and then you attack them. What
hypocrites you are.
@Roland Kayser – “Many conservative states seem to be saying that 20
weeks should be the cutoff for abortions. I think liberals should agree to this,
and then we can all call a truce on this divisive issue.”That
would be fine – I would even say the cutoff should be closer to 12 weeks
– but much of this fight is simply Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion
playing out in politics.There is a large segment of people who
believe a human being exists at conception. There’s nothing scientific
about this view… it’s a purely religious conviction. But they will
continue to make this a political fight until they get a Constitutional
Personhood Amendment (or all States to outlaw any abortion).The
other side is simply reacting to this fact with a “cede no ground”
strategy, while the rest of the world (the four counties Fiorina noted
notwithstanding) deals with this issue in a pragmatic, common sense way and goes
on with their business.Ironic that the country founded on compromise
(and apparently taught it to the world) is now largely incapable of practicing
this necessary feature of democratic self-government.
I also like the french attitudes towards discussing sex and preventing
Okay, those who are trying to claim that the abortion issue is about protecting
the mother in a life in danger scenario are trying to sheild the truth. First
of all, that case is rare. Second, there is no reason why a law couldn't
accommodate that exception.The problem here is MURDER! Abortion is
killing--is murder. You do not have a right to play God and murder unborn
children? If you are religious, then you must know that you will be accountable
before God for murdering one of his children.If you are not
religious and believe that you became alive randomly, then you need to stop and
ponder the concept that had your organism been one of these aborted ones, you
would not exist. Now take a few moments and try to contemplate never existing.
After you have done so for an appropriate ammount of time, reconsider this
artificial debate about so-called women's rights. Roe vs. Wade made an
unconstitutional ruling, for the fetus of the unborn child has as much claim to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the mother. We do not have the
right to choose consequences of our actions.
Babies won't "buy" anything for 20+ years.Businesses look at
3 month quarter to quarter earnings, and not one day more.Deductibles for a live normal birth with NO complications - $2500.Deductible and coverage for a vasectomy is ZERO out of pocket.Businesses have to pay higher Healthcare costs for maternity coverageAND
coverage for the entire family of their employees :-( No to mention
the $Million coverage for pre-mature births.Businesses also must pay
paid for 6 weeks of maternity leave, and ask any working woman how the
boss or business reacts to her leaving early or missing work to take care of the
needs of her kids.Shall I continue?...There's so much
Ironic that so many liberals, who are likely to be pro choice, like to point to
the health care systems of the European countries as examples of what America
should be doing. Now this news, which by the way I had never heard before.
Wonder why? I might add that the anti death penalty folks also use those same
"civilized" countries as examples of why America should not have a death
penalty. What a turn around.
Nobody likes abortions. They are, however, sometimes a medical necessity. Who
gets to decide what constitutes "necessary" is the issue.
"Pro-choice" advocates say that this is a personal decision properly
left to the woman and her doctor. "Pro-life" advocates
don't want women to have that option, claiming that they are acting solely
on behalf of unborn babies.That argument would have credibility if
the same people claiming to be motivated by "life" had some kind of
follow-up position indicating that they care as much about the health and
well-being of children after they're born. But they don't - not
remotely. Every position taken by today's hyper-conservatives involves
cutting programs for the medical care, nutrition, and early education of
children. Their actions reveal that they in fact couldn't care less about
the well-being of children. If your goal is to dramatically lower
the rate of abortions, then you have to acknowledge the critical role that
frank, comprehensive public education about sexuality, STD's, and
contraception play in this discussion. When the GOP supports
improving sex-education as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancy, then I'll
take them seriously.
Re: "There is an abortion consensus"Okay, let's agree
on a post 20-week ban.But, only as a starting point.Once
that's in place, we'll use that well-worn liberal tactic --
incrementalism -- to go after whatever we can get next.And, after
that? We'll keep pushing.Make no mistake, the abortion problem
will not be "solved," and its stench cannot be purged from America,
until Roe v. Wade and its phony "right" to an abortion have been
properly consigned to the dustbin of history, and the human rights of the
innocent unborn are once again honored and protected.
