CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 17
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 16
Total: 16

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Notice how none of this has anything to do with abortion?

I love it when the posts that deal directly w/abortion are never addressed, that speaks louder than anything else that could possibly be said.

Your opinion is that you believe that abortion is permissible and morally justifiable, therefore abortion cannot be murder. Fine. we all get that. That is your "objective" opinion shaped by whatever morals you do or do not have regardless of how you did or did not get them. You've made it clear that you did not get your opinion from the Bible, the 2 premises, nor the 8 logical and moral arguments against abortion (the latter two which I have no idea why you brought them up, maybe just to razzle-dazzle us uneducated knuckle-dragging Christian neanderthal hicks I suppose).

But back to your point:

opponents of abortion are motivated by their religious beliefs.

You can't say that with any kind of authority. Who knows, maybe most of us are influenced to oppose abortion by values that just materialized out of thin air, just like you. Or maybe we have knowledge of kicking and breathing babies who have the brains sucked out of their heads as they emerge from the womb and see this as a callous and morally unjustifiable taking of innocent human life. You don't have to be religious to be outraged by this. Just a human being. Therefore you can't claim that mine is not an objective standard of evaluation.

But here is the kicker. This is what compelled you to chime in on the whole topic, and it really has nothing to do with abortion, so I don't even see why you turned it into an abortion debate. We all could guess that you are pro-abortion, so let's forget about abortion for the rest of this thread and discuss why you think that...

...Because religious doctrines are based on personal and subjective beliefs not subject to objective standards of evaluation most Americans do not believe that religious beliefs should be enforced by government legislation.

Religious doctrines are not enforced by government legislation. Ideally, the values of the majority of a society are.

Religious doctrines may shape the values of the majority. But then again, television may shape the values of the majority. Newspapers can shape the values of the majority. Science may shape the values of the majority. Advertisers can shape the values of the majority. Judging from the last election, MoveOn.org can shape the values of the majority. All subjective and personal I should think.

My point is that we can't go through and decide which laws get enforced by government legislation and which don't, based on where the value system originated. And we can't single out and exclude one set of values just because they happen to be Christian. The values of the majority are the values of the majority and we are all vulnerable to the subjective personal beliefs of whatever institution puts those values into the heads of the constituency.

Yes, you can resist. Welcome to democracy.

Ideological Sceptic Posted: Thursday, Jul 12, 2007 05:37 pm    


 I’ve observed the Right to Life movement since 1976.
This is the first honest set of pictures I’ve seen from RTL. **Since the pro-choice movement  would never let you see this
The use of the quarter to give a perspective on size is refreshing.   ?

** I would use the term "appalling"....****

This video is on a religious website --

*** it was the only site that actually had these images... again the secular population that supports random unhindered abortion access would never let these images be seen... too nauseating to reveal about the truth of the atrocity of the procedure. ****

making more vivid the point that opponents of abortion are motivated by their religious beliefs.

** Actually I was motivated by the images of a mutilated human entity... not my religious belief ... I am motivated by the DNA science of the issue first.... because Neonates are my patient population and I am disgusted at the hypocrisy of abortion proponents getting the last word in on what is  or is not "human" ... These infants were no less human, scientfically DNA speaking than you are IS... yet the abortion proponents continue to scream about "female body rights" without giving any creedance to the female body rights they are mutilating. ****

Because religious doctrines are based on personal and subjective beliefs not subject to objective standards of evaluation most Americans do not believe that religious beliefs should be enforced by government legislation.

mmmm So if 'murder" being  in the original 10 commandments (you know that other religious doctrine)  is a "religious belief " why is the government legislation  enforcing it in other situations ... ie Bobbie Cutts PD offing his pregnant girlfriend.?

** I'll leave the Moral question out of it for now after all apparently your moral relativism is vastly different from mine.... and for now is "irrelevant" or as secular humanist might like to say ... "there is no "absolute truth"... by the way... is that statement "Absolutely true"...mmmmm ponder that for a while.

