the idea that those who support Roe v Wade are de-fetusists is absurd. it's reality. it's compassion. it's knowing life is cruel and we don't have to make it crueler.

even the belief that life begins at conception, ignores a significant fact: ~20% of all pregnancies end in stillbirth or miscarriages. many unnoticed or unknown. meaning a Crane takes many babies away before the crane can deliver them.

if the jokes ^ can make a person winch, then why doesn't knowing a woman will die not register? all for a law w/o good intent. for the intent to be real, there would be other realities already in place, such as...

- sex education - at all levels
- contraception for both sexes (even subsidized)
- prenatal care for the viable & wanted
- education for parents
- time off for parents
- groups privately aiding in the care (churches, societies...)
- daycare is provided privately, thru companies, or publically funded

...just possibly a few 'tells' that the morally magnificent are serious.


BTW: the FBI is no lie. don is dead in the water. cry a river but the flood awaits. don't know what's on the papers other than his ass. w/o someone paying the attys - he is defenseless. three times over - he is spit in the ocean. bet me.

I gotta say I don't like throwing that at these guys because it gives them an actual defense. Their behavior and actions are indefensible and evil. Don't give them the chance to drum up support from other more sane people who believe:
1.Life begins at conception/fetuses are human
2.Execution of people who've committed sufficiently horrific crimes is justifiable

There's lots of people that believe those 2 things, but can still be 100% on board with condemning the awful, manipulative evil of Bakker and co.

Life begins at conception, life ends at birth. I hope you made the most of it.

For the religious right, life begins at conception, and there's nothing you can say to convince them that a fetus does not deserve the same rights as a person.

A better argument IMO, is described in the Violinist Scenario. Basically, you wake up one day to find that a famous violinist is now attached to your body without your consent. The violinist has organ failure, and must depend on your body for the next 9 months to recover. It doesn't matter that the violinist is a real person and has full legal rights, you still have the right to refuse him and let him die.

Was gonna come on to say exactly that.

It's too bad that having an actual debate on abortion is nearly impossible.

People that believe life begins at conception are morally opposed to abortion as based on that belief abortion is taking a human life and only tolerable or forgivable if done to save another life.

People who do not believe life begins at conception are morally opposed to dictating what a pregnant human can and can not do with their body, again based on that belief.

The debate IMHO must, absolutely must, be around when life begins but nobody wants to talk about that. People want to decry the baby killers and the woman hating religious bigots.

Meanwhile, that digging in of everyone's heals leads to abortion clinics being bombed to save the children, and people lobbying for abortions to be legal up until the day before the child would be born(current Canadian law I'll add). I'd dare say neither extreme is supported by the majority, but people's biases on the subject don't seem to allow enough compromise to condemn the extreme ends of there own 'side'.

Fake. Everyone knows life begins at conception so she would have had nine months.

Life begins at the point you accept that this is all there is, instead of sitting around hoping it isn't.
Then you can decide what you want to do with your life, rather than waiting for someone else to tell you.

The philosophical debate is a separate discussion that takes up A LOT of time and doesn't really go anywhere, other than people getting upset at the fanciful opinions posited as fact. For example the opinion that life begins when God wrote your name in the book of life is a valid Christian response to how they came up with those figures. Well, if God already knew you before you're born, that creates a metaphysical possibility for a largely biological problem.

That's what the pro-lifers will trap you into ultimately. How the fuck do you debate that without either throwing out objectivity or offending someone with your objectivity? Please. These debates are mostly a waste of our fucking time. Thank her for not wasting more of our time.

if there was a line, that would cross it for me. aborting a fetus merely because it isn't the sex you wanted is pretty despicable IMO

but yeah, how would you legislate against that? I would think it would be an invasion of privacy. Hate to say it but even in a shitty situation like that, gov't should keep out of it.

I agree, an abortion that late into a pregnancy is unethical as well. The problem is, the question of when life begins is a question for scholars or at the very least people far smarter than a bunch of armchair commentators on the internet.

Up here in Canada our laws on abortion are the dream of everyone pro-choice, at least in theory. That is to say, we have absolutely no laws against abortion in any way, shape or form. In practice, we are starting to hear complaints from women's rights groups. Sex selective abortion is starting to become a concern to them and they aren't quite sure what to do about it.

Call me a right wing fanatic, but I disagree with my country's position on this. The reality is, our laws make abortion at 8 months and 3 weeks completely legal. Our laws also list it as murder to terminate that same infant at that same time should they have been born 2 weeks early and were no longer in the womb at 8 months and 3 weeks.

I guess my point is the insistence from the pro-choice side that this is a simple matter that demands choice be allowed for the good of all is flatly false. I really do believe the debate needs to center on when life begins, and talking around not liking the implications or resulting difficulties is just so much emotional bullying.

