Susan G. Komen vs. Planned Parenthood

[Bob Maxey]

Wow, so all those topics I've heard about when actual life takes place revolving around consciousness etc. they were just speculation?

And Kool Kat's post does have merit, spermatozoa have life qualities to them. Thus, does that mean that we are not to do anything sexual unless its end product is a child? Your argument just killed the entire porn industry.

kool kat also raises another valid point, since 2nd hand cigarette smoke is known to cause cancer, why haven't we eliminated it (someone's right to happiness is a conflict of interest to someone's right to life, right)? And to that effect, why stop there? That big company that's polluting our land, lets go ahead and end their "Happiness" since their actions are at odds with one's life. Lets also go ahead and put an end to the internal combustion engine since that produces a LOT of pollution as well.

As I've stated before, conservatives have no problem trying to mandate personal morality, but do nothing against the immoral acts in the name of greed. Just another hypocrisy of the religious right I guess.

Are tree and pomegranate seeds considered trees or pomegranates? A sperm cell and an egg cell are not human life. They are the very beginning of human life. Nobody is quite sure when a mass of cells are to be considered human.

As for second hand smoke, no such proof it causes cancer exists.

 

[kool kat2]

Nobody is quite sure when a mass of cells are to be considered human.

You said it Bob. And random masses of cells do not have constitutional rights.

 

[kool kat2]

I understand what the Supreme Court has previously ruled. But the Supreme Court has been wrong before:

Dred Scott v. Sanford decision:



The problem with Supreme Court opinions, is they are made by men (and women), who are not infallible. I can't argue, abortion IS a right, for now. But slavery was also a right, as was treating blacks as an underclass in our country's past. Incredibly and morally wrong, but a RIGHT. To say for me to "get over it" is to dismiss the history of this country, and that we should accept the status quo, without considering that perhaps what we as a country consider is a right, is instead a tragic wrong inflicted on a group of people who are unable to protect themselves.

And through time they're decisions have helped protect other people's rights. If the supreme court were to take away a woman's right to choose in which direction her life goes then its only a matter of time before we bring back slavery. I'll get my shackles ready when (if) that day comes.

 

[TxGoat]

We were founded on religious freedom. If you did not believe in God, you would have found life to be quite difficult. The founding fathers definitely professed a belief in God. They believed in God Given rights.

God >< Christianity

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,

 

[Bob Maxey]

You said it Bob. And random masses of cells do not have constitutional rights.

And when we do discover the answer, there will be endless arguments and debates and we will still be arguing it. A couple of cells do not a human make, any more than a pomegranate seed makes a pomegranate.

 

[copestag]

without bringing in religion I would have to totally agree with that concept....... a few cells is not a human

my only question is why the desparity in the law?..... a few cells is human enough to convict someone of double homicide if they kill a 'pregnant' woman

they need to make a firm definition of life and stick with it consistantly throughout the law

 

[OutofDate1980]

The wacky wingnut, Karen Handel, a former Republican candidate for governor in Georgia is out of the foundation, good riddance.

 

[OutofDate1980]

.... As for second hand smoke, no such proof it causes cancer exists.

Secondhand Smoke and Cancer - National Cancer Institute

"Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers."

"Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker

 

[Bob Maxey]

Secondhand Smoke and Cancer - National Cancer Institute

"Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers."

"Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults (4, 5). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker

 

[TxGoat]

The wacky wingnut, Karen Handel, a former Republican candidate for governor in Georgia is out of the foundation, good riddance.

Sadly though, she's already done irreversible damage to the SGK foundation. Now instead of it just being a charity that raises awareness of breast cancer, it's going to have the stigma of having ulterior political motives from both sides.

And there was a an EPA report cited as junk science and had a decision vacated. The tobacco industry won a victory in 1998 when a federal judge ruled that the EPA had made procedural errors andcarefully cherry picked the data to reach a preordained conclusion. The EPA denied the charge and last I knew, they were appealing the decision.

Then there was the big EPA report that concluded no proof exists that SHS causes serious issues. This report is often cited and the pages that conclude the argument are often left out.

The battle goes on and on and chances are, it always will.

From

CDC - Fact Sheet - Secondhand Smoke Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Secondhand smoke is a mixture of gases and fine particles that includes

 

[copestag]

or as hypocritical as being pro-choice but anti-death penalty(liberals) or pro-life and pro-death penalty(conservatives)

 

[OutofDate1980]

And there was a an EPA report cited as junk science and had a decision vacated. The tobacco industry won a victory in 1998 when a federal judge ruled that the EPA had made procedural errors andcarefully cherry picked the data to reach a preordained conclusion. The EPA denied the charge and last I knew, they were appealing the decision.

Then there was the big EPA report that concluded no proof exists that SHS causes serious issues. This report is often cited and the pages that conclude the argument are often left out.

The battle goes on and on and chances are, it always will.

Source for your claims ? These cited reports would be interesting to read.

 

[TxGoat]

or as hypocritical as being pro-choice but anti-death penalty(liberals) or pro-life and pro-death penalty(conservatives)

I think what's happened, and to be quite frankly is downright sad, is our politicians have decided to make this a political issue to garner votes for their election. My personal opinion is that an abortion used as casually as a condom for the means of birth control is morally wrong, but I believe that it's a decision, as well as a right, for me AND my partner to decide. I'd say it's like the topic of burning the American flag, I personally find it disrespectful and contemptuous, BUT it's covered under free speech. Thus, to have a law in place that inhibits free speech (even loathsome free speech) would violate one of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, many people in our country have decided to take an absolute stance on this issue when in reality it's much more complex than just a "YES/NO" issue. What about in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's health is at risk? How would a hard line approach be appropriate?