**As I said I'm interested in the scientifac DNA reasoning for why we justify eliminating certain vulnerable members of our society based on their  inability to speak for themselves vs cultural desire to eliminate something human that is unwanted..... I believe this is called "ethnic cleansing" in many regions.
Allowing women unfettered access to cleanse themselves of an unwanted child.

For Me... Regulate the Hell out of it.... More laws, more restrictions, more accountablity for those whom spread there legs at will.

In Freedom

That's why the book "Godless" was written it describes the left for exactly who they are.

{quote]

So if 'murder" being in the original 10 commandments (you know that other religious doctrine) is a "religious belief " why is the government legislation enforcing it

[/quote]

I’m not certain what your point is here but there are lots of beliefs that a both secular and religious. With respect to morality, there are numerous moral systems that argue for the rational necessity of a maxim prohibiting killing of innocent persons.

your moral relativism is vastly different from mine

I don’t know what sort of moral relativist you are but I distinguish extreme forms of moral relativism from modest forms – I subscribe to a modest form only because I haven’t found that any form of moral absolutism holds water. If someone should show be a substantive moral absolute (other than one that is empty and merely true by definition) then I would immediately abandon even modest relativism.

"there is no "absolute truth"... by the way... is that statement "Absolutely true"...mmmmm ponder that for a while.

This is an entirely different matter. Yes there are all sorts of absolute truths – It is absolutely true that the word ‘word’ in the English language as we spell it today is composed of four letters and spelled with a  ‘w’, an ‘o’, an ‘r’, and a ‘d’.  

Of course you might argue that this is a relativized absolute truth – relative, that is, to how we spell the word these days. So, I would suggest that 2+2 = 4 is an absolute truth that obtains no matter what base you use, what language is used, and no matter the time or the place.

these infants were no less human, scientfically DNA speaking than you are IS... yet the abortion proponents continue to scream about "female body rights" without giving any creedance to the female body rights they are mutilating. ****

Every cell in the human body has the human genetic code – but no one would consider that having human DNA is sufficient for having rights. Whether or not women have a right to determine what happens to their own bodies is a completely different matter.

You are critical of  women or exercise their "female body rights" without giving any creedance to the female body rights they are mutilating

I think a better word is consideration – without giving any consideration to the rights of the embryo. This frequently happens when people exercise their rights—we give very little consideration to other people who may be affected by our decisions.

When someone does something e.g.,  accepts a job offer – it means that someone else didn’t get that job.  If I buy the last potato in the bin it means that someone else won’t get it.

Judith Jarvis Thompson back in 1971 wrote “A Defense of Abortion” which, I believe, is the most widely read and most widely reprinted article ever written on abortion. She argues that even if the embryo has a right to life that abortion is still morally permissible.

Her argument (do a Google search and you’ll find it) met with a number of criticisms which she was unable to answer. She abandoned the argument. But I believe those criticism can be met and that the argument is actually successful.

In other words, even if we grant that the embryo has a right to life and even if we take that right into consideration or give it full credence it still does not follow that abortion is morally wrong.

Women have has much right to control their bodies as I have to control mine.

No one has a right to use my body for their own interests unless I agree to let them use it. Some other person with a full right to life may require to use my kidneys, my bone marrow, or my heart in order to continue living. It makes no difference what they need from my body. No one has a right to use it or any of my body parts unless I explicitly consent to let them use it. The same right of bodily autonomy extends to women.

There are several objections to this argument. I think each one can be overcome.

 

LA. Becomes First State to Outlaw Late-Term Abortion Procedure

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BATON ROUGE --Louisiana became the first state to outlaw a late-term abortion procedure today, when Gov. Kathleen Blanco approved legislation allowing doctors to be prosecuted for performing the surgery.

The new law allows so-called "partial birth" abortions in only one situation: when failure to perform it would endanger the mother's life. The procedure would be a crime in all other cases, even if the pregnancy is expected to cause health problems for the mother.

