Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think "MSM" is a myth. I don't think there is a mainstream media anymore. I can't remember the last time I watched an evening news program on the "Big Three," and I'm sure I'm not alone. I also haven't taken the paper, not for at least ten years. This is not to say I don't get my news, of course. I certainly get my news. But I get it where I want it. As does most everyone these days, I am sure.

In fact, that's another reason why I think the electorate is becoming more and more polarized the last few cycles, with the "undecideds" shrinking. We tend to seek out news/analysis that matches our dispositions. And there is plenty to be found, on both sides. It is really a rare, rare person that both A) cares deeply about politics, and B) is undecided. Most of the undecided vote is people who just don't really care a lot.

Im not sure if you were meaning to include these, but I believe the MSM to include cable news such as MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. as well as the local "Big Three" and the newspapers. There are alot of senior citizens that still get their news from these sources by my estimation. But, that is my own observation and could be way off base.

If you are correct, it would make sense to me that those that really don't care are much more likely to be uninformed and swayed by lies. If I were to believe the polls these are the very people who will swing the election either way and that is a sobering thought.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Im not sure if you were meaning to include these, but I believe the MSM to include cable news such as MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. as well as the local "Big Three" and the newspapers. There are alot of senior citizens that still get their news from these sources by my estimation. But, that is my own observation and could be way off base.

If you are correct, it would make sense to me that those that really don't care are much more likely to be uninformed and swayed by lies. If I were to believe the polls these are the very people who will swing the election either way and that is a sobering thought.

I can't include cable outlets as MSM because Dallas--a very big city--has only something like 50% cable penetration. Plus, despite how important so many of those networks are, their ratings are dreadfully low. If we are making an argument based on reach, then they simply don't qualify. They are "destination" news sources. In other words, they are places you go when there is something specific you want to hear.

ABC, CBS, and NBC are the last of the "MSM." Realistically, they are gone already. But the folks who don't realize that will figure it out before too long. You are right about the seniors, though. They will keep them afloat as long as they still draw breath.

[Murphy3]

Chum, I don't believe it's 47% either..but it's much higher than I ever could have imagined in my younger years.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

What would you have him do Chum?

I am worried that he is not being an effective campaigner, but in his defense he is fighting a severe uphill battle to reach the electorate. He has to fight against free advertisements for the Democrats and BO 24/7 by their corrupt cheerleaders called the MSM which are out to destroy any Republican at any cost. Any gaffe or perceived gaffe by Romney and the Republicans are magnified and excoriated well beyond reason while any mention of the many of BO's shortcomings would nary be heard. No amount of money can overcome that disadvantage. He has to run an almost perfect campaign because the deck is stacked against him. There are some of us that don't care to watch the MSM and find ways to get our info from the internet or radio, but how much of the electorate is willing to do that? It seems to me that most still rely on the MSM for their info. I hope I am wrong.

I don't know what to say about that except that I wholeheartedly disagree. To be honest, in the so-called "mainstream media," I don't think any single source wields as much authority as Fox News, and they are embarrassingly slanted to the far right.

MSNBC is sort of trying to copy that model, except on the very far left, but they don't have nearly the influence of Fox, IMO.

CNN is just a huge mess of a network that has fallen WAY behind -- I feel that they are sympathetic to whichever party is in office. I think they could shoot right to the top if they tried to shoot straight, but they could also go under while trying.


And BTW, Mitt is severely miscast as a victim from any perspective, if you ask me. Dude's worth $250M and only got the GOP nomination by default because of his ridiculous spending during the primary.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I can't include cable outlets as MSM because Dallas--a very big city--has only something like 50% cable penetration. Plus, despite how important so many of those networks are, their ratings are dreadfully low. If we are making an argument based on reach, then they simply don't qualify. They are "destination" news sources. In other words, they are places you go when there is something specific you want to hear.