There is no such thing as the right to life. You can’t buy it, you
can’t sell it. You can’t even give it away. Life is just something
that happens. It comes and goes of its own accord. We might think we create
life when we bring the proper ingredients together, but life itself is something
more than a mechanical process. We don’t make it happen. The
issue of abortion is an issue of control. The powers seeking to control others
have as their number one resource the number of people in their flock. Their
number one source of new members is the birth of new members by current members.
Hence the religious concern over birth control and abortion.
LDS Liberal,Can you explain in some detail how bad bad businesses are the
ones who want late term abortions, and "Babies are BAD for business and
their bottom dollar"?I think you're going to have a hard
time substantiating that claim.- Without babies... who are they
going to sell their next generation of products too?- Without babies...
who is going to work in their factories, stores, or work for their suppliers,
etc?Fact is... when families start having babies... their spending
increases significantly (and bad bad business LIKE when people's spending
and consumption of their product increases). That's how they stay in
business and grow their business.So why... would they be against
babies?That's just absurd anti-business blather.I
think we SHOULD have a limit on deciding to abort a baby as late as you want for
any reason.That's why I didn't understand the furry in the
left's response to Texas even talking about limiting late-term abortions.
"trying to wipe out abortion rights" (as the leftists put it). Google
it and read some of the rants in the Huffington Post and NY Times.
And what about the mandatory ultrasounds? The mandatory visits? The shutting
down of clinics by imposing arbitrary regulations? The requirement that abortion
providers have admitting privileges to hospitals (and then in Ohio's case
banning hospitals from providing them admitting privileges)? Oh
and... the compromise (this whole 20 week thing) involves supporting something
that has been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.
I'm sorry but this is not one of those, well there are extremists on both
sides issues. The Republican party as an entity would stand up and cheer if Roe
v Wade was abolished. Can you find someone who identifies as a Democrat who
wants unfettered abortions, yea, probably, but you're going to have to look
long and hard. The Republicans have completely moved from a fact,
science based position to an entirely religious belief based position.
Heartbeats, brain activity etc. don't mean life and especially don't
mean viability, all those things can be produced in a lab separate and apart
from one another. This is entirely a partisan political strategy
promoted by one side.
I think the controversy gets generated on the pro-life side as well. Some are
absolutists - no abortion at any time for any reason. This is, of course, in
contrast to some on the pro-choice side for which abortion should be available
for any reason and at nearly any stage of development. Conflict among the most
strident on each side is virtually guaranteed.For our nation, it
would seem best if we could get this (somehow) out of the political realm and
back into the medical sphere. No matter which side of the debate you land on,
abortion is a lousy method of birth control and should be a last ditch option
when medical need determines it is appropriate. It would then likely be done
more often than some prefer but much less often than now.But how do
we get it out of the political sphere. That is the trick and I have no good
answer. Quite honestly I think some would miss the issue going away. It is a
useful tool to fan the political flames on both sides.
Ironic again...The DN uses the French, Germans, and the rest of and
other nations as an example of "good".Usually, it's the other
way around.The sad fact is -- most businesses WANT America to be
like communist China, including abortion and low birth rates. Babies are BAD for
business and their bottom dollar.BTW - they all have Government
controlled "Socialized" universal single-payer systems too.Why the
double standard hypocrisy?
I agree wholeheartedly that the rhetoric surrounding this issue is unnecessarily
overheated. However, the author quickly slips into blame, blame, blame. In the
end, it's all the pro-choice advocates' fault for not ceding any
ground. How about take a look in the mirror, you might just find a beam. Did
the author somehow miss when anti-abortion crowd passed laws forcing rape
victims to surrender to transvaginal ultrasounds? Or how about the laws being
passed in many states that, while not directly outlawing abortion, are putting
the kinds of restrictions on clinics that make it virtually impossible to
operate in that state. The so-called heartbeat bills passed in other states
that are in direct violation of the constitution. I'm sorry, but this is
in no wise a one-sided issue. Roe v Wade attempted to balance the
rights of the mother and the baby, and the dividing line became
"viability"--that line is generally around 24 weeks. Some babies do
survive from 20 weeks, the vast majority do not. Is it worth risking the life
of the mother in some cases, on the less than 1% chance the baby could survive?
Many conservative states seem to be saying that 20 weeks should be the cutoff
for abortions. I think liberals should agree to this, and then we can all call a
truce on this divisive issue.