Presidential Candidate has link to Break the Matrix on website!!!
Posted by walkk100 on Sat, 05/31/2008 - 00:52 in Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin has a link to Break the Matrix on his website. Cheers for Chuck Baldwin!!!!!
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 774 reads
too!
.......................... http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus http://mrxfromplanetx.com/naomi-wolf http://inflationtax.blogspot.com .......................................................................................................
Chuck Baldwin
Ron Paul states he is not against gay marriage as long as people don't expect to impose the relationship on others.
.......................... http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus http://mrxfromplanetx.com/naomi-wolf http://inflationtax.blogspot.com .......................................................................................................
Chuck Baldwin was on a local radio show today. He stated his mentor was Jerry Fallwell
Chuck Baldwin said he supported a bill that states life begins at conception. I decided to call in.
I said I had two questions. 1). Ron Paul supports the day after pill. Would you support the day after pill as well? 2). I am a member of a Ron Paul Minnesota Meetup group. They organized a both at a gay pride event in Minnesota. Would you reach out to gay people and do you support gay rights?
I pretty much know the answer to this since he supports that defense of Marriage bill, which he claims Ron Paul supports, and I don't know if I believe that.
Chuck Baldwin's answer: "I'm reaching out to all kinds of groups, there are Democrats who are crossing over to support me because I'm against the NAU, I want to repeal NAFTA and I support tariffs".
I like his support for these issues, but that obviously did not answer either of my two questions.
I will be honest, and up front about my own issues here. I consider myself to technically be an Atheist. I support the day after pill, just not inflicting pain once a fetus has formed a nervous system. I also support gay rights--not special rights--but equal rights.
I will be joining the Log Cabin Republicans at a reception for them hosted by our governor next week.
I don't believe supporting a repeal of NAFTA and tariffs is enough to get Democrats to cross over and vote for Chuck Baldwin. I would not vote for Jerry Falwell if he was running for President. I don't believe Chuck Baldwin is electable because he is going to try to legislate morality.
Chuck is running for president, not congress. Presidents don't legislate anything. Like Dr. Paul, he believes that all these "social issues" are not federal issues, and that each state is free to decide these things without any interference from the federal government. They will both tell you the federal government has no constitutional authority in these matters. It is quite well known that Dr. Paul has voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. Again, it relates to the belief that these are state issues. The "act" denies the federal government any authority to force those states which don't recognize gay marriage, to recognize the gay marriages sanctioned in other states. Chuck Baldwin is NOT Jerry Falwell. He mentions his previous association with Falwell here to establish credibility with Christians, in his effort to get them to listen to Ron Paul's message. What should be known is that Baldwin has for many years now, been very very critical of the "religious right",and their eadership, for their continuing support for every neocon Republican that comes along, and for their lack of support for the message of liberty. You will be wasting your time if you try to make it look as if there is much difference between Dr. Paul and Chuck Baldwin. They have been friends for many years, and Baldwin was one of the first to endorse and actively campaign for Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul has stated that Baldwin is very very close to him on the issues. I don't know of Dr. Paul ever saying that about anyone else. Dr. Paul is not a liar, so I trust this is true.
Very few of his stands are with mainstream Americana.
Good Luck CHUCK!
I think Amapola has a point. Anyone who is considering a partial birth abortion should know exactly what it is they are planning to have done to their fetus. And in order for the society to decide on the legality of abortion, it is necessary to understand the procedure. If it involves killing a fetus that would otherwise be viable outside the womb, I think the people have an interest in knowing this.
Here is one possible way to deal with the problem of a woman who wants a late-term abortion in a society that is against killing babies: You say that the woman has the right to end the pregnancy, but the child must not be harmed during the removal. The doctor may not kill the baby in the birth canal, or during or after a cesarian removal. The live baby then has the right to the same basic care as any other premature baby. The parents may or may not give up the baby for adoption. The baby has the same legal protection from neglect as any other baby.