The Democratic governor signed two bills - by Rep. Gary Beard, R-Baton Rouge, and Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa - that create criminal penalties for doctors who perform the surgery: fines of between $1,000 and $10,000, and jail terms of between one and 10 years. The statute is parallel to the federal ban that President Bush signed into law in 2003, upheld in April by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawmakers in other states are expected to consider similar bans. Louisiana is the first to enact one.

The procedure is the subject of angry debate between anti-abortion groups, who support state bans, and abortion-rights groups, who opposed the federal ban and have fought state bans, including the Louisiana legislation.

Planned Parenthood officials argued against the Louisiana ban in legislative committee hearings, but received a chilly response from lawmakers. Only a handful of legislators voted against either bill.

Anti-abortion activists call the procedure "partial-birth abortion"; surgeons and abortion rights activists call it "dilation and extraction." It involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion.

Blanco has also signed legislation requiring that all women seeking an abortion be notified that fetuses can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation, and doctors who perform the procedure to discuss the availability of painkillers for fetuses.

Supporters said the bill, by Rep. A.G. Crowe, R-Slidell, would provide important information to women seeking abortions - and that it could help stop abortions. Opponents say doctors don't agree on whether fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks.
 

Democrats Pledge Support For Wide Access to Abortion

By Mike Dorning
Washington Bureau
Published July 18, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Elizabeth Edwards said Tuesday that her husband's health-care plan would provide insurance coverage of abortion.

Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband's health-care proposal as "a true universal health-care plan" that would cover "all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination," referring to abortion.

Edwards was joined by Democratic candidates Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) at the group's political organizing conference in addressing issues at the core of the political clash between cultural liberals and conservatives, including abortion rights, access to contraception and sex education.

The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on a late-term abortion procedure that opponents call "partial-birth abortion" has increased anxieties among reproductive-rights advocates over the future of constitutional protections for abortion rights. All three of the Democratic campaigns used the forum to signal their determination to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would uphold the 1973 Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling.

Obama, who earlier gained the endorsement of Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty, offered the group a vision of equal opportunity for women, tying a call for improved access to contraceptives for low-income women with a call for an "updated social contract" that includes paid maternity leave and expanded school hours.

Asked about his proposal for expanded access to health insurance, Obama said it would cover "reproductive-health services." Contacted afterward, an Obama spokesman said that included abortions.

Clinton has not yet released her health-care proposal. She provided a bruising critique of Bush administration policies and Republican conservatives on abortion rights and contraception policy.

She criticized cuts in contraception services for low-income women, lengthy delays in approving over-the-counter sales of the "morning-after" contraceptive pill and redirection of sex education funds to abstinence-only programs that do not include information on contraceptive use or condoms toto prevent the spread of AIDS.

 

Princeton Prof.: Pro-Abortion Catholics Worse than Pedophile Priests
 
Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2007 12:08 a.m. EDT
 
A Princeton professor warns that prominent pro-abortion Catholics pose a greater danger to their Church then the scandal of pedophile priests.

Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence and director of Princeton’s James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, writes in the ecumenical magazine First Things:

"Nothing undermines the cause of justice and cultural reform and renewal more than the bad example of prominent Catholics who have made themselves instruments of what Pope John Paul II bluntly described as ‘the culture of death.’

"The scandal given by these individuals over the past 30 years, particularly with respect to the exposure of the unborn to abortion and, more recently, embryo-destructive research, is far greater in its cultural effects even than the horrific – the word is not too strong – scandal of clergy sex abuse.”

George acknowledges that clergy sex scandals and the widely publicized cash settlements threaten to cause Catholics to "lose confidence in the reliability of the Church as a teacher of truth, particularly in the moral domain.”

complete story

Storage Co.'s Pro-Choice Billboard Causes Uproar

Ad Featuring Coat Hanger Adds Fuel To Heated Debate

Brendan Keefe
Reporting

(CBS) NEW YORK They're ads you may have seen around New York City. They're supposed to be promoting storage, but they have a political and comical edge to them.

