New Bush Legislation Uses Religion to Deny Federal Funding to Womens Clinics

Genetically it is a potential human life, Like a sperm an ovum or a skin cell, Biologically it is a collection of cells. I doubt there is a biological definition of "life", certainly not a widely accepted definition. But don't let the ambiguity of this stop you resting on it like a crutch, No doubt you will pluck one of the hundreds of suggested definitions, One which happens to support what you are saying, and claim it to be a widespread accepted definition.

Also, Have a look at how many times you have flip flopped from claiming an embryo is a human to claiming you have said no such thing. You are all over the place in this thread. If you are going to argue from a particular position at least have the sense to decide what that position is going to be before commencing with the argument.

 

After reading all of this, I have come to one conclusion....

Grim is mentally disabled..

 

No genetically it is a new human being. Unique life. Sperm is not even close to the same thing and you know it. Sperm is not a human being or human life.
And yes there is a biological defoinition of life. I took AP biology. I know what I am talking about when it comes down to when life begins.

 

No, Genetically it is a potential human being. it is a collection of cells which contains the instructions for the formation and development of a human embryo. It is not a human and it is not alive, Just like a sperm is a collection of cells which contain the instructions for the formation and development of a human being.

You should publish a paper utilizing this high-school level of education, if you can demonstrate conclusively when an embryo becomes "alive" you will no doubt win the Nobel prize for biology.

Enlighten us, According to you and your high school qualifications, what is the definition of life? Should i ring the Nobel prize board now? Or should i wait until after you have rocked the scientific community with your college placement credit qualifications?

 

And there you are just 100% wrong. It is alive according to biology.
It responds to stimuli
has genetic make up of its own
needs nutrients
grows and develops
etc

All aspects of life. It is alive and human.

Its already been shown and provened.

Are you really that stupid that you do not know what makes something living?
Anybody taking a basic biology or even a health class is taught this stuff.

Now I am done here. Not going to keep arguing with idiots that obviously have never taken basic science or government classes. The politics forum on this site is pathetic. Just a bunch of anti jew, bush hating, unitelligent people.

I am off to make some money in the bst. Take care

 

A fetus in the later stages of development will respond to stimulus. But an embryo in early development or zygote will not. Quick! Change the definition to an even more contrived one!

IIRC no response to outside stimuli has been recorded before 2 months. I'll look it up and come back with a more accurate timeframe.

Well if it's been "provened".

It's bad enough that you create your own version of reality without creating your own version of the English language.

Well tell us then. Give us the definitive definition of the word "life" that you got during your highschool education while taking a college credit course, Something which you apparently believe makes you an authority on embryology. Not just a list of assumptions or attributes that are selected specifically to describe an embryo at all stages of development, A definitive definition that encompasses and described everything that is "alive".

 

OMG! What's happening to the world? Do you think Bush believes in God?

A war freak who's against abortion? That's the funniest thing I ever heard. Maybe war is constitutional

 

Wow this is seriously the best that you can do?
#1 Sure appears to me that you did

As if she aborts it's not a child but a fetus, you state a woman kills her kid, the way it reads to me you're trying to compare that of a woman killing an actual child to that of a fetus. They are not the same.

#2 You have not stated an actual legal code, you however have brought up over and over about a stranger killing a pregnant woman being charged for the death of the fetus. So you yet again caught in another lie.

#3 As shown above I have not lied, you however, how does that saying go? Nose as long as a telephone wire?

'She should use protection' so it's her fault, wow your true colors are showing through. Give him the same rights as her, but non of the fault. You sure are a gem.

I have shown you lying over and over, here again you are lying.

So where is RP stating abortion is unconstitutional? That is not a lie? Oh give me a break. How about stating and I quote.

Here you are stating you do not see it as a 'moral issue' which you have done multiple times in this very thread, but in this very post you state and I quote.

Hmmm so which one is it, it's a moral issue, or it isn't?



Man you defeat your own arguments within your own poorly worded shit you spew.

I gotta eat now, if you really want me to destroy your poorly worded arguments 'if you can call them arguments' or I feel I have the time I will do so when I get back.

What a fricking joke.

Talk about debating with oneself, you are being your own undoing..

'it's not morals it's legal' but but but all laws are 'morals'

 

You guys are both way off topic. Here is the original post to help you out.

The issues as I see them are:

1) Why should a doctor be discriminated against if he does not believe in abortion? Why should any doctor be forced to end what he believes to be a life? Taken to the extreme, opponents will say that this legislation will require Planned Parenthood to hire doctors that won't perform abortions. I don't know about you but I don't think any doctor that opposes abortion would apply for a position at Planned Parenthood.

2) If the health care institution does not recognize the beliefs of the physician or pharmacist and does not hire the qualified applicant, then the government responds that same as it did when a state didn't enforce the national 55 mph speed limit. It would withhold funding.

This leads me to two questions:

1) I don't think that the woman's "right" to an abortion should outweigh a doctor's right to refuse.