ABC, CBS, and NBC are the last of the "MSM." Realistically, they are gone already. But the folks who don't realize that will figure it out before too long. You are right about the seniors, though. They will keep them afloat as long as they still draw breath.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by spreedom

I don't know what to say about that except that I wholeheartedly disagree. To be honest, in the so-called "mainstream media," I don't think any single source wields as much authority as Fox News, and they are embarrassingly slanted to the far right.

<snip>

I admit that I am not young anymore, but this cracks me up.

Fox News isn't any where near far right. In fact, they are mid stream at best and slightly slanted right.

They are just shown to be far right because of how far left the rest of the world has moved.

If Fox news is big where your at and you don't like it, then move to either coast or way north. It isn't so big there - at least when I was there.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I admit that I am not young anymore, but this cracks me up.

Fox News isn't any where near far right. In fact, they are mid stream at best and slightly slanted right.

They are just shown to be far right because of how far left the rest of the world has moved.

If Fox news is big where your at and you don't like it, then move to either coast or way north. It isn't so big there - at least when I was there.

Pretty much the way I see it as well. I grew up in the 80's and the far left today are full blown socialists or worse. Yesteryears mainstream Democrats at least mostly adhered to a conservative idealogue economically even though they were socially liberal. There is some evidence of this by simply looking at the number of southern Democrats that have become extinct in the new Progressive/Socialist Democrat party. The south has had to embrace the Republicans to fight the far left highjacking of the Democratic party. This is why I see present day moderate Republicans as an equal to yesteryears Democrats. This speaks to the polarity of politics today and that started when the far left started infiltrating the Democrats.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I dont see anything in that quote that isnt really true, except that there are probably a small amount of the 47% that truly take responsibility for themselves and would rather not be on the govt dole. I guess it remains to be seen if those will take offense or just realize that one would probably only take offense because the sting of rebuke is the truth. Those that are happy to be sucking from the teets of the taxpayers are those who BO is buying votes from by continuing to extort from those of us that pay income taxes.

These 2 old farts sum it up well...

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin

“The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.” Alexis de Tocqueville

[Ninkobei]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Chum, I don't believe it's 47% either..but it's much higher than I ever could have imagined in my younger years.

This information is off the 2009 numbers. But Romney got his numbers from the same source:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...households-pa/

His statistics come from a document produced by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a respected bipartisan committee of Congress. The JCT found that for tax year 2009, roughly 22 percent of "tax units" (not exactly "households," but we’ll give him a pass on the terminology) ended up without any tax liability. Another 30 percent got money back from the government, through mechanisms such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, a longstanding policy that encourages low-income Americans to work by refunding money through the tax code. By contrast, JCT found just 49 percent of Americans owed anything to the government.

Because high earners have so much income liability, the breaks they get still don’t lower their taxes to zero. By contrast, popular lower- and middle-income breaks such as child credits and mortgage interest deductions do get a big share of the population off the hook.

PS. Soldiers deployed to combat zones are part of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I admit that I am not young anymore, but this cracks me up.

Fox News isn't any where near far right. In fact, they are mid stream at best and slightly slanted right.

They are just shown to be far right because of how far left the rest of the world has moved.

If Fox news is big where your at and you don't like it, then move to either coast or way north. It isn't so big there - at least when I was there.

I'll just have to completely disagree with you there.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Ninkobei

This information is off the 2009 numbers. But Romney got his numbers from the same source:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...households-pa/

His statistics come from a document produced by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a respected bipartisan committee of Congress. The JCT found that for tax year 2009, roughly 22 percent of "tax units" (not exactly "households," but we’ll give him a pass on the terminology) ended up without any tax liability. Another 30 percent got money back from the government, through mechanisms such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, a longstanding policy that encourages low-income Americans to work by refunding money through the tax code. By contrast, JCT found just 49 percent of Americans owed anything to the government.

Because high earners have so much income liability, the breaks they get still don’t lower their taxes to zero. By contrast, popular lower- and middle-income breaks such as child credits and mortgage interest deductions do get a big share of the population off the hook.

PS. Soldiers deployed to combat zones are part of the 47% who don't pay federal income tax.

