rcdrury

8 hours ago, TriGirl said:

Jerry -- I have read through the entire thread, and see where it has gone.  While I, in no uncertain terms, totally agree with what this valedictorian ultimately said, I'm going to have to disagree with her tactics.  Yes, I agree with her message. Yes, I agree with her passion.  Yes, I absolutely agree that this law is dangerous and hurtful.

But those are similar arguments for anyone who wants to pull the same stunt to speak out about other issues.  Notice the spirited debate this thread has sparked.  Imagine if she had used this tactic to speak against parents allowing gender transition for pre-teens?  Just because we agree with her doesn't make her any less brave than the religious teen who slips in a speech about their god instead of the programmed remarks.

Personally, I think the issue of irresponsible TV and media abuse is also a serious, worthy, and courageous topic to address in these out-of-control times.  It affects the health, well-being and prosperity of our country and the possible survival of the republic.  Again, though so many of us do agree that her final topic is worthy of national attention, so is her original topic.  If we let her go without consequences for this tactic, it opens the door for any kid with their own issue to do the same thing.

I agree; however, not necessarily with your chosen illustration. I believe that a student who swaps her approved speech for a strong religious diatribe would be out of line, but simply injecting one's God as a personal motivation as part of one's own success story is absolutely appropriate. Something like that should not be an issue, as it should not be stricken from the speech to begin, but if it were, I would applaud the student for his or her standing up on principle.

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Basic biology and the law both say differently. It has a potential to become a human. You don't have the courage to say if rape victims can have an abortion or not. I have to assume that is because you understand that the answer would destroy your premise.

Basic biology does not say differently, and the law doesn't say at all. Regardless of whatever euphemistic terminology you wish to apply, the fetus is a biologically complete organism, and it is undeniably genetically human. As far as the rights of rape victims to have an abortion, I did indeed address my feelings on that in a previous post. Rape was one of several examples where I am personally opposed to abortion but where I think it is reasonable to compromise.

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Absolutely!  And a kidney is a living part of a human organism.  Neither a kidney nor an 8 week old fetus can live outside the body, though.

 

But an 8 week old fetus, or a five-second old fetus, is an ENTIRE human organism; not a part of one.

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

Is your goal to reduce the number of abortions, or just to make abortion illegal?  If you had to choose one or the other, which would it be?

I'd be tempted to respond with "reduce the number of abortions," but there are a lot of other variables at work here. It's not that simple. 

4 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Then your opinion is moot. It means you are merely echoing some religious doctrine and have no courage of conviction.

Nope; just objective reality.

10 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

No one ever said that a woman can not be patriarchal. You ignored the question last time, so I'll ask again. Is abortion allowed in your personal moral code for a woman who is pregnant by rape?

I never involve my personal moral code in these discussions.

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

I thought you were a NSA spy?... In any event you're wrong as usual.

I never claimed to be a spy, and I never worked directly for NSA. I worked for Mike Hayden shortly before he took over NSA. He was commander of Air Intelligence Agency and the director of the Joint Information Operations Center, to which I was assigned. I wasn't a spy, but a program manager. I did in fact run several programs that involved NSA and CIA analysts.

As far as my being "wrong," neither you nor anyone else has yet established that; except billvon nailed me on some spelling errors.

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

But the fact remains that there are several proven ways to reduce abortion:

Baloney! The only ones of those that could in any way be causal are sex education and birth control; neither of which conserves typically oppose. I say "typically" because there is a very small minority of folks who have issues with them.

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

Again, there is nothing in that to claim that therefore a fertilized egg cell is a child.

Po-tay-to; pa-tah-to. A fertilized egg is a living human organism. Throw in whatever silly term you wish to justify the unjustified selfish murder.

16 minutes ago, billvon said:

Trying to make that silly semantic argument - that every dead body is therefore a living person - would leave you looking pretty foolish, right?

It sure would, but what's you're point. Are you suggesting that a "fetus" is not a living human organism? Even an abortionist MD would not agree with that.

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

Abortions are "innocent children" to you, but miscarriages are not.

Miscarried children are too; however, they died of natural causes. Not relevant to the discussion.

43 minutes ago, billvon said:

So aborted fetuses are not relevant to a discussion about abortion.

Bless your heart.

No; this discussion is about intentionally aborted fetuses. Other than proper prenatal care, we have no control over miscarriages. Please don't play stupid.

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

lol, ok.