On the flip side, do we really want to start sidling up against the truly immoral act of murder? I have some friends that have infants and it's hard to actually recognize that only several months ago it would've been ok to abort them. Thus, where do we draw the line?


For those reasons, I hate that politicians have decided to take this issue and politicize it. I think it's a personal decision and a difficult decision, but I don't think it's up to the government to decide, which is also curious why the right wing hate government intrusion but insist on government intrusion in this instance.

 

[AntimonyER]

I think what's happened, and to be quite frankly is downright sad, is our politicians have decided to make this a political issue to garner votes for their election. My personal opinion is that an abortion used as casually as a condom for the means of birth control is morally wrong, but I believe that it's a decision, as well as a right, for me AND my partner to decide. I'd say it's like the topic of burning the American flag, I personally find it disrespectful and contemptuous, BUT it's covered under free speech. Thus, to have a law in place that inhibits free speech (even loathsome free speech) would violate one of the principles this country was founded on.

Of course, many people in our country have decided to take an absolute stance on this issue when in reality it's much more complex than just a "YES/NO" issue. What about in the case of rape, incest, or when the mother's health is at risk? How would a hard line approach be appropriate?

On the flip side, do we really want to start sidling up against the truly immoral act of murder? I have some friends that have infants and it's hard to actually recognize that only several months ago it would've been ok to abort them. Thus, where do we draw the line?


For those reasons, I hate that politicians have decided to take this issue and politicize it. I think it's a personal decision and a difficult decision, but I don't think it's up to the government to decide, which is also curious why the right wing hate government intrusion but insist on government intrusion in this instance.

I think it comes down to the fact that one of the government's responsibilities is to protect lives (through civil service and/or military service). So if/when fetuses attain human status through the courts (it will have to be the courts, as the left recognizes judicial supremacy) then I feel the government is within its power to protect the lives of its citizens. The right wing already recognizes that fetuses are human life, and therefore accept the government intervening to protect those lives. Even in the most strict interpretation of limited government, protection of innocent lives is an accepted government function.

 

[TxGoat]

I think it comes down to the fact that one of the government's responsibilities is to protect lives (through civil service and/or military service). So if/when fetuses attain human status through the courts (it will have to be the courts, as the left recognizes judicial supremacy) then I feel the government is within its power to protect the lives of its citizens. The right wing already recognizes that fetuses are human life, and therefore accept the government intervening to protect those lives. Even in the most strict interpretation of limited government, protection of innocent lives is an accepted government function.

Is there a tried and true method for determining when life begins though? Sure it sounds nice "protect innocent life", but we then need to establish at what point is it considered a life. Some people insist when a heartbeat is detected or when it begins to take the shape of a human being. It reminds me of the old episode of Seinfeld where they argue over when a pizza is a pizza, when it comes out of the oven or when you insert the pizza in the oven. (and for the record, cucumbers on a pizza sounds kind of gross).

 

[copestag]

and then of course it brings us to this:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

if we cant agree when life begins..... does it truely even begin with birth? couldnt you easily agree with this peer reviewed article in the journal of medical ethics?

is abortion ok as long as the baby hasnt developed a personality yet? what about slow learners...... if my kid cant walk on his own by the time hes 10 months old shouldnt I be able to 'abort' him........ he obviously cant function as a 'person' yet....... why stop there......... I can think of a few adults who should be aborted

and of course theres the other end of the life spectrum....... ethically speaking shouldnt euthanasia not only be acceptable but common practice?

after all....... have you see some of these old geezers..... what function are they serving...... lets institute old age abortions........ alzheimers/dimensia/etc etc....... these are not people anymore...... just shells where a person once was....... lets abort em

 

[OutofDate1980]

Is there a tried and true method for determining when life begins though? Sure it sounds nice "protect innocent life", but we then need to establish at what point is it considered a life. Some people insist when a heartbeat is detected or when it begins to take the shape of a human being. It reminds me of the old episode of Seinfeld where they argue over when a pizza is a pizza, when it comes out of the oven or when you insert the pizza in the oven. (and for the record, cucumbers on a pizza sounds kind of gross).

As it now stands, the government is barred from interference till;
"(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164."

Roe v. Wade

 

[TxGoat]

and then of course it brings us to this:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics

if we cant agree when life begins..... does it truely even begin with birth? couldnt you easily agree with this peer reviewed article in the journal of medical ethics?

is abortion ok as long as the baby hasnt developed a personality yet? what about slow learners...... if my kid cant walk on his own by the time hes 10 months old shouldnt I be able to 'abort' him........ he obviously cant function as a 'person' yet....... why stop there......... I can think of a few adults who should be aborted

and of course theres the other end of the life spectrum....... ethically speaking shouldnt euthanasia not only be acceptable but common practice?

after all....... have you see some of these old geezers..... what function are they serving...... lets institute old age abortions........ alzheimers/dimensia/etc etc....... these are not people anymore...... just shells where a person once was....... lets abort em

This past Thanksgiving a longtime family friend went into a coma because of an aneurysm. The doctors advised the family that even if he came out of the coma, he would be in quite a vegetative state. The families were divided about letting his life terminate or keeping him on life support. I didn't envy the position they were in, much less could I imagine having to make that decision myself. I think it would be even more heart wrenching if the decision was kept out of their hands and the government imposed its decision. These decisions are difficult enough to begin with, the last thing it needs is the complexity of a faceless bureaucracy.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... The right wing already recognizes that fetuses are human life, ...

As far as I know, there are no funerals after a miscarriage, but perhaps these funerals are common among the right wing.