Of course the baby is being harmed already, because the best place for it is in the mother's womb, but in principle, I suppose you can't force someone to maintain the life of someone else, and if the mother no longer wants to put her body in the service of feeding and growing the baby, maybe she does have the right to separate herself from it. It is my understanding that parents may at any time exercise their right to refuse to take care of their babies by giving them up for adoption. Interestingly, though, this principle doesn't apply if one of the parents wants to keep the baby, in which case they can sue the other parent for child support, and that parent may indeed be required to take care of the baby, at least financially.
Most women who get late-term abortions just want the baby to go away. Maybe it shouldn't be that easy. I don't know.
Chuck Baldwin is a good man. The question is, can we rally enough support for him to make our votes count or are we better off writing in Ron Paul? Of course, I am still not discounting my hope for a September miracle...
Pat
I am deeply pro-life and do not see any difference between a "partial birth abortion" and simply giving the parents thirty days to bring the infant in to be killed if it proves to be inconvenient. Murdering a baby is murdering a baby, whether five minutes from birth or thirty days afterwards, or sixty or a year. Where does it end?
That said, I have a hard time thinking the federal government should be involved in such things at all. Those are matters best left to the states. The things that the federal government's business is short and should be kept that way.
Pat
I lean toward letting the states decide on abortion, partly because I think very few of them would actually outlaw it. Most women want the option to abort in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, most men want the option of avoiding 18 years of child support payments, and a good number of parents want the option of abortion to be available for their pregnant daughters. Even couples trying for babies rely on the availability of abortion. Just about every pregnant woman in America gets a blood test to determine if the baby is at risk for abnormalities, and more than half of the fetuses that test positive are aborted. Given these facts, I wonder how many people would want abortion to be illegal in all cases.
Here's one thing I have always found hypocritical: Many of the same people who would deny abortion to single young women who have "gotten themselves pregnant" would allow couples to abort abnormal fetuses. The idea, I think is that the young girl should suffer the consequences of her irresponsible action, whereas the married couple who just wanted a normal baby have done nothing wrong. You might argue that the baby's quality of life is also an issue, but many of these kids can be just as happy as anyone else. They are certainly better off alive than dead (this is true in most cases).
Ironically, by the time you find out there is a genetic abnormality the pregnancy is usually pretty far along. Abortions for Down syndrome are usually performed rather late in the pregnancy, by which time the fetus looks every bit like a baby only smaller. It is very likely that it can also feel pain. An unwanted pregnancy, on the other hand, can be terminated as soon as the woman discovers she is pregnant, as early as two weeks after conception, when the thing in question is still an embryo, without much differentiation between the cells yet.
Having been pregnant, I can't imagine aborting a 20 week old fetus. Once you have felt the baby kick and move around-- it just seems barbaric to me. Even at two weeks it would be very sad, but the "baby" is a an abstraction at that point. What you are losing is a collection of human cells that has to potential to become a baby, but that's about it. It's most certainly not a person.
It seems like Ron Paul's bill specifically protects fetuses with abnormalities, which makes it consistent with a genuine right to life position. But since there is no loophole for those who want access to abortion to guarantee normal babies, I think it won't end up reduce the actual numbers of abortions by much. People want their perfect babies, so people will want abortion.
Maybe some states will try to put those loopholes into their abortion laws, but then I imagine anyone else who wants an abortion could challenge those laws in court, and the court would have to conclude that abnormal babies have less of a right to life than normal ones (or something like that) if it wanted to uphold the abortion laws. I don't think that's ever going to happen in America.
The Sanctity of Life
Peter Singer
Foreign Policy, September/October 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.
In retrospect, 2005 may be seen as the year in which that position became untenable. American conservatives have for several years been in the awkward position of defending a federal funding ban on creating new embryos for research that prevents U.S. scientists from leading an area of biomedical research that could revolutionize the treatment of many common diseases. When they are honest, conservatives acknowledge that giving up some medical advances is simply the price to be paid for doing the right thing.
This year, however, that view became much more uncomfortable. South Korean researchers showed that human stem cells can be cloned by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized human egg with the nucleus of an ordinary cell. The South Korean breakthrough poses a stark challenge to the conservative position. The possibility of cloning from the nucleus of an ordinary cell undermines the idea that embryos are precious because they have the potential to become human beings. Once it becomes clear that every human cell contains the genetic information to create a new human being, the old arguments for preserving “unique” human embryos fade away.