When I talk about doubting the "47%," I'm talking about people who "live off the government dole," not people who "pay no federal income tax." I do think there is a marked difference between the two, particularly if we were to replace "no federal income tax" with "very little federal income tax," which is probably about the same thing in the big picture.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Not that I buy the think and feel stuff that your shoveling, but I really don't understand how making the distinction that developing unborn babies (no matter what age) can't think or feel is in any way a justification to make it ok to abort. By that line of thinking, Im guessing you cannot see the distinction that the act of aborting an unborn is nothing more than stealing away their opportunity to becoming a living, breathing, human being? Or are you against protecting that kind of opportunity for an innocent? pro-choice sounds alot like pro-murder to me.

That is exactly the Catholic Church's reasoning for being against contraception.

Until you are a sentient being you don't deserve the same rights as me. Will a 4 week embryo be a sentient being at some point? Possibly. But not yet. Just like everytime you use a condom you are extinguishing POTENTIAL sentience.

By the way have you ever had sex with a girl on the pill?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

I admit that I am not young anymore, but this cracks me up.

Fox News isn't any where near far right. In fact, they are mid stream at best and slightly slanted right.

They are just shown to be far right because of how far left the rest of the world has moved.

If Fox news is big where your at and you don't like it, then move to either coast or way north. It isn't so big there - at least when I was there.

Many of past GOP presidential candidates have been employed in some capacity by Fox (Santo, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Veep candidate Palin). Don't know if they are a "conservative" station (whatever definition of conservative you want to use), but they are empirically a propaganda organ for the Republican party.

[SeanL]

.....

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Many of past GOP presidential candidates have been employed in some capacity by Fox (Santo, Gingrich, Huckabee, and Veep candidate Palin). Don't know if they are a "conservative" station (whatever definition of conservative you want to use), but they are empirically a propaganda organ for the Republican party.

Not going to argue that Fox is more Republican than any other of the stations. Saying that Fox is the only Republican station compared to all the rest of the MSM is debatable, but generally true.

Calling Republican and Conservative the same thing isn't really close IMO though.

Calling Republican more conservative than the Democratic party for the last 40 years of so -- debatable, but generally true as well.

If you are calling Fox a Republican rag -- I suspect I can find people who call CNN the Communist News Network -- ABC, NBC and CBS propaganda machines for the Democratic Party, etc.

It all depends on where you are coming from, and who taught you what, and who you think you should have listened to.

With all that said, none of them are conservative. (By the definition that I grew up with.) Conservative implies God, Country, Family in that order where Liberal implied Government, Self, and Money. Republicans are kind of in the Big Business, Money, Country, wishy washy God, Self, Family role from what I have seen right now......so no I don't really call that conservative. Democrats seem to be in the Government, Self (I can do whatever I want), Money, Family role right now and that is way from conservative.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

That is exactly the Catholic Church's reasoning for being against contraception.

Until you are a sentient being you don't deserve the same rights as me. Will a 4 week embryo be a sentient being at some point? Possibly. But not yet. Just like everytime you use a condom you are extinguishing POTENTIAL sentience.

By the way have you ever had sex with a girl on the pill?

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy.

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby which is why I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Is an apple still attached to the apple tree a potential 2nd apple tree? Sure, but it cannot become an apple tree until the seed of that apple is buried and starts to grow. The moment it starts to grow is the moment it becomes an apple tree. However, if the apple is eaten and the seed is thrown in the garbage can is that the same as chopping down an apple tree? Of course not.

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts. This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Not going to argue that Fox is more Republican than any other of the stations. Saying that Fox is the only Republican station compared to all the rest of the MSM is debatable, but generally true.

Calling Republican and Conservative the same thing isn't really close IMO though.

Calling Republican more conservative than the Democratic party for the last 40 years of so -- debatable, but generally true as well.

If you are calling Fox a Republican rag -- I suspect I can find people who call CNN the Communist News Network -- ABC, NBC and CBS propaganda machines for the Democratic Party, etc.

It all depends on where you are coming from, and who taught you what, and who you think you should have listened to.

