Politics Obama - Actually doing a good job?

Except a fetus doesn't exist at conception. Ever hear the terms zygote and embryo?

 

Yeah, I saw a lady screaming on the Tee Vee the other day that the judge who approved the morning after pill for all women over OTC should be shot for being a murder because he would be responsible for all the dead fetus' that resulted by his actions. I thought 'wow these folks really don't believe in science.' Of course I'd bet even money she has a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur on her kitchen wall so...

 

Point taken. I used the word "fetus" incorrectly. However, my point is that there are differing views of when human life begins. It think we should have a clear and consistent view on this point from a legal point of view.
--- merged: Apr 17, 2013 at 12:04 PM ---

I think we could reach an agreement, because in theory we agree there is a point when a person is too young and a point when they are not. I also support a judicial process that could give a teenager a way to address these issues in circumstance where parental involvement would cause or is a problem.

I agree. I also do not understand why adoption has such a high cost, outside of family adoption or in some cases foster care adoptions. If government is to subsidize anything this would be a good place to start.
--- merged: Apr 17, 2013 at 12:07 PM ---

Would you ever restrict the option of abortion and if so, when? To DC's point when does being against abortion become an extreme position? Would there be an equal extreme at the other end of the spectrum, if so when?
--- merged: Apr 17, 2013 at 12:10 PM ---

Right, we can always find these kinds of people on any issue. I bet there are still people who believe Elvis is still alive.
--- merged: Apr 17, 2013 at 12:17 PM ---

You say shouldn't be involved, do you really believe they should not be able to advocate for their point of view? At what point do you see a problem with this type of view point? In a country mostly Hindu, would you want to restrict their involvement in laws that may protect cows in certain ways (as if I need to say this, I am not equating cows to abortion or the Hindu religion to any other religion, or the validity of the views held by Hindus - the issue I am addressing is religious fundamentalists being involved in drafting laws - there are thousands of example I can come up with to illustrate my question).

 

When does a human being become a human being?
Is there a scientific answer to this question?
Is it possible for reasonable people to disagree on a scientific basis?

My position is that I do not know, scientifically, when human life begins. I believe there is a basis for a clear scientific argument during the late stages of a pregnancy based on viability outside of the womb but that otherwise there can be disagreement. It is also my view that our scientific basis of knowledge on this question increases over time and that we can do things to sustain life outside the womb that we could not do in the past and based on that our views on abortion should adjust accordingly.

Currently, I would not object to the legality of abortion under the above circumstance.

Given you do not believe in God, I understand your point of view. But for those who do (the overwhelming majority in one way or another) the relationship with Humanity and God is a special relationship that goes beyond the limits of scientific knowledge. Personally I believe people do have "souls" and that the essence of what makes each person unique transcends time and place. A purposeful disruption of an individuals unique relationship with God is immoral. This is primarily the basis of my views against taking innocent human life.

How do you form your basis against taking innocent life?
Do you perceive human life different than other forms of life?
Do you perceive animal life different than plant life, why or why not?

One thing I won't do, regardless of how you respond, is to call your views "ridiculous". I realize that when you use the term you are most likely not trying to be offensive, but to many these kinds of questions are taken very seriously and that some of the worlds greatest thinkers address these issues and have come to some of the conclusions labeled as "ridiculous" . It is far to easy to make fun of those who can not artfully articulate their point of view on this question. However there is a greater more thoughtful challenge in this debate.

 

This is starting to get a bit circular. I think some people are looking to clearly define when human life begins making that the basis for the legality of abortion or the illegality of abortion. I accept the scientific argument, however, there is a religious argument as well. Neither is ridiculous. Many laws have a basis is religion rather than science and they all are not ridiculous - however, I would agree that in some cases the appearance can seem ridiculous. In addition, I draw my lines, as you do and as everyone else does. For example I believe men and women are equal in the eye of God some don't agree and I would not support any law on the religious basis that women be treated as second class citizens in the law. But, I am not going to look a person in the eye and tell them that thousands of years of their religious beliefs are "ridiculous" (assuming I know what you mean by using the word).

Again, getting circular. People are trying to change the law. I too look for a clear consistent view and definition. I think we should have one national standard, one law. This is not a question for individual states. How is it in Canada?

 

One popular anti-abortion argument is that abortion increases the likelihood of breast cancer and/or depression and suicide. Yet, there is no credible medical or scientific data to support this argument.

Not only is it ridiculous, but it is blatantly dishonest to teach this to young women as factual.

Much like the religious right opposition to gay marriage...in part, because evidently it is a gateway to bestiality and/or pedophilia and a threat to children and the institution of marriage (as opposed to the adultery and divorce of many of these same religious extremists).

This is ridiculous.

Much like the Republican member of the House Science/Technology Committee who believes that "evolutionary science is the work of the devil."

Ridiculous.

Ace, we're not a theocracy (at least, not yet).
--- merged: Apr 29, 2013 at 4:22 PM ---
On the lighter side, Obama admitted at the WH Correspondents Dinner this past weekend that he is "not the strapping young Muslim Socialist that I used to be."



But is it enough to convince the nearly one in three Republicans who believe he is Muslim or nearly two in three who believe he is a Socialist?

Probably not. Their ridiculous beliefs will not be shaken.

 

You tell me when human life begins and then I can see your point.

Personally I think the punishment for murdering a pregnant woman is a double murder. I further believe the liability exposure, criminal or tort, should be greater to include the harm to the unborn.

 

What??? If your point is that there are misinformed people, I got that. There are misinformed conservatives and liberals. If your point is that there are people who incorrectly interpret data points, I got that too. Again, liberals and conservatives do it - religious and non-religious. If your point is that some people use hyperbolic claims to score political points, I got that as well. I am almost sure Ryan does not want to push anyone's granny over a cliff!

It would be nice if you followed the discussions here based on what is posted rather than making shit up to respond to.

 

it seems to me that the basic differend about the ethics around abortion make it nigh on impossible for the religious right to impose their views on others. they are, of course, free to live by them. oppose abortion? don't have one. seems pretty simple.

 

My view of human life is based on my religious beliefs. I think human life begins at conception even-though I know it is not provable and that it would be unreasonable for legal punitive action be taken based on my view. I do not know scientifically when human life begins - that is why I keep asking.

 

Personally, I have this thing about protecting those who can not protect themselves.

Please don't tell me my economic views contradict what I write above, they don't. I think my economic view best serves those in need.
--- merged: Apr 29, 2013 at 5:10 PM ---

I don't understand your question. Or, I don't think it is for me to judge.

If you want to know what the difference between a human is compared to other life forms - my view again is a religious based view that there is a unique relationship between the human race and God. I believe all other life forms on earth are meant to serve man through the purposes ordained by God. this is getting pretty philosophical and I am betting if it continues I will be called on changing the subject. Where do you want to go with this before it gets to far?