The year 2005 is also significant, at least in the United States, for ratcheting up the debate about the care of patients in a persistent vegetative state. The long legal battle over the removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube led President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress to intervene, both seeking to keep her alive. Yet the American public surprised many pundits by refusing to support this intervention, and the case produced a surge in the number of people declaring they did not wish to be kept alive in a situation such as Schiavo’s.
Technology will drive this debate. As the sophistication of techniques for producing images of soft tissue increases, we will be able to determine with a high degree of certainty that some living, breathing human beings have suffered such severe brain damage that they will never regain consciousness. In these cases, with the hope of recovery gone, families and loved ones will usually understand that even if the human organism is still alive, the person they loved has ceased to exist. Hence, a decision to remove the feeding tube will be less controversial, for it will be a decision to end the life of a human body, but not of a person.
As we approach 2040, the Netherlands and Belgium will have had decades of experience with legalized euthanasia, and other jurisdictions will also have permitted either voluntary euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide for varying lengths of time. This experience will puncture exaggerated fears that the legalization of these practices would be a first step toward a new holocaust. By then, an increasing proportion of the population in developed countries will be more than 75 years old and thinking about how their lives will end. The political pressure for allowing terminally or chronically ill patients to choose when to die will be irresistible.
When the traditional ethic of the sanctity of human life is proven indefensible at both the beginning and end of life, a new ethic will replace it. It will recognize that the concept of a person is distinct from that of a member of the species Homo sapiens, and that it is personhood, not species membership, that is most significant in determining when it is wrong to end a life. We will understand that even if the life of a human organism begins at conception, the life of a person—that is, at a minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness—does not begin so early. And we will respect the right of autonomous, competent people to choose when to live and when to die.
Sacrificing the few for the betterment of the whole.
Been there, done that.
First of all, humans don't have "souls". They have chemical and electrical processes of the brain, which produces a mind. As the brain developes over time, the mind developes along with it. Damage the brain and you have damaged the mind. When the brain dies, the mind is gone. There is no "ghost in the machine".
That we have more "mind" than any animal is a testament to our evolutionary brains, with the large frontal lobe and the vast neocortex. Wanting to save lives by outlawing abortion is an act of empathy and solidarity with the as yet, undeveloped personalities, (ironically, a function of the frontal lobe that a baby does not have functioning yet).
I can understand how, as an OBGYN, Dr. Paul developed his abhorrance for the practice of abortion. I can't, however, understand how, as a doctor, he can make the claim that life has "sanctity".
Just what the heck does that mean?
Abortion can be seen as a rather grotesque form of birth control just as rationally as it can be seen as murder. Is life so sanctimonious that we outlaw the use of the pill and condoms?
What about jogging in the first trimester? What if the activity induces a miscarriage?
Should we investigate miscarriages for possible murder links?
A woman has the right to her own form of birth control.
Period. (forgive the pun)...
What 'your' use of Soul means, and then prove how it doesnt exist.
.......................... http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus http://mrxfromplanetx.com/naomi-wolf http://inflationtax.blogspot.com .......................................................................................................
Q: Does the pill cause anyone pain?
A: No.
Q: Do condoms cause anyone pain?
A: No.
Q: Is jogging likely to cause a miscarriage and does it cause the unborn pain?
A: No.
Q: If a nervous system has formed, and you place an incision into a child's skull to suck his brain out, will that cause him pain?
A: I would have to say yes.
That's why I still support euthanasia. I am against suffering. I am a woman, and I have control over my own body. It is my responsibility. I say this as someone who is conservative, not as someone who is religious.
> If a nervous system has formed, and you place an incision into a child's skull to suck his brain out, will that cause him pain?
< by your rationale, it would be perfectly ok to do this procedure if you would first pump some painkillers into the system to prevent any feeling of pain. am i correct?
"Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin has a link to Break the Matrix on his website. Cheers for Chuck Baldwin!!!!!"
This good news.
May there be many more....
Quote from Ron Paul "As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."