With all that said, none of them are conservative. (By the definition that I grew up with.) Conservative implies God, Country, Family in that order where Liberal implied Government, Self, and Money. Republicans are kind of in the Big Business, Money, Country, wishy washy God, Self, Family role from what I have seen right now......so no I don't really call that conservative. Democrats seem to be in the Government, Self (I can do whatever I want), Money, Family role right now and that is way from conservative.

So if I got this straight every channel other than Fox is full of Democrats and Liberal journalists (I'll give you MSNBC of course). This is what I like to call the conservative delusion: there is a nation wide conspiracy among journalists to feed liberal propaganda and only Fox reports the "truth."

I have to admit there are, unfortunately, some deluded liberals like you who believe the "corporate media" props up Republican talking points and only MSNBC reports "the truth."

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy

And yet you are using the same exact argument (extinguishing potential sentience/life) they use to attack contraception...

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby...

If you use contraception you are using an artificial barrier to intercede in the life cycle, and gametogeniesis and eventually fertilization is part of that life cycle.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

you can't murder a 4 week old embryo either. You are not making sense.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Exactly! You get it! That is why the "potential sentience" argument is so idiotic. People who say, "well that clump of cells will possibly be sentient one day, so aborting it is equivalent to murder" are being ridiculous. Ever heard of the phrase, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas"? That clump of cells may be sentient one day, but not now.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts.

An innocent sperm and an innocent egg had to grow and develop. If the mere act of "developing" determines whether something should get the same rights as me, then your argument has a lot of issues beyond the embryo. I'm drawing the line at thinking and feeling and near absence of consciousness.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

The word life means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with thinking and feeling. That is what makes us uniquely human, so yes someone who is brain dead shouldn't get the same rights as me. That is why it was perfectly appropriate to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And yet you are using the same exact argument (extinguishing potential sentience/life) they use to attack contraception...

Umm...no. Did you completely miss my point? Or are you using a straw man argument? Maybe I just wasnt clear enough for you. You brought potential into this..I have not used that as a defense. We actually agree there, I think? I did clarify why I used opportunity here...
"Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby..."
I am saying that life begins at conception since you didnt get it the first time. I say this because the minute that fertilized egg grows, develops, metabolizes, (ie. life) inside a female human it produces a life that is human and can only be human. Again, I am not saying sperm or eggs or anything prior to a fertilized egg is human life just so that we are clear...again.

If you use contraception you are using an artificial barrier to intercede in the life cycle, and gametogeniesis and eventually fertilization is part of that life cycle.

Hmmm....I find it interesting that you would introduce LIFE cycle but yet you argue below you are not concerned with life because it means something different to different people.

you can't murder a 4 week old embryo either. You are not making sense.

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

Exactly! You get it! That is why the "potential sentience" argument is so idiotic. People who say, "well that clump of cells will possibly be sentient one day, so aborting it is equivalent to murder" are being ridiculous. Ever heard of the phrase, "if 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts every day would be Christmas"? That clump of cells may be sentient one day, but not now

Glad we can agree on something. Again, potential sentience is not the question, defining human life and when it begins is the question.

An innocent sperm and an innocent egg had to grow and develop. If the mere act of "developing" determines whether something should get the same rights as me, then your argument has a lot of issues beyond the embryo. I'm drawing the line at thinking and feeling and near absence of consciousness.

Again, straw man maybe? I am not trying to make the distinction that just developing is the sign of human life. Please see any of my above responses.

The word life means a lot of things to a lot of different people. I'm not concerned with that. I'm concerned with thinking and feeling. That is what makes us uniquely human, so yes someone who is brain dead shouldn't get the same rights as me. That is why it was perfectly appropriate to pull the plug on Terri Shiavo.

