Wow, now that's a stretch. I hope you use your tile-setting mind more than your legal mind. ;)

You better first figure out how many organic cells are needed for that word to be used.

Were you ever a clump of organic cells?...Don't bull***** yourself with that backwards nonsense double-speak, DD74; you should be smart enough not to be made a fool of.

Outlawing abortion is good for women, good for children and good for society...Abortion is bad for women, bad for men, murder for children and an abomination to a civilized society.

I tend to agree with dd74.

A subgroup of all abortions are executed on medical grounds. Within this group I believe an abortion is a responsible choice. And that goes for aborting life sustaining treatments on premature, severely sick babies too.

In my line of work I see the grotesque consequences of 'life at all costs' principal. Babies born three months too early, with sever brain damage from underdevelopment, brain insults and epileptic daily activity. Severe lung decease. Babies doomed to in best case a few years of life in total misery, hospital bound, tubes everywhere, can´t eat them selves, no worthy life.

We ought to consider standing down when its needed.

Lubemaster, you handled your Q&A with your son perfectly. Do not let any of this banter lead you to think otherwise. Its easy to type on a keyboard and tell someone what they "should" have said in hindsight.

I am anti-abortion, pro choice, personally I do not like it and would never condone it with my wife or anyone in my life. BUT, not everyone believes the same as I do morally. Therefore it would be wrong for me to impose my beliefs on someone else. That is between them and whatever supreme being they choose to worship, if they even believe in that. The day the government can dictate laws based on moral beliefs is the day this coutry takes its first step towards how we can worship. Once that starts we all need to be worried because we will be on our way to state run churches.

I dont' think a fetus at less than three months gestation has a brain to think that.

Actually, a lot of abortion rights groups made a lot of noise about Peterson being charged with two counts of murder. In a sick way, I sort of enjoyed watching them wrestle with the issue of being so anti-violence-against-women, while wanting the murdered fetus charge tossed, so as to not give ammunition to the pro-life folks who claim a fetus is a life, deserving full protection under the law.

Current abortion law is nothing more than a decision by the SCOTUS, and while it is technically the law of the land, it was quite a stretch then and even plenty of pro-choice judges today think it's an invented right and was a poor interpretation of the law. I'd much rather have abortion voted on as a law in Congress, or better yet, in the states, than see the SCOTUS try to invent rights that appear nowhere in the Constitution.

You don't think we have any sort of right to privacy? Can anyone look into my windows and peer at me legally, at any time?

Abortion law has nothing to do with others looking in your windows. Don't try to equate the two. And no, there is no right to privacy in the Const. We may all like to have such a law and we can write our Congressmen or state legislators for such. But it's not in the Const.

The true conservatives respect incividual rights above all and support personal responsibility and a right to privacy.

The neo-conned do not respect individual rights and are willing to sacrifice (your) personal responsibility and privacy to the State in return for promises of safety.

I have never understood this argument that because a child has Down's syndrome they should have been aborted. Tell that to all the parents with Down's syndrome kids who love them to death and wouldn't trade them for the world.

Same thing for this "the kid will be poor and underpriviledged anyways so let's just abort it". Amazing logic there. The kid might have a rough life so lets just kill it before it has a chance.

And let's not get medical abortions mixed up with elective abortions. They are two different animals and should not be confused in an argument.

I think Lube answered the question perfectly. He was honest and straightforward with his kid. If you want to say it's a choice, then fine...just don't try and sugar coat it to make yourself feel better about your position. Elective abortion is killing a viable fetus, one that will develop into a human being if given the chance. That's the fact, plain and simple.

No, abortion law and looking into windows are not the same. However, they both have a common thread....right to privacy.

I am not comparing the two issues, I'm pointing out that both have to do with right to privacy. Why do we have the right to privacy with our windows?

Remember the question asked of Dan Quayle when he was running for VP: "what if your teen daughter was assaulted and raped and impregnated?"

Suddenly all his pro-life views went out the window.

It's strict moral policy until it's personal.

And, although nobody here wants to bring it up, most might be surprised by the number of pregnancies caused by incest. I'm not in favor of forcing a child to carry a baby to term under either circumstance.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Son Asked “Dad, whats Abortion?”
 

Seems to me if 50% of this country is against abortion then either there are a lot of hypocrits or the other 50% is VERY busy getting abortions.

I worked with a Neo-Con who was dead set against abortion (and voted party lines based on this stance) until one of his kegger bimbos called to tell him she was 2 months late. Guess the 1st words out of his mouth?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Son Asked “Dad, whats Abortion?”
 

Exactly. Most people I know who are in that category politically are completely unable to subjectivize. The are absolutely certain of what's right for everyone else, but unable to imagine themselves in that position.

I don't want to see a universal ban on abortion by any means. I just think it's a gross perversion of justice to have the SCOTUS invent a right that doesn't exist by interpreting the 14th Amendment's use of the word "person" to not cover the unborn. How do states get away with an extra charge of murder when someone kills a pregnant woman?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My Son Asked “Dad, whats Abortion?”
 

It seems that the same ones against abortion rights are also willing to say there is no poverty in the USA, and that no one goes hungry. Difficult situations to imagine unless you have experienced them first hand.

unable to imagine themselves in that position ...................this phrase answers most narrow mined views which are often born of ignornace and self denial.

boy, the crickets sure chirped in response to this one...

No, I am not against abortion rights IF the law is passed by a legislatiure and not invented by a court.

However, there is no poverty in the US by rest-of-world definition. Poverty in the US is a state of mind. Having just come back from China for the second time, the kind of REAL poverty ones sees there simply does not exist in the US. If some legless beggar were dragging himself on his stumps down any street in the US, he'd soon have more hand-out cash than he could carry. In China, people walk past them like I ignore cell-phone-chatting, new sneaker-wearing panhandlers here in DC everyday.

if a pregnant woman if attacked and her baby dies, she may charge murder against the attacker.
If she kills the baby herself, it's fine...

I guess I'll just stick to tile setting:D


KT