"The Sanctity of Life Bill introduced by Ron Paul to Congress on Feb. 10, 2005:
The Act declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions."
This act seems inconsistent with Ron Paul's continual emphasis on freedom. I would expect an OB/GYN to oppose abortion, but I was expecting Ron Paul to support freedom, which would include freedom of choice for women.
Freedom of choice does not include the "right" to take the life of another human being. Protecting human life is one of the very few legitimate roles the government actually has. If you trust Dr. Paul on everything else, maybe you should trust him that he is also right on this issue too.
> human life shall be deemed to exist from conception
< this assertion is nonsensical in practice. is human life a person?
> the term "person" shall include all such human life.
< ok. fine. right after i impregnate a woman there is another person in the room with us? is it a boy/girl? should i be forced to immediately escort the woman to the hospital so they may determine if a new person exists? should the existence of this new person be recorded somewhere at that point? if the pregnancy doesn't take, should a criminal investigation follow, since a person is missing?
there is nothing that this: "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception" solves. not one thing. but it does however open up a whole new can of worms.
Isnt it strange, the Western Mind. We try to quantify everything under the sun down to an algorithm, which is really just a bunch of loop holes of linguistics arranged into a irrefutable paragraph, so that irresponsible teenagers can yet again find a way out of sticky situations.
This debate is over as soon as one views the subject mater from an evolutionary standpoint.
All of natures ultimate goal in life is to survive. We are supposedly at the top of that chain, yet see nothing wrong with killing our progeny for the sake of NOT having a illegitimate kid that will decrease the chances of us further getting laid or a boyfriend, or being taken to the prom.
I know there are special circumstances, that even I would be alright with when it comes to abortion, but these cases are the true MINORITY.
It is mostly irresponsible young woman that dont want to interrupt there party time with the sound of crying.
> Isnt it strange, the Western Mind. We try to quantify everything under the sun down to an algorithm
< if we didn't quantify, group, classify, etc, you wouldn't be sitting next to a computer typing this up. isn't it strange that people use all science has to offer and still find enough time to criticize it whenever it suits them.
> irresponsible teenagers can yet again find a way out of sticky situations.
< abortion is not for irresponsible teenagers, as you have made yourself believe. it is not a way out of 'sticky situations'. it is the very last resort that leaves the woman who undergoes it, traumatized. if you have some compassion to offer, offer it to the women that found themselves in the unfortunate situation where they have to undergo this procedure.
> This debate is over as soon as one views the subject mater from an evolutionary standpoint.
< from a scientific standpoint. because that's the only rational way to view any situation.
> All of natures ultimate goal in life is to survive.
< right, so if not having an abortion means the baby and the would be mother will die during delivery isn't that survival?
> yet see nothing wrong with killing our progeny for the sake of NOT having a illegitimate kid that will decrease the chances of us further getting laid or a boyfriend, or being taken to the prom.
< wow. in your universe abortion is performed on fun loving teenagers that want nothing more but to party. have you ever heard of pregnancies resulting from rape? or life threatening pregnancies? maybe you should look into this topic before you start making up your mind about it.
> I know there are special circumstances, that even I would be alright with when it comes to abortion, but these cases are the true MINORITY.
< minority? really? can you give us a percentage breakdown of this from a respectable source? i'm asking because i never looked into it myself but you seem to have done that for us already. where did you get 'minority' from?
> It is mostly irresponsible young woman that dont want to interrupt there party time with the sound of crying.
< again. you have any research statistics for this?
"Isnt it strange, the Western Mind. We try to quantify everything under the sun down to an algorithm
< if we didn't quantify, group, classify, etc, you wouldn't be sitting next to a computer typing this up. isn't it strange that people use all science has to offer and still find enough time to criticize it whenever it suits them."
Maybe our modern life is not the ideal it appears to be?
"abortion is not for irresponsible teenagers, as you have made yourself believe. it is not a way out of 'sticky situations'. it is the very last resort that leaves the woman who undergoes it, traumatized. if you have some compassion to offer, offer it to the women that found themselves in the unfortunate situation where they have to undergo this procedure."