This is your problem...you claim you are not concerned what life means, yet you still define human life as boiling down to just thinking and feeling under the guise of sentient. Your whole argument hangs on this definition yet you completely dismiss it as a concern? Im guessing that you didnt want to answer whether a human vegetable is alive because it corners your central thinking/feeling argument into a place you probably dont want to go. And yes, life does mean different things to different people which is why we are debating in the first place. It appears by your comments so far that your inability to understand the position of others is impeding in your ability to have a lively debate while still using intellectual honesty. I would like to continue this lively debate but this probably isn't going any further until your honest about the importance of defining human life.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

I don't subscribe to the Catholic orthodoxy.

Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby which is why I brought in murder to the discussion. You cant murder sperm or an egg.

But, to continue into your argument, lets build on where you seem to be headed. My question to you is everytime a woman hits her period is she is extinguishing potential life simply because she did not get pregnant before her egg died? And for the guys, every time we have a wet dream are we extinguishing potential life because we are spilling our sperm? And, if a husband doesn't sweet talk his wife and they don't have sex then is that extinguishing potential life? What about those that abuse drugs and trash their bodies are they potentially extinguishing life because they are killing their reproductive potency? I could go on and this could get even more ugly than it is now. I would hope you would agree that this is silly to call this some form of murder.

Is an apple still attached to the apple tree a potential 2nd apple tree? Sure, but it cannot become an apple tree until the seed of that apple is buried and starts to grow. The moment it starts to grow is the moment it becomes an apple tree. However, if the apple is eaten and the seed is thrown in the garbage can is that the same as chopping down an apple tree? Of course not.

Extinguishing the potential to getting pregnant and actually aborting a baby after conception are 2 totally different issues. The first deals with extinguishing potential but the second deals with inevitably extinguishing someone that is already a growing, developing, innocent human. This is what I refer to as murder, unless there is a really good reason to do it such as the mothers life is in danger. You are drawing a line in the sand months after this growing starts based on a non-thinking/non-feeling defense and I am drawing a line where conception and life starts. This brings me to another question about what you wrote prior about equating a baby to a vegatable. Is someone that is in a vegetative state still alive? They can't feel or think either, right?

I agree with every single word you said. Yet, I'm not sure where that is supposed to lead me...if anywhere.

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

So, just curious, and not trying to be combative at all.... do you think that since abortion is murder, it should be illegal in all cases? What about cases of forcible rape, or incest (which has been proven scientifically to produce bad genetics)?

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by spreedom

So, just curious, and not trying to be combative at all.... do you think that since abortion is murder, it should be illegal in all cases? What about cases of forcible rape, or incest (which has been proven scientifically to produce bad genetics)?

These are terrible situations that I wouldn't wish on anyone. It puts them in the terrible place of deciding between 2 bad options. But, it is certainly a legitimate to look for exceptions in a world where abortion would be enforced as murder.

I certainly dont believe that murder of the unborn is imputed on mothers whose life is in danger from a pregnancy. So, that one I can say with certainty would qualify as an exception.

As for forcible rape, I wouldn't give an exception. I don't believe that the innocent unborn should have to pay a price of death for the sins of his/her father. I would want the mother to consider adoption if she can't get past where the baby came from.

As for incest, I wouldnt give an exception either. Even though the possible bad genetics you mentioned is imparted to the innocent baby I still think this is better then terminating its life. It does really sadden me to think that a baby could reap defects just because of the sins of the mother and father.

I would like to point out that I am a libertarian at heart and believe in states rights whereby I could choose to live in a state, municipality, community that would adhere more to my particular views, ie an exercise of freedom of conscious, religion, etc that is locally determined. Those that believe differently could satisfy their views the same way, just in another locale. The reality is we don't and we have to talk about this in terms of one half excersing complete control on the other half.

