Our Country is going to Hell...

[DaveH]

As the saying goes... if you aren't a Democrat by the time you are 20, you are heartless. If you aren't a Republican by the time you are 40, you are a idiot.

[Guest]

I have problems w/ the Repubs on 2 issues:
Stem cell research and abortion.

I am not pro-abortion (as I've discussed earlier), I just think it shouldn't be used as a form of birth control. Counselling should be required for anyone wanting one for at least 2-3 weeks before they would be allowed to have it UNLESS it is a medical emergency. I am against partial birth abortions...unless it is a medical emergency.

As for stem cells, the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway after a period of time, isn't destroying that potential life WORSE than using the stemcells to help someone and/or improve their life?

I also have a hard time w/ the Repubs throwing the term "god" around all the time. Doesn't the bible teach not to judge others?(If so, why do so many republicans hate on gays)? That he who is without sin should cast the first stone? To help the poor (thought republicans say if you're poor, get a job)? Sounds to me like God is a democrat...

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
As the saying goes... if you aren't a Democrat by the time you are 20, you are heartless. If you aren't a Republican by the time you are 40, you are a idiot.
Since I considered myself a Republican before I was 18 and a democrat after does that mean that I was smart enough at a young age to follow my heart?

[Guest]

no response to those comments Dave??

[out there]

i agree with some of what you say, chuck; i think restricting ANY sort of research is a shot in the foot. so what if we're destroying "potential people?" by using birth control, you're destroying "potential people." i'm against the partial birth abortion, mainly because the kid is (most often) already out. otherwise, abortion is completely up to the parents, more so the woman. if my gf got pregnant because her birth control failed, i think we would both want an abortion because we aren't prepared to be parents at this time.
there are quite a few things that i think the government has no right to enforce.

[Guest]

I think as for abortion it's up to the Woman; not the public... Would they stop a drug that can successfully work 100% (besides abstinence) to prevent pregnancy?? It's like society wants us to make mistakes and receive punishment for it (in a way) I think as long as it's not too far along in the pregnancy it should be okay; after a certain point, it shouldn't be Okay.. As for stem cell research; I think anything that could eventually help the well being of us down the road should be looked into. Crap who knows how many diseases you could cure down the road... That could be a relative or friend

[HandoEX]

out there wrote:
i agree with some of what you say, chuck; i think restricting ANY sort of research is a shot in the foot. so what if we're destroying "potential people?" by using birth control, you're destroying "potential people." i'm against the partial birth abortion, mainly because the kid is (most often) already out. otherwise, abortion is completely up to the parents, more so the woman. if my gf got pregnant because her birth control failed, i think we would both want an abortion because we aren't prepared to be parents at this time.
there are quite a few things that i think the government has no right to enforce.
I was 21 when I found out I was gonna be a dad with someone I wasn't ever going to marry. I wasn't even remotely close to being ready at that time. Giving life to a child, no matter how hard it can be for the parent, is worth it. Abortion is denying life for a child and killing a living human. Someone tell me how it differs from murder?

[Guest]

Well here's a thought; if a woman found out she was pregnant and abused herself by heavily drinking or some crap like that, would we consider it murder? Where's the proof... the U.S. has freedom and rights.... (Think'n outside the box)

[HandoEX]

IMO, the child still deserves a chance. One could say that many babies would be born with birth defects. True. What about those kids who would have been born perfectly healthy? I think that just because some women abuse themselves and their fetuses during pregnancy, a generalization should not be made. IMO, abortions should be allowed if 1) when severe life threatening risks are associated with birth, 2) The pregnancy is caused by rape.
Irresponsibility is not an excuse. I would venture to say that more than 75% of abortions are among women (and girls) who are not into drugs or abusing their bodies while they are pregnant. I think your excuse is an overgeneralization and a poor excuse.
Millions of people are looking into adoptions. Abortion is just an easy way out of responsibility.

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
Since I considered myself a Republican before I was 18 and a democrat after does that mean that I was smart enough at a young age to follow my heart?
There is no logical explanation for that Chuck. It must have been the alignment of the moon and the stars that screwed you up.