Look at the age average, and the average of the sexual activity of the 'girls' that make up that average. The teenagers of this country are having sex 100 times more often than 2 generations ago, and not using any conterceptives is the norm.
"from a scientific standpoint. because that's the only rational way to view any situation."
For a short time of our existence it has been, yes. I think Hardon is going is to challenge that though. :)
"right, so if not having an abortion means the baby and the would be mother will die during delivery isn't that survival?"
Those circumstances would fall under the "special circumstances" I mentioned that I would approve of.
"wow. in your universe abortion is performed on fun loving teenagers that want nothing more but to party. have you ever heard of pregnancies resulting from rape? or life threatening pregnancies? maybe you should look into this topic before you start making up your mind about it."
These circumstances would again fall under the 'special circumstances', and is the minority of the numbers of abortions.
"I know there are special circumstances, that even I would be alright with when it comes to abortion, but these cases are the true MINORITY.
< minority? really? can you give us a percentage breakdown of this from a respectable source? i'm asking because i never looked into it myself but you seem to have done that for us already. where did you get 'minority' from?"
Thanks for asking:
1981 saw the largest amount of Abortion, with 29.3 per 1,000 women.
In 2005, there was 1.2 million known abortions performed.
Fifty percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 17%.[7]
• Thirty-seven percent of abortions occur to black women, 34% to non-Hispanic white women, 22% to Hispanic women and 8% to women of other races.**
• Forty-three percent of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic.[3]
• Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.[3]
• About 60% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children.[7]
• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women[3,1]
• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[8]
• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]
• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]
1 percent.
Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[9]
Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html#9
2005 Rape numbers: There were an estimated 93,934 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in 2005, a 1.2-percent decrease when compared to the 2004 estimate. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html
"> It is mostly irresponsible young woman that dont want to interrupt there party time with the sound of crying.
< again. you have any research statistics for this?"
Yep.
It was called 'high school', which I graduated from in Texas. My town and school and people in it where like any other rural town in the Country. Us kids where like rabbits, with no knowledge of what we where doing, no 'education' from the parents or schools, just learn as you go. In my school alone my senior year(school had 100 people in it) there where 5 girls that got pregnant.
Since then I have known of several woman personally who have had abortions. My ex girlfriend pulled two twins out of herself on her couch because she never used protection, and guess what, got pregnant.
It comes down to responsibility when the sexual organs are in use. And people under 25 I dont think should be trusted with that much responsibility.
No one ever asks children a simple question as well. Say, around 12 for instance. Ask them if they would rather be here or not. It is not the mothers choice alone when a fully formed and functioning Human being is removed from the life space due to inconvenience, and without at first gaining consent. Again,
Then again, we are the only species that doe it for 'fun'.
At 9 weeks the embryo turns to fetus, and most abortions take place around this time using suction extraction.
The problem with the entire argument is what we define life as, and when this process starts.
Well, growing up on a farm, it was very easy to tell when life had begun in the fields. This was known by the 'germination' of the seed, the cell division that one day became the fetus vegetable.
One cannot divide life. Without life making the cells divide the vegetable would not be. Nor would a human be, if that chain chain was cut. Again, life cannot be divided from itself.
Ok.. I like this guy.. and I must say I LOVE RON PAUL. But how can a candidate call themselves a constitutionalist and still be pro-life. If you believe in the peoples rights.. in out liberties.. How can you say a woman hasn't got the right of choice on her own body. We play god when we garden, we play god when we cut trees....
So why then When an uneducated 16 year old who would really like to attend college gets pregnant, and she knows she can't give that baby a good life, why houldn't she have the choice to spare that soul, and let that soul be free?
Anyway please dont get anrgy with my pro-life stance...
The question is if your pro-life, than you aren't truly an advocate of the constitution
.......................... http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus http://mrxfromplanetx.com/naomi-wolf http://inflationtax.blogspot.com .......................................................................................................
I'm a woman. I used to consider myself to be pro choice, but I have come to look at it this way. (for the original post see ronpaulissues.blogspot.com)
I have seen both liberals and conservatives criticize Ron Paul for his stance on abortion. Liberals seem to think abortion should not be inhibited for any reason. Conservatives say Ron Paul shouldn't leave the decision up to the states. Some are against the day after pill.