I will say that I do respect the other viewpoint in that if you don't believe life begins at conception that all the above would be exceptions or just completely pro-choice regardless of the situation. The saddest for me though is hearing about those that abort just because they don't want responsibility. There are plenty of couples out there that would give just about anything to get pregnant, but can't. Those are the ones that would be prime candidates to adopt unwanted children.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Umm...no. Did you completely miss my point? Or are you using a straw man argument? Maybe I just wasnt clear enough for you. You brought potential into this..I have not used that as a defense. We actually agree there, I think? I did clarify why I used opportunity here...
"Just so that we are clear, when I stated opportunity below I wasnt talking about opportunity to get pregnant. I was referring to opportunity to continue living and growing into a healthy baby..."
I am saying that life begins at conception since you didnt get it the first time. I say this because the minute that fertilized egg grows, develops, metabolizes, (ie. life) inside a female human it produces a life that is human and can only be human. Again, I am not saying sperm or eggs or anything prior to a fertilized egg is human life just so that we are clear...again.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

But they are not a thinking feeling human yet and that is what I care about. I don't care if the cell is a zygote or not. That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. The fact that it may one day be a baby is irrelevant. Just like the fact that a sperm may be a baby one day is irrelevant to me.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Hmmm....I find it interesting that you would introduce LIFE cycle but yet you argue below you are not concerned with life because it means something different to different people.

Do you really think I am against contraception? I was referring to Catholicism's argument. That's their argument. Not mine.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This statement is only true for those who believe life begins sometime after the 4th week of pregnancy. In my case, murder can happen just after conception.

No it is true for everyone. You can't get prosecuted in the court of law for aborting a 4 week embryo. Just like you can't get prosecuted in a court of law for killing sperm with spermicide. Murder implies there are legal ramifications. There is not. my wife can have as many abortions as she likes and not get prosecuted. In our society aborting a 4 week embryo is not considered murder. That is not going to change any time soon, so that is something you are just going to have to deal with.

Originally Posted by roadrunner

This is your problem...you claim you are not concerned what life means, yet you still define human life as boiling down to just thinking and feeling under the guise of sentient. Your whole argument hangs on this definition yet you completely dismiss it as a concern? Im guessing that you didnt want to answer whether a human vegetable is alive because it corners your central thinking/feeling argument into a place you probably dont want to go. And yes, life does mean different things to different people which is why we are debating in the first place. It appears by your comments so far that your inability to understand the position of others is impeding in your ability to have a lively debate while still using intellectual honesty. I would like to continue this lively debate but this probably isn't going any further until your honest about the importance of defining human life.

When did I ever say I defined life as sentience? Sperm is life as far as I'm concerned. But even though sperm may be life it shouldn't be given the same rights as you and me because it is not sentient.

And I don't care whether you consider a human vegetable as life. It doesn't think or feel so it should be given the same rights as me.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by SeanL

But they are not a thinking feeling human yet and that is what I care about. I don't care if the cell is a zygote or not. That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction to me. The fact that it may one day be a baby is irrelevant. Just like the fact that a sperm may be a baby one day is irrelevant to me.

-------------------------------------------------

Do you really think I am against contraception? I was referring to Catholicism's argument. That's their argument. Not mine.

-------------------------------------------------

No it is true for everyone. You can't get prosecuted in the court of law for aborting a 4 week embryo. Just like you can't get prosecuted in a court of law for killing sperm with spermicide. Murder implies there are legal ramifications. There is not. my wife can have as many abortions as she likes and not get prosecuted. In our society aborting a 4 week embryo is not considered murder. That is not going to change any time soon, so that is something you are just going to have to deal with.

------------------------------------------------


When did I ever say I defined life as sentience? Sperm is life as far as I'm concerned. But even though sperm may be life it shouldn't be given the same rights as you and me because it is not sentient.

And I don't care whether you consider a human vegetable as life. It doesn't think or feel so it should be given the same rights as me.

My biggest problem with this typical liberal thinking that you are implying......is that it basically says that man makes the rules and decisions.

In our society we may not consider the killing of a 4 week old embryo murder, and I may have to accept that. Prior years back, the killing of a black wasn't considered murder because they weren't human. Last century, Hitler thought it was OK to kill Jews because they weren't human.

So I should think that all these law makers and judges are correct because they tell me that this embryo isn't human. They tell me that it can't feel -- but have no proof. They imply that they KNOW what is right and wrong.

Sorry, but that doesn't work from my experience, because anytime you say that man makes the rules -- then it is just up to which man is in power at the time and life becomes ruled by the ruthless.

