What really bothers you? The post or that someone

• Obama's grandmother and the media coverage - sm
  • I've always wondered the true family ties here - nm
  • Exactly my thoughts...... - not so easily fooled...........nm
    • You're overlooking a race more important than 2008 election. - Here's a hint....sm
      • You don't like the post, talk to the poster above - who posted it.............NM
        • BTDT. This is an equally offensive opportunity. - Stand by my original response to YP. nm
          • What really bothers you? The post or that someone - agreed with the post?
          • Whatever floats your boat - nm
  • In your rush to judgment, - did it every occur to you that....sm
    • I didn't rush my judgment, I have had - sm
      • As many of us have. So the scenario described in the OP - Would sound more plausible...sm
        • So you can't acknowledge there may have been - family considerations? Fine by me. nm
          • Family considerations? What, they're schedules - are too busy, too??
            • I meant their (I was wording it differently and then - edited) nm
        • I would feel the same about it either way. - nm
  • for 3 days he's been fixing to get there? - JoePlumberforPrez
    • This confirms our worst suspicions. Certain pubs factions - really are invaders from outer space...sm
  • I believe he did drop everything and go - gourdpainter
  • I don't know the whole situation, so won't judge his decision nm - nm
  • I agree with you. - Chele

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

One of the major battlegrounds for this issue concerns the use of language. In keeping with our Standards of Credibility, the verbiage used here is explanatory and precise. This means expressions such as 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' are replaced by words that articulate specific positions. This makes certain sentences cumbersome and repetitive, but for the sake of accuracy, sacrifices in eloquence were made.

Perhaps the largest point of contention regarding terminology is the label applied to what or who is being aborted. Those who think abortion should be generally illegal often use the terms 'unborn child' and 'unborn baby'. According to Webster's College Dictionary and the International Dictionary of Medicine and Biology, the word child can apply prior to birth, but both of these sources employ the word baby only from the point of birth onwards.[1] Those who think abortion should be generally legal often use the word 'fetus', a clinical term derived from a Latin word meaning 'offspring' or 'newly delivered'.[2] Many who use this term in the media and general public are misinformed as to what it means. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines a fetus as:

In other words, when referring to humans, the word fetus is only applicable from nine weeks after conception until birth. Yet, numerous major news organizations have misapplied it to both before and after this period. [4] [5] Furthermore, the press rarely uses clinical terminology when referring to a pregnant woman ('gravida') or a newborn child ('neonate'). [6] [7]

The term chosen by Just Facts to describe the object of an abortion is 'preborn human'. This phrase is medically accurate, distinguishes between humans and other mammals, and conveys reality in plain language. For those who might object to the use of the word 'human', a few medical references are in order. The medical textbook, Before We Are Born - Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, states:

Likewise, a clinical embryology textbook bears the title Human Life Before Birth, and phrases such as "human in utero" and "human females... in utero" appear in creditable medical textbooks. [9] Moreover, it would be scientifically inconsistent to assert that a child born at 24 weeks after fertilization is a human, while one in womb at 37 weeks is not.

* The average length of a full-term pregnancy is 266 days or 38 weeks. Obstetricians normally use a figure of 40 weeks, but this is actually the time between the first day of the last menstrual period and childbirth. On average, the first day of the last menstrual period occurs 2 weeks before fertilization.[10]  [11]

* Following are facts about human development. They are organized according to the number of weeks since fertilization. Weeks after the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) are shown in parentheses.

Fertilization (2 weeks after LMP)

Fertilization normally takes place within one day of intercourse. At fertilization, the genetic composition of a preborn human is formed. This genetic information determines gender, eye color, hair color, facial features, and influences characteristics such as intelligence and personality.[219] [220] [221]

Genetically speaking, with the exception of identical twins, once a woman conceives a preborn human, the odds against her conceiving the same one again are greater than 10⁶⁰⁰ to one. (10⁶⁰⁰ is ShortHand for the number 1 with 600 zeros after it. For comparison, there are roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the known universe.) [222] [223] [224] [225]

3 Weeks after Fertilization (5 weeks after LMP)

The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.[12] [13]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

4 Weeks after Fertilization (6 weeks after LMP)

The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.[14] [15]