But their latest ad doesn't have too many people laughing.

Its billboards have always been edgy, but has Manhattan Mini Storage gone over the edge?

The ad causing controversy depicts a coat hanger and takes a stance on abortion, along with the slogan: "Your closet space is shrinking as fast as her right to choose."

Needless to say, it didn't take long for the backlash to come.

"These billboards, we think they're absolutely disgusting," said Kiera McCaffrey of the Catholic League.

complete story

Scientists Say Abortion Pill No Riskier Than Surgical Termination

16 Aug 2007  

A new study on Danish women has shown that using abortion pills to terminate pregnancies during the first trimester is no more hazardous to future pregnancies than surgical terminations.

The study is published in the New England Journal of Medicine and is the work of scientists in Denmark and the US.

Abortion pills, also called medical abortions, are being used more and more by women to terminate unwanted pregnancies during the first trimester but there is little evidence of how this affects the safety of future pregnancies.

However, surgical abortion is still preferred by most women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy that they wish to terminate.

In the surgical method the woman is admitted to hospital and the procedure is performed using a vacuum pump or syringe to remove the fetus from the womb. In this method there is very little risk that embryonic material is left in the womb.

In the medical or pill based method, the woman takes one tablet of mifespristone (the drug's experimental name was RU-486 and many people still use this term) and then four or so misoprostol pills a day or two later.

The first pill, the mifepristone, is a synthetic steroid that destabilizes the tissue that joins the embryo to the uterus. The pills taken later, the misoprostol, cause the uterus to contract and expel the fetus. The procedure is different in different countries.

However, there is a slight risk with the medical method that embryonic material can remain in the womb, and there are mixed views about whether the woman should have an exam to make sure the fetus has been properly expelled. In Europe for example, women must be kept under medical observation, whereas this is not required in the US.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone for use in medical abortions in 2000. It is only approved for use in the first 49 days of gestation.

In the US, between 2000 and 2004, some 360,000 women used the mifepristone and misoprostol abortion method to carry out abortions.

complete article

Tweet

A new study on Danish women has shown that using abortion pills to terminate pregnancies during the first trimester is no more hazardous to future pregnancies than surgical terminations.

What do you think of this?

And, thanks for the post -- I hadn't seen it before.

As a pregnant woman with 2 boys... expecting my girl in December    I find the whole thing sad..    that rather than use the correct protection ( I know some do and still get pregnant) they would prefer to 'off' their own offspring.

We just had our 20 wk ultrasound last Tuesday and it is always a wonderment for me to see the little one drinking fluid, sucking thumb, moving around and dodging the sonographer..... 10 fingers 10 toes, 2 arms and legs. little ears and nose and strong heartbeat... all before the age of viability.

I really think their is something wrong  with people who ignore the natural parenting instincts that comes with pregnancy.. and put themselves ahead of their babe.
In parental freedom and enjoying every minute.

 

Well congrats American Woman and The Tweets' hope everything goes fine you all of you.

What do you think of this?

Thanks to the American Woman I don't believe it would've been possible for me to articulate my words any better.

Kansas Planned Parenthood Clinic Charged With Providing Unlaw Abortions

KANSAS CITY, Mo.
Oct 17, 5:08 PM

A Planned Parenthood clinic was charged Wednesday with providing unlawful abortions and other crimes by a county prosecutor who had engaged in a high-profile battle with the clinic when he was Kansas attorney general.

Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline charged the Overland Park, Kan., clinic with 107 counts, 23 of them felonies. Besides 29 misdemeanor counts of providing unlawful late-term abortions, the clinic is charged with multiple counts of making a false writing, failure to maintain records and failure to determine viability.

complete article

http://www.slideboom.com/presentations/33224/Abortion