[Guest]

HandoEX wrote:
IMO, the child still deserves a chance. One could say that many babies would be born with birth defects. True. What about those kids who would have been born perfectly healthy? I think that just because some women abuse themselves and their fetuses during pregnancy, a generalization should not be made. IMO, abortions should be allowed if 1) when severe life threatening risks are associated with birth, 2) The pregnancy is caused by rape.
Irresponsibility is not an excuse. I would venture to say that more than 75% of abortions are among women (and girls) who are not into drugs or abusing their bodies while they are pregnant. I think your excuse is an overgeneralization and a poor excuse.
Millions of people are looking into adoptions. Abortion is just an easy way out of responsibility.
At what point does it actually become a child is my question. Is it at conception when it is merely a massively multiplying group of cells? Is it at 6 weeks when it has finally started to take some shape? is it @ 4 months when the heart starts beating? Is it around 6 months when the brain starts showing activity? I'd be more willing to say around 6 months personally....afterall, if someone is brain dead or on life support, the family of the individual can pull the plug.

[Guest]

DaveH wrote:
There is no logical explanation for that Chuck. It must have been the alignment of the moon and the stars that screwed you up.

Or the beer and the women....who knows

[HandoEX]

tjamz wrote:
At what point does it actually become a child is my question. Is it at conception when it is merely a massively multiplying group of cells? Is it at 6 weeks when it has finally started to take some shape? is it @ 4 months when the heart starts beating? Is it around 6 months when the brain starts showing activity? I'd be more willing to say around 6 months personally....afterall, if someone is brain dead or on life support, the family of the individual can pull the plug.
Conception, in my opinion.
I don't think you should compare someone being brain dead and on life support with a developing child. Someone on life support does not have a chance at a fruitful life. An unborn child should have that chance. Apples and oranges.

[Guest]

HandoEX wrote:
Someone on life support does not have a chance at a fruitful life. An unborn child should have that chance. Apples and oranges.
Not necessarily true, I know firsthand of a person who was on life support, the doctors gave him zero chance of living but his family insisted he stay on at least until their insurance ran out....4 weeks later he left the hospital on foot. He is now 25 years old.

[Guest]

It could also be debated that a sperm cell is capable of becoming a human being and should always have a chance at life...therefore masturbation should carry the death penalty due to the murderous act of killing sperm cells.

[HandoEX]

tjamz wrote:
It could also be debated that a sperm cell is capable of becoming a human being and should always have a chance at life...therefore masturbation should carry the death penalty due to the murderous act of killing sperm cells.
Again, apples and oranges. A sperm cell COULD create life. A sperm cell meeting an egg DOES create life.

[HandoEX]

tjamz wrote:
Not necessarily true, I know firsthand of a person who was on life support, the doctors gave him zero chance of living but his family insisted he stay on at least until their insurance ran out....4 weeks later he left the hospital on foot. He is now 25 years old.
That is awesome!!! Fault for this person's diagnosis is squarely on the medical professional who made the diagnosis. I am not condoning pulling the plug on anyone unless it is deemed 100% completely true that the person will not survive. All I am saying is someone truly having no chance of survival is different from an unborn child who does have that chance.

[DaveH]

tjamz wrote:
It could also be debated that a sperm cell is capable of becoming a human being and should always have a chance at life...therefore masturbation should carry the death penalty due to the murderous act of killing sperm cells.
There'd be a lotta people on death row with hair growing on their palms.....

[Guest]

tjamz wrote:
It could also be debated that a sperm cell is capable of becoming a human being and should always have a chance at life...therefore masturbation should carry the death penalty due to the murderous act of killing sperm cells.
Ya; same thing with the embryo's of Females; should each one that comes out be saved for people who want to be fertalized w/o having intercourse or whateva... This is a very controversial subject; people tend to lean each way w/ different reasons. If a girl wanted to not have a kid and couldn't get abortion I think she could abuse her body just enough to have a miscarriage... To most girls; having a child put up for adoption is hard; because once the baby is born they may become attached. Even though they regret having to go thru the 9 months.. Who knows; there is no "good" answer. I don't think abortion should be 100% legal or 100% illegal.. (cuz reasons can fall both ways..) IMO

[Guest]

HandoEX wrote:
That is awesome!!! Fault for this person's diagnosis is squarely on the medical professional who made the diagnosis. I am not condoning pulling the plug on anyone unless it is deemed 100% completely true that the person will not survive. All I am saying is someone truly having no chance of survival is different from an unborn child who does have that chance.
Yeah, them Mayo clinic doctors are dumb....