7 Weeks after Fertilization (9 weeks after LMP)

Muscles and nerves begin working together. When the upper lip is tickled, the arms move backwards.[16] The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) has divided into hemispheres.[17]

[18]

9 Weeks after Fertilization (11 weeks after LMP)

More than 90% of the body structures found in a full-grown human are present. The medical classification changes from an embryo to a fetus. This dividing line was chosen by embryologists because from this point forward, most development involves growth in existing body structures instead of the formation of new ones.[19] [20]The preborn human moves body parts without any outside stimulation.[21]

10 Weeks after Fertilization (12 weeks after LMP)

All parts of the brain and spinal cord are formed. The heart pumps blood to every part of the body.[22] The whole body is sensitive to touch except for portions of the head. The preborn human makes facial expressions.[23]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

11 Weeks after Fertilization (13 weeks after LMP):

[24]

12 Weeks after Fertilization (14 weeks after LMP)

Electrical signals from the nervous system are measurable. After an abortion, efforts to suckle will sometimes be observed.[25]

13 Weeks after Fertilization (15 weeks after LMP):

Ultrasound Video [26]       Windows Media Player   Real Player

14 Weeks after Fertilization (16 weeks after LMP)

The preborn human makes coordinated movements of the arms and legs.[27]

16 Weeks after Fertilization (18 weeks after LMP)

[28]

18 Weeks after Fertilization (20 weeks after LMP)

Ultrasound Video [29]       Windows Media Player   Real Player

The portion of the brain responsible for functions such as reasoning and memory (the cerebral cortex) has the same number of nerve cells as a full-grown adult.[30] [31]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court rulings in "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort at will. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

20 Weeks after Fertilization (22 weeks after LMP):

The preborn human sleeps, awakes and can hear sounds.[32]

Ultrasound Video (Heart) [33]   Windows Media Player   Real Player

24 Weeks after Fertilization (26 weeks after LMP)

Taste buds are functional. The preborn human will swallow more amniotic fluid if a sweetener is added to it.[34] The grip is strong enough to hold onto an object that is moving up and down.[35] If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 80%.[36]

At this stage, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the "stigma of unwed motherhood." (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

28 Weeks after Fertilization (30 weeks after LMP)

If born and given specialized care, the survival rate is more than 95%.[37]

Premature infants born at this time are more sensitive to pain than infants who are born at 38 weeks, and infants who are born at 38 weeks are more sensitive to pain than older infants (3 -12 months old.) [38] [39]

32 Weeks after Fertilization (34 weeks after LMP)

(Premature infant – 3 days after birth)

38 Weeks after Fertilization (40 weeks after LMP)

Average point in time when humans are born. At birth, the medical classification changes from a fetus to a neonate.[40] [41] At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court's rulings in "Roe vs. Wade," "Doe vs. Bolton," and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey," a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her "health." One example from Roe vs. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health is the work of caring for a child. (Details in the section on Constitution and Law.)

* In March of 1970, a pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey sued the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[42] McCorvey wanted to keep her identity secret and assumed the fictitious name Jane Roe.[43] The name of the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law was Henry Wade. Thus, the case was entitled "Roe vs. Wade."

* Before the United States Supreme Court, the attorney for Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.[44] The Ninth Amendment reads:

The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relevant to the argument reads:

* In support of this view, the attorney for Roe stated that "liberty to these women would mean liberty from being forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy." [47]

* During oral arguments, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded:

After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe's attorney:

The attorney for Roe responded:

At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked:

The attorney for Roe stated:

* The attorney for the State of Texas argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment.[49] The portion relevant to the argument states:

* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term "person" meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[51] The relevant clause reads:

* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:

* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word "person" was to go to "the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed." He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster's New Millennium Encyclopedia as a "British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S." In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a "right" that

* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but was cut off by one of justices: [56]

* On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court released its ruling. Seven of the judges ruled in favor of Roe and two of the judges opposed the ruling. The ruling overturned the laws of 30 states that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[58]

* The majority ruled these laws unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it protects "the right to privacy," and that this includes "a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy." [59] The relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:

* The Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word "privacy" or any synonym for it.[61] [62] It was adopted in 1868 to address a number of issues relevant to the Civil War, such as ensuring constitutional rights for black people.[63]