 

So you feel it is in the government's purview to force every unwanted child to be born, but not in the government's purview to provide any care for said unwanted child. You believe this to be a great system, cause you care about children so much?

Not remotely close to my statement. You're reading in a lot. I've already stated conservatives' strong support for effective social programs.

34 minutes ago, billvon said:

No, it doesn't.  The biological term for a child before it is born is a fetus.  So biology (and medical science in general) explicitly state that a fetus is not a child before it's born.

Geneology?  Did you mean genealogy, the graphing of lines of descent for a family of related people?  Sorry, again, genealogy explicitly does NOT record aborted fetuses - whether they abort naturally or artificially.  Check one out for yourself.

So, is that how you're going to attempt to discredit my arguments; spelling and semantic errors? 

Your first statement contradicts itself. It states that "the biological term for a CHILD before it is born is a fetus." You then go on to state that biology "explicitly state[s] that a fetus is not a child before it's born. No, it doesn't; it simply refers to a term describing the prenatal stages of development. There is no specific denial of its status as a child, and certainly not as a human being.

I guess you can suggest that genealogy's emphasis is more historical than genetic, but then you're again just grabbing at straws to change the subject. Let's go with "genetics." Now, feel free to give that one your best shot.

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

You don't have to be religious to be patriarchal. But it sure helps.

Nothing "patriarchal" here; literally hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of women agree.

9 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

her body, her business, period, no exceptions. 

I totally agree; but again, this discussion isn't about HER body.

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

You can't really tell by the examples you give. But you can tell by the fact that once the children are born, the GOP doesn't really give a shit anymore.

• Universal healthcare: nope
• Subsidized daycare: nope
• Education: only decent if you can pay for it
• Food security: don't be so damn lazy
• etc. etc.

They claim to care about children, but they really stop caring once a child is born. That is how you know this is really only about controlling women. The American Right is no different from any of the Muslim extremist regimes: control through religion.

 

They don't give a shit? Incorrect; they care greatly, they just realize that some things are not rightly within the government purview, and that some things that sound good simply aren't.

Universal healthcare:  I am a behavioral economist who deals with healthcare funding issues for the bulk of my work week. Univeral healthcare is only viable where it exists because it is effectively subsidized by the American medical community that has been at least partially responsible for every major medical advancement over the last century; and by the American people who rely on and support that system.  The moment health care is "free" in the US, it ceases to be viable anywhere on the planet.

With the exception of education, each of the items you named, including health care, is a simply a consumer good; nothing more. Conservatives are strong advocates of a viable, responsible safety net for all of them; however, we do not endorse counterproductive handouts that make people unnecessarily dependent upon the state. As for education, the left has completely taken over. They own all of those problems.

20 hours ago, billvon said:

And yet the ~40% of "living human children" that are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body are just  . . . ignored.  Like they never existed.

It's almost as if you have two sets of standards!

No; they're just not relevant to the discussion. Prolifers are absolutely for prenatal and fetal health, but some simply don't make it. It's an unfortunate reality. But nice try.

20 hours ago, ryoder said:

You know the rules:

The GOP is all about preserving life, right up to the moment of birth;

After that it's every man for himself.

Not even close to true. No party or political entity is stronger in its support for viable and responsible social programs designed to get people back on their feet and self-reliant.

20 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Are you a true believer in "life beginning at conception"? Or are you one of those fake believers who would make exceptions for cases of rape and incest?

Great question! I am absolutely one of those "true believers." I would endorse abortion of a viable pregnancy under any circumstances, but I can certainly compromise my position regarding legislation. I consider compromises surrounding rape, incest, life of the mother, and such to be quite drastic, but I would be willing to make them out of a sense of fair play. So much for the "extremist" allegations.

9 hours ago, sfzombie13 said:

o me, it isn't a child until you can leave it alone for a while (a few hours) without it dying.

So, quite possibly several months after birth. Got it. [eyeroll]

2 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Maybe forced vasectomies for men who abandon children (even pre-birth ones), or at the very least forced paternity tests. After all, if the woman has to have her body invaded, why shouldn't the man?

I have no problem with that, as long as due process is exercised.

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

 

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I can assure you that the woman's commitment to a pregnancy has more impact than a man's does...

All great points; and all irrelevant as to the "fetus'" biological standing or right to live. Let's address all of them; but let the innocent child live in the meantime.

4 hours ago, kallend said:

If they were people they'd be given a SocSec number, be counted in the census, be eligible for a passport and would be a tax deduction.

Hey, works for me!