To liberals, I used to be pro death: euthanasia, capital punishment, suicide, and abortion. Based on the Innocence Project I changed my mind on capital punishment, so did Ron Paul
I can also deal with only allowing the day after pill, which is Ron Paul's personal view. He expressed this on the Adam Curry Show, but he is not going to force that view on everyone.
Ron Paul supports the states making their own laws. I think the far left and the far right are both not dealing with reality.
To say life doesn't begin at conception is ridiculous. A one celled amoeba is alive. What matters here is, whether or not a nervous system has formed. Can the child feel pain?
Partial Birth Abortion really is gruesome. If we are talking about a cluster of cells, I don't care. Partial birth abortion is dismembering a fetus once it has formed a nervous system that can feel pain. I don't think people who support partial birth abortion actually know what it is.
The doctor pulls the feet out, makes an incision at the base of the skull, use scissors to keep the hole open, and then sucks the child's brain out--I'm not exaggerating.
Warning these links bring up gruesome pictures of partial birth abortion:
* Partial birth abortion example #1
* Partial birth abortion example #2
To conservatives who are against the day after pill, I always thought it's odd to be so against a child dying and going to heaven. Heaven is supposed to be well . . . heaven. It would be the mother who suffers judgment not the child. Everyone is supposed to have a purpose in life, but could the child's purpose be only stay a short while?
Many people think the world is going to hell and they can't wait for Revelation to take place. Does it makes sense to ban the day after pill? They day after pill only prevents a cell cluster from forming into a child.
> To say life doesn't begin at conception is ridiculous.
< what is 'life' to you? is every cell in my body life? is a man's sperm life? i have no problem with you thinking that a new human person exists at conception. if that's how you choose to view things then that fine. i do have a problem with that view being a law, forcing it on me.
> Partial Birth Abortion really is gruesome. [...] I don't think people who support partial birth abortion actually know what it is.
< people support the fact that it is something that should not be illegal. they don't support it itself. how many things do we already have laws against and yet people still do what they need to if the situation calls for it.
> The doctor pulls the feet out, [...] exaggerating. Warning these links bring up gruesome pictures
< what's the point of you showing this to people? you're only trying to play on emotions. the world is not a pretty place. we know this. make an argument for or against something, no need to gross people out to get them on your side if you have logic behind your argument.
.......................... http://alternativeconservative.com/caucus http://mrxfromplanetx.com/naomi-wolf http://inflationtax.blogspot.com .......................................................................................................
Saying water boarding is bad, means nothing if people don't know what it is. How water boarding is conducted, carried out is what matters.
You are also not getting the point when I said of course life begins at conception because cells are alive. I stated I do not think it matters until a nervous system has formed to feel pain.
you are obviously not dealing with the real world when you suggest that life in legal terms should begin at an arbitrary stage. let me give you some examples of some existing benchmarks regarding the human life span. let us chose three of them to illustrate the difficulty or lack thereof in recognizing these benchmarks:
1. birth
2. adulthood
3. death
1. it is known that birth occurs when a human child emerges from the body of its mother. this is an event you cannot dispute or doubt the exact time of. in one minute the child is in the body of its mother, another minute it is out.
2. adulthood is set to kick in at a certain age of a man. this age is the time that has elapsed from the point of birth. this is also indisputable, as you can count the exact number of days hours and minutes that have passed from the time one has been born.
3. death is legally declared once the heart stops pumping blood. one minute you're alive, the next you're dead. there can be no disputing of this condition.
how do these differ from your proposed life benchmark? yours, of 'a nervous system has formed to feel pain' is ridiculous in the real world. pain is "felt" by the brain, the nervous system is a system of sensors. how do you determine in the real world exactly when the nervous system has developed enough to transmit the signals to the brain and the brain developed enough to interpret them. by that i mean, how do you recognize the instant at which this happens. this is not feasible. there is not one instance up to which you fell no pain and an instant later you are capable of feeling pain.
your proposition is nonsensical in the real world. does this make sense to you?