* The majority wrote that they were "not in a position to speculate" as to "when life begins" and criticized the State of Texas for "adopting one theory of life," namely, that life begins at conception.[64]

* They also:

- Used the term "potentiality of human life" in reference to preborn humans who are capable of living outside the mother's womb.[65]

- Ruled that preborn humans have no Constitutional rights.[66]

* The majority created rules regarding the types of abortion legislation that states could enact based upon the three trimesters of a typical pregnancy:

1) First trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can require that abortions be done by licensed physicians, but other than this, they cannot regulate the manner in which they are performed.[67]

2) Second trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can regulate the manner in which they are performed for the purpose of protecting the mother's health. The ruling cites examples of the types of regulations that are permissible. These include establishing "qualifications [for] the person who is to perform the abortion" and setting rules regarding "the facility in which the procedure is to be performed." [68]

3) Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after "viability" (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother's womb), but cannot prohibit abortions "where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." [69] The ruling cites specific examples of what may be considered harmful to a mother's health. They include the "stigma of unwed motherhood," the work of caring for a child, and the "distress" "associated with [an] unwanted child." [70] [71]

After listing these examples and others, the majority wrote that this portion of their ruling does not permit abortions "at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason" a woman chooses.[72] They repeated this assertion four times using varying words, but listed no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited.[73]

* On the same day that the Supreme Court released Roe vs. Wade, it issued another ruling in a case entitled "Doe vs. Bolton." The same seven judges who ruled in favor of Roe also ruled in favor of Doe, and the same two judges opposed the ruling. [75] The majority wrote that this ruling and Roe v Wade "are to be read together." [76]

* In this case, the State of Georgia had a law prohibiting abortions unless the pregnancy would "seriously and permanently" injure the health of the mother.[77] A lower court struck down this law and the majority of the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling stated that abortion laws with exceptions for the health of the mother must allow for factors such as emotional health, psychological health, familial concerns, and the woman's age.[78]

* The Georgia law also required that the doctor who would perform the abortion, two other doctors, and a committee of the medical staff at the hospital where the abortion was to be done needed to agree that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.[79] The lower court upheld this law and the Supreme Court struck it down.[80] The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. The abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their "best clinical judgment." [81]

* In 1992, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey." In this case, the majority reaffirmed the central element of Roe vs. Wade, but did away with the "rigid trimester framework." [82]

* As in Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states cannot prohibit abortions prior to viability, and laws that prohibit abortion after viability must include an exception for the "health of the mother." [83]

* Contrary to Roe vs. Wade, the majority ruled that states could enact laws that regulated abortion throughout pregnancy; as long as they did not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion. An example of what would be acceptable is a law requiring that doctors provide women with certain information before they perform abortions.[84]

* The Democratic Party is in favor of abortion being generally legal. It supports the Supreme Court ruling in Roe vs. Wade. It supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions.[85]

* The Republican Party is in favor of abortion being generally illegal. It supports a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life. Since 1995, Republicans have proposed at least 12 amendments of this nature, all of them containing an exception to save the life of the mother.[86] [87]

* The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports the use of taxpayer funding to perform abortions. On their website, the ACLU poses the following rhetorical question:

And answers:

* The ACLU opposes school vouchers. One of the reasons they give for this stance is:

the enormous numbers that need to be performed.  In an age where birth control is so readily available and so reliably effective, that there are still SO MANY women seeking abortions, tells me one thing.....

People are careless, that is all.  What other conclusion could you draw?  If you only had true accidental pregnancies resulting from the small percentage failure rate of most contraceptives, the incest, the rapes, and the abortions to save a woman's life, it still wouldn't add up to a tiny fraction of the abortions we have now. 

Every time I hear someone say that that it's a woman's right to choose, or to control her own body, I can't help but hear a little voice saying... THEN CHOOSE NOT TO GET PREGNANT, BE RESPONSIBLE, DON'T HOOK UP WITH SOME LOSER IN A BACK SEAT WHILE YOU'RE LOADED UP ON BOOZE, AND CONTROL YOUR BODY. 

Why does choicie and control of one's body only begin after conception takes place?

Reprinted in Boston Globe.  Sorry!

objective views. This is a one-sided publication that asks for donations to keep it going. Nothing I read in there posts anything against any democrats, just republicans. It is not a fair-minded reporting.

