dayman

And to just continue posting on auto-pilot...you are free to concern yourself with the interest of your child and other people's children all you want outside the realm of politics. Have at it, wage a culture war, fight for the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens...but on this issue...you don't control them and to speak quite frankly no matter what the conservative movement desires or what anybody says about the likelihood of change in this area...you and Congress never will a change. It just won't ever happen, ever...all this is a waste of time for all pro-life people they're just being manipulated for political gain plain and simple. If they simply focus all their time on private efforts...we would all be much better of including their own movement.

Hehe, I don't know how you are on the fence about Congress banning abortion when you can make a post like this. To you I'm twisting words by saying that a small group of people in Washington would pass judgement that would control what a woman can do with her body in her own reproductive process. To me you are twisting words by talking about Jesus (who doesn't mean anything to me but I'm not casting aspersions on Christians in saying that...just saying) and potentially living beings and personal responsibility (in sex...but not in pregnancy) It's black and white really. Everyone can control their own bodies, and their own reproduction, and they can persuade their neighbors and society that it is moral or just to behave in a certain way...but when they physically control someone else and threaten criminal prosecution and deny services...it's wrong.

The obvious point to make there is once it can live outside the mother it isn't a parasite...maybe you could say it is b/c it needs someone else but anyone can do that job. It is unreasonable for Congress to step in and declare "you have created life now, in the name of the fertilized egg we control you body now through the most intimate process in human history."

The person who carries a fertilized egg is the final arbiter on the situation as applied to her...v. a group of people in Congress who have never met her, may have nothing in common with her or her beliefs, and have no idea about her situation being the final arbiter... What seems more reasonable once you accept neither party can be fully correct on the issue of human life?

That's a whole different subject really. I agree on the Catholic stance is outdated...ultimately as a society we have an unwanted pregnancy problem...not an abortion problem. You would think absent religious dogma that true pro-life people would vigorously support all forms of birth control to everyone as much as they possibly could.

I could care less about Canada I still don't see the point. The point is I'm a liberal so I want Canada? We're talking directly here...you have full access to me. Canada has nothing to do with anything. Canada should provide it if you ask me. I don't care what they do or don't do.

My point is the clear ambiguity is whether or not it's "human life" or even "human life...enough." Any sense of humility will compel anybody regardless of their beliefs and no matter how sincere to acknowledge that they are not the final arbiter on that question. Where there is absolutely 0 ambiguity is the known, real world impact outlawing abortion has on the woman with a fertilized egg. Provided you acknowledge that you are not god, there is absolutely nothing conservative, or even really just...about outlawing all abortion.

lol spoken like a true man

All women in all circumstances should have access to birth-control. It should be as easy as possible. It benefits not only the women who is helped by it, but all of society. You can be angry for no reason or you can pick a better issue to get riled up about as a partisan maniac. I cannot think of anything more easily classified as healthcare then birth control/managing reproduction.

B/c making healthcare available to people who can choose to use it or not is the same as denying healthcare to people whether or not they choose to use it?

The reason that it is factually/logically correct (IMO of course hehe) to view pro-choice as the more pro-rights (liberal..or even conservative..lol however you see it) stance...is because BOTH sides necessarily have to acknowledge that however they feel about the fertilized egg being life...they aren't God and there is a good faith and contentious disagreement about if it is. Therefore, given the regulation prohibiting abortion would interfere with the most intimate of experiences humans have...it's not appropriate. That's really why it's not an even handed debate where either way one side is forcing their view on the other. No matter how you slice it it's a parasite living in the body of another person who is charged by nature with turning into a full human being or not...one side of this issue controls their decisions from that point on regarding their reproduction the other does not.

It just isn't equal here though. It's not both sides forcing their opinion on the other. Pro-choice lets people reproduce how they see fit (with reasonable exceptions for really late abortions and whatnot perhaps)...pro-life does not.

I see this point. It's still a terribly intimate and private matter though. How we reproduce is probably the most private matter there is. Given the controversy over early abortion, understanding that people fundamentally disagree, and understanding it's one of the most private and personal experiences humans have...it's not a huge stretch to call it inconsistent. That said I get the argument, some people think it's their business to control someone else's reproduction and make them behave a certain way to protect a fertilized egg that lives inside them b/c it's a person. The bottom line though, prolife people would do well to just change the hearts and minds of their neighbors and support those (make it easier) who do keep babies they weren't planning on having. To simply say "it's a life so it's government protecting a life" to bypass the basic fact that under either theory (life or not) it's government interference in the most basic of human experiences....that doesn't sit well with me.

is this a no to the law or a weak yes?

Well I guess my question is the position itself though. Not if you would respect someone, but if you would like to see the law they want on the books.

Which Obama haters on here support the RNC position btw? Out of curiosity...

hehe, get the **** out of here Tom

lkjlihp vfhjb #%&$ZHGHFJ^i$%irtgf

Following polls should cause you great concern for people who follow polls. Anyway I'm off to DickMorris.com to get an honest, nonpartisan view of where the voters stand w/ no agenda behind it.

lol ok

I'll take a look next time I'm at the liquor store may give it a shot I need a change anyway. Given you are the one suggesting this...you drink it how?

I ...uh..."acquired" the first season recently...but it's Starz and apparently starting the second season recently (I think). No idea when it's on.

http://www.latimes.c...0,1438253.story

LOL save face? Obviously I never save face. As such I still don't understand what you are talking about. The name of the bill or cosponsors matter? Am I running around pasting the endless list of sponsors for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or do I cut to the chase in topics on Obamacare? I still don't know what your point is here. People in congress who feel strongly about abortion should own it. The ones who do and rise to front of the stage should continue to. This isn't unreasonable and I could care less honestly that they do I know all kinds of people (living near the bible belt) that feel this way. If there's one issue I strongly disagree with it's this one. But don't run from it if it's something you want to be law b/c people start talking about it.

Give me a good bourbon I'll give it shot. Haven't had many I find special.