2) When did a woman's abortion become an entitlement? I hate the fact that my tax dollars are paying for abortions just because these women can't keep their legs together. I hope that all the people that want no government regulation of abortion can see the absurdity of that same government paying for those abortions.

 

A woman's right to her uterus became a right when a man had a right to his testicles. To lose the right to one should automatically lose the right to the other.

 

That is precisely why they would apply there, to stop abortions.

People kill doctors to stop abortions, don't you think they would rather be paid while being able to stop it from the inside?

 

hmm off topic yet there is more to it than just abortion, of which I have been stating since the beginning.

A doctor not giving information on available options is far from simply refusing to do a procedure.

Pharmacists are already being fined and thrown out of their jobs for not dispensing the prescriptions prescribed to their clientele by THEIR DOCTORS. It is the job of the pharmacist to dispense the medications prescribed by the patients doctor, NOT to decide what they will not dispense under their own personal beliefs.

If they have personal beliefs that make it so they can not do their job they should check their beliefs at the door, and or not become a pharmacist in the first place.

BTW I have yet to fully state what my opinion on abortion is in this thread, other than I believe in freedom of the individual, I do not see a fetus 'nor does the law' as a citizen, I also believe it should possibly be a state issue within reason.

Even if I were for pro life I would call someone out when they talk out of their ass.

--- the above is NOT directed at you BTW

 

This was in response to what? Just to be clear, I never stated that a woman shouldn't have a right to her uterus. I just don't want to pay for whatever she chooses to do with it. Maybe you weren't talking to me.

 

Yet if she doesn't have an abortion in many cases you'll be paying much more for a lot longer than had she had an abortion.

You get screwed either way you look at it when it comes to taxes.

Last I checked we also do not get to decide where our tax money goes, especially when it comes to moral issues.

 

OK

True

No, I don't agree with this. If I own my own business and I am a pharmacist that does not believe in abortion, I should not be required to dispense the "Emergency Contraceptive". I should not be required to dispense anything. It's my store and my business. You can go to another pharmacy and leave me be.

I can't agree

OK, I think you read my opinion in a previous post. Seems to me that the abortion fans are trying to impede the pro-lifer's right to not participate.

OK, I hope that wasn't meant for me.

 

It is not just a 'business' it is a regulated and licensed location for the purpose of dispensing medications that a DOCTOR prescribes.

See above.

Nope didn't read your opinion, I am only stating again what I have stated in this thread. I have no problem with a pro lifer or pro choicer taking part in the discussion, as long as they do not lie, and pull items out of their ass.

It was not.

 

I'm getting used to it.

Hmmm... I'm not sure what that implies, but...???

So are you suggesting that because my morals and someone else's lack of responsibility, I decide that I don't want to pay for someone's abortion and that's a bad thing? I'm not sure what you mean.

 

I'm saying that it's the way the law works....
We do not get to not pay taxes for people who become alcoholics and live off the state, we do not get to not pay taxes for those who have too many kids, we do not get away with not paying taxes because we have moral objections to something, especially when it's a legal option such as abortion is.

 

Well, I keep sensing this..., almost a blessing on the abortion, just because it's legal. Just because it's legal, you make is sound as if it were an entitlement.

"I'm entitled to an abortion that you will have to pay for because I can't keep my legs together"

I don't think we should have to pay for any of that stuff.

Take the money away from our our poor, fat welfare recipients and we'll have more than enough Americans to "do the jobs no one else wants to do."

Why is it my responsibility to pay for welfare mom's #3 kid, when she knows she can't pay for #1 or #2.

America is the only country in the world with fat poor people and our poor people live better than 75% of the world's population.

 

Not at all, I think a vast majority of programs should be cut. The simple fact however it's legal, we do not get to pick and choose what we do not want our taxes to pay for simply because we have a moral issue against it.

Do you believe the same for cases of rape, incest and others where she did not have the decision in keeping her legs together?

A few problems I see, you don't want to pay for abortion 'but' you also don't want to pay for welfare. While on the surface that sounds great, if it's about taxes the cheapest method by far would be abortion, not supporting the child for years to come and in most cases the mother as well.

I am all for removing people off of welfare that do not deserve it, for removing the incentive for people to continue to have kids and receive state assistance and give it only to those who need it.

Many of our poor are 'fat' not because they eat too much, they are fat because the cheap food is extremely unhealthy for you. Study after study has been done on this, it is expensive to eat healthy. The government also does not help when they subsidize corn creating high fructose corn syrup in most everything. Soda is cheaper in many cases to buy than milk is, quality fruits and veggies are expensive and canned foods high in fat and preservatives are a staple for the poor family.

You can not equate being 'fat' to eating too much, or being 'fat off the government' quite the opposite in fact.

I can tell you I spend MUCH more now that I eat 'healthy' even though I eat less than I spent when I did not care what I put in my mouth, I used to buy food based on cost and taste, not any more. I buy food on protein content, fat content, calories, carb basis, etc.