Think taking a life is a little bit of a selfish act? Just curious, because everyone has to justify their own way.

[Murphy3]

Dalmation..good post. To me, that's the huge double standard with liberals as far as I'm concerned.. Anti death penalty but pro abortion? You're unwilling to protect the innocent, but you're more than willing to protect those guilty of the most heinous crimes?

Personally, I'm anti abortion and pretty much anti death penalty. Why am I against the death penalty? I just think that we are wrong too often. I can't wrap my head around wrongfully putting someone to death for murder only to find out that the person was innocent all along...

[GermanDunk]

Stupid question. Are Americans able to vote for another candidate ? Independent, Liberal, Green or so. Is there an alternative ?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by GermanDunk

Stupid question. Are Americans able to vote for another candidate ? Independent, Liberal, Green or so. Is there an alternative ?

NOt a stupid question at all. The direct answer is yes, they are free to vote for any candidate on the ballot, which often includes several candidates such as the ones you mentioned.

In practice, however, it is next to impossible for a candidate outside the two main parties to contend. Ross Perot made a decent run at it in 1992 (and to a lesser extent, 1996), but he is very much the exception, at least in last handful of decades or more.

[GermanDunk]

Hm, i see. I think the big TV stations and newspapers have already picked their darling.

I remember Perot. But not exactly.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

My biggest problem with this typical liberal thinking that you are implying......is that it basically says that man makes the rules and decisions.

In our society we may not consider the killing of a 4 week old embryo murder, and I may have to accept that. Prior years back, the killing of a black wasn't considered murder because they weren't human. Last century, Hitler thought it was OK to kill Jews because they weren't human.

So I should think that all these law makers and judges are correct because they tell me that this embryo isn't human. They tell me that it can't feel -- but have no proof. They imply that they KNOW what is right and wrong.

Sorry, but that doesn't work from my experience, because anytime you say that man makes the rules -- then it is just up to which man is in power at the time and life becomes ruled by the ruthless.

Think taking a life is a little bit of a selfish act? Just curious, because everyone has to justify their own way.

What do you mean "man makes the rules and decisions"? Who else would? Kind of a bizarre statement.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

Dalmation..good post. To me, that's the huge double standard with liberals as far as I'm concerned.. Anti death penalty but pro abortion? You're unwilling to protect the innocent, but you're more than willing to protect those guilty of the most heinous crimes?

Personally, I'm anti abortion and pretty much anti death penalty. Why am I against the death penalty? I just think that we are wrong too often. I can't wrap my head around wrongfully putting someone to death for murder only to find out that the person was innocent all along...

Clearly you did not read my post. Criminals are sentient, 4 week old embryos are not able to think and feel.

[SeanL]

Mitt Romney's Son Signed 'Abortion' Clause In Surrogate Birth Contract

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/09/20/mitt-r...#ixzz279RA5AHN

[Murphy3]

Originally Posted by SeanL

Clearly you did not read my post. Criminals are sentient, 4 week old embryos are not able to think and feel.

How did the magical cutoff become 4 weeks? Of course I read your post. I don't agree with it.

It's odd.. What is legalizing abortion? It's a justification for not wanting to take responsibility. It's sugar coating something horrific to justify someone that's unwilling to take responsibility for their actions (yes, I know there are a few exceptions to this such as rape). It's so unbelievable that we live in a time where something that is as barbaric as slavery is actually allowed by law. And yes, it is a horrific stain on mankind. Slavery was a horrific stain on America's past.. Abortion is a horrific stain on mankind. It is not a progressive issue. It is not "women's rights". Again, that is nothing more than a facade... and a pathetic justification.

I know alot of women feel guilty after an abortion. Good. They should feel guilty for the rest of their lives.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

How did the magical cutoff become 4 weeks? Of course I read your post. I don't agree with it.

That is an example. According to Roe v. Wade the government can't put restrictions on abortion up to the first trimester (12 weeks). And it is a scientific fact that embryos are not capable of any sort of significant sentient thought at that point because their brain is grossly underdeveloped.