In a comment, the uploader said:

See complementary videos on Marine food web and Reproduction in the Ocean
Fish story - The secret life of plankton: http://ted.com/talks/the_secret_life_of_plankton.html
and
Urchin odyssey: sex among plankton / How life begins in the deep ocean: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-life-begins-in-the-deep-ocean

Millions of real children with real feelings are killed by wars and sanctions the same "pro-lifers" can't seem get enough of not to mention an attitude to the environment which will see most life on Earth extinct in a few hundred years. I have to admit abortion is a tricky moral issue but that's just the point, it's a moral issue not a legislative one. So where you say abortions are immoral and I say carpet bombings are immoral. I guess we all have different ideas on morality and thank Christ for that otherwise I might think like you. >> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.


i err soo far on the side of caution, i convince pro-life women have sex with me by saying that if they don't, they are aborting the child i have conceived of having with them

its a human life they are ending if they don't

better to err on the side of caution

the real hypocrisy of the pro-life forces out there, is once the kids born, that kid is someone else's problem... yeah, we'll fight to make sure you are born, but if they parent's can't afford to raise you in the first place... or are unfit... well that's their fault... and we should in NO way be responsible for that (y'know, even though our movement forced them to have you in the first place)

better for you, the uncared for, under educated, malnurished child to suffer and us to feel righteous
than
not create this suffering (on both your parents and your behalf) and us to not feel so accomplished

support you!?! give you a hand up? that sounds like a hand out! stay outta my wallet you socialist!

prolife is supported by Christianity!!! abortion is attacking God! because desert dwelling sheep herders knew more about life, dna, the reproductive process than we do today!
of course, we'll ignore all the socialist themes in the Bible while saying this
we'll ignore things like charity for the poor and sick
we'll ignore things like throwing the money lenders out of the church
etc etc

compassion just doesn't feel genuine if $ makes it go away

That's the thing about many republican views. They take an ideal, utopian world view....and work backwards.

"In a perfect world, there is no rape or incest and health care is perfect, thus there would be no need for abortion, therefore we should ban abortion."

That's nice and all, but it just isn't that simple. Yeah, if we lived in a perfect world where every single citizen was financially and emotionally secure and nothing ever bad happened and no one ever accidentally got pregnant, sure I would oppose abortion.

We don't live in that world, we won't ever live in that world in our lifetimes, so why would you propose a law that only applies in a perfect world?

A baby is not the equivalent of getting a pet for your kid to teach them responsibility. why would you needlessly punish the baby by forcing it to be raised by parents who are incapable of adequately raising it? You're trying to correct a mistake by forcing people to make another mistake. Some people should just never be parents, ever. Even if they were financially able to take care of a kid.

To use an analogy that even a republican should understand. An abortion is like a gun, you hope to hell you never need to use it, but you're going to be glad you're able to use it if you need it.

Samantha Bee demonstrated the republican hypocrisy perfectly. It's ok for THEM to make a choice, but it's not ok for YOU to make a choice.

Whenever you masturbate (oh wait, republicans never masturbate) Even when you're having legitimate baby-making sex. The male ejaculates millions of sperm. Each one of those sperm is a potential life. Yet only one of those sperm will make it, and the rest will die. Republicans don't seem to care about those millions of potential lives being snuffed out. And with the woman, every time a woman has her cycle, that's another potential life snuffed out.

Standard selective logic. We care about those lives, but not THOSE lives. Even when someone chooses to have the kid, Republicans seem to stop giving a shit since they propose cutting support for pregnant mothers and medical exams. Adequate education for those potential lives?..yeah fuck that. More hypocrisy we've come to expect from the right.

>> ^ReverendTed:

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.
I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.

As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with bobknight33 here.
I believe a woman has the right to choose what to do with her body. I also believe we should be responsible for the consequences of our choices. I believe a woman has the right to decide whether to have sex. (So, yes, I do believe in exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and threat-to-life.)
Seeing how quickly a fertilized egg develops into a fetus is striking (there can be a detectable heartbeat at 5 1/2 weeks), and that's where I get my opposition to elective abortion. I cannot accept that this is merely some part of "a woman's body" to be excised and discarded when it is so clearly a developing human.
I sincerely believe that we will one day look back on our tolerance for elective abortion with the same reprehension as we currently hold for slavery, ritual sacrifice or witch trials.

I know how difficult it is to have a rational discussion about abortion, but I find it hard not to say something. I try to keep an open mind and view issues from others' positions, but I can only really see this particular argument coming down to a discussion of when "life" begins; where does it go from being "termination of pregnancy" to "termination of a human life"? At conception? Birth? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, it's murder to kill a newborn, and it seems like there's a general consensus that it would be unethical to terminate a late pregnancy, but how far back does that reasoning go? And if we don't know when human life begins, it seems rational to err on the side of caution.