You may not "agree with it" but those are the facts, and while you are entitled to your own opinion you are not entitled to your own facts.

Originally Posted by Murphy3

It's odd.. What is legalizing abortion? It's a justification for not wanting to take responsibility. It's sugar coating something horrific to justify someone that's unwilling to take responsibility for their actions (yes, I know there are a few exceptions to this such as rape). It's so unbelievable that we live in a time where something that is as barbaric as slavery is actually allowed by law. And yes, it is a horrific stain on mankind. Slavery was a horrific stain on America's past.. Abortion is a horrific stain on mankind. It is not a progressive issue. It is not "women's rights". Again, that is nothing more than a facade... and a pathetic justification.

So you want to use children as a sort of punishment? Using children as a form of punishment is sick. And why does a woman having sex deserve to be punished? Is there something wrong with women having sex purely for pleasure?

And having an abortion in the first trimester is about as awful as using the pill. No sentient being is being killed in either instance.

Originally Posted by Murphy3

I know alot of women feel guilty after an abortion. Good. They should feel guilty for the rest of their lives.

But most don't, or at least don't have any lingering psychological effects according to a scientific study:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan...rtion-20110127

[roadrunner]

Good read of an abortion debate...

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p10.htm

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

Good read of an abortion debate...

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p10.htm

I just knew that "Pro-Abortion" label at the top was a bad sign.

[Underdog]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0aNxzF7MAk

[spreedom]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I just knew that "Pro-Abortion" label at the top was a bad sign.

Yeah, I have a problem with anyone being given the title "Pro-Abortion".... plus, that discussion featured possibly the least prepared and articulate Pro-Life advocate I've ever heard of.

[Murphy3]

"Facts" and "science" change frequently. Whenever mankind knows all there is to know about biology, go ahead and get back to me. How often are "facts" changed because of a new discovery? How often do we do one thing because of the beliefs of science only to be told to do something else in the future? Dear God, just look at suggested eating habits.... Don't tell me that hasn't changed over the years..constantly. Do all "scientists" 100% agree on that? Of course not.

So if you want to throw around big words such as science and facts, make sure you understand that the facts of science are ever changing..

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Murphy3

"Facts" and "science" change frequently. Whenever mankind knows all there is to know about biology, go ahead and get back to me. How often are "facts" changed because of a new discovery? How often do we do one thing because of the beliefs of science only to be told to do something else in the future? Dear God, just look at suggested eating habits.... Don't tell me that hasn't changed over the years..constantly. Do all "scientists" 100% agree on that? Of course not.

So if you want to throw around big words such as science and facts, make sure you understand that the facts of science are ever changing..

The fact that you think science and facts are big words is part of the problem.

And yes science changes, but normally it builds on itself. Yes there are instances where well "known" facts completely change, but normally those changes are mere improvements of previous theories.

For example, Newton's laws of motion are actually not "correct", as Einstein showed with the special theory of relativity matter changes its behavior as it approaches the speed of light. In fact even though it is a theory your iPhone would not work without the special theory of relativity, so there is an algorithm for the GPS in your iPhone that adjusts for what the theory of relativity calls "time dilation."

Does that mean Newton's laws of motion are trash? No of course not. While it is wrong in a sense it is still a building block towards the next scientific achievement (the theory of relativity). And for the purposes of high school physics Newton's equations work relatively well (because the effects of time dilation are extremely small in slow moving objects). And I'm sure one day some great scientist will improve our current understanding of motion.

Now is the scientific method perfect? No, nothing is, but as Winston Churchill said of democracy, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." The scientific method has been shown to be the best system for gathering facts, and until something better comes along it is foolish to not accept that it is currently the best thing out there for gathering evidence.

[Murphy3]

Wow, obviously I'm not dogging the scientific method.. I'm not quite sure how you made that leap. This is exactly why it's difficult to carry on a conversation with an extremist from either side. They're pretty much incapable of doing so without grossly distorting the other side's position to benefit their own stance.