I like to read both sides of the aisle but this publication spews hatred for anything not democratic in order to sell books.  To those who can't see both sides, this blog, or publication as they like to state, is just up their aisle. I shake my head at one-sided news. Taken from their web site:

"Indeed, a founding idea of the Consortium for Independent Journalism was that a major investment was needed in journalistic endeavors committed to honestly informing the American people about important events, no matter what the political and economic pressures.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' "

article.

And thanks for pointing out all the other "results" of his administration that, as you say, benefit nobody but the rich and/or the corporations or, as he himself once publicly bragged, "his base."

I know for a fact that when he ran for President in 2000, I told every single person I knew that if he becomes President, we're going to go to war with Iraq.  (Nobody's gonna treat his daddy like Saddam did and get away with it.)

I didn't have a crystal ball.  I had common sense and a good memory from the Gulf War when his father was President and how he didn't "finish the job." Seems a lot of other Americans forgot about that.

I really enjoyed reading your post and all the facts you raised that I failed to raise in mine.  Thanks for the mention of the LA Times article.  I'm going to try to look that up on the web.

From your post:

"Did you read Mein Kampf?  Would that be good enough evidence for you, because he wrote about it in there."

Wrote about what?  That the Jews were socialists?

I'm actually feeling sad for you right now gt.  You obviously don't know what Christianity is about.  Pat Robertson does not speak for me, and I don't endorse what he said.  I'm sorry you are so bitter and hate filled that you would wish anyone to burn in hell.  There are some evil people in this world but my first wish for them is that they find Christ and turn from their evil ways with His help.  I too hope one day you find Christ, gt, and quit letting misguided Christians and Christian leaders keep you from HIM.  Their blunders are not worth your eternal soul.

You think there is only one patriot here?  Get a trip on your sour shrivled heart and try not to speak.

Whoops! I made a mistake.  My bad.

This is the post where the NEOCON tells the LIBERAL not to speak ON HER OWN BOARD!

They can't show a post of a liberal telling Army Mom not to speak because it doesn't exist. 

I agree with every single word you said.  America is becoming a very scary place indeed.  I believe, as you do, that there are people who are eagerly awaiting the *Rapture* and indeed believe they have the *inside track* to heaven.  Unfortunately, it look as if this country might actually suffer from their self-fulfilled prophecy if it continues going backwards in time under Bush's completely inept leadership.

Please keep posting.  I really enjoy reading your posts. 

It makes me feel a lot better to hear someone say they're against this.  When express outrage at my posting about the issue, instead of expressing outrage about the issue itself, it truly makes me wonder.

I honestly do not recall any threads on the conservative board about this issue.  All I recall is total silence (or attacks) when the issue is mentioned.

I also wasn't trying to imply that the crime of child molestation is more prevalent in one political party or another.  Obviously, that's irrelevant, and I have a hard time even associating a criminal like that with any political views one way or the other.

It's just that this seems to be a no-brainer, an issue on which virtually everyone can agree, yet the right seems to be eerily quiet when this topic comes up.

You wrote:

That is what America does.  We point at what we believe to be wrong and say so.  At least we used to. 

I beg to differ somewhat on your view of our historical treatment of the Native Americans, being an amateur historian of the settlement of the West.  The Native Americans alternately were glorified or vilified by the white culture.  Had they not been portrayed as subhumans by our government at one time in the history of the West they would not have been exterminated so carelessly at times.  As well, our history of race relations with blacks in the south is certainly nothing to be proud of.  Perhaps another country should have come along in both instances and pointed at us, or we should have perhaps pointed at ourselves. 

IF these posters want to continue to bury their heads in the sands, so be it.

and to FACT FINDER:  You're gosh darn right - I'M scared of ALL of them - they all have an AGENDA...(members of the CFR/New World order/New American Century) -

How dare you be condescending and patroning to me or any poster and tell me to *run along* - I'm probably old enough to be your mother, or grandmother.

and remember, it's my generation that has the MOST number of voters today...those from 50-75 - we WILL make a big impact......

and no matter what I posted about Barack - I was not rude, patronizing, and condescending to any poster, as a few of you were. 

We can all agree to disagree, now can't we? 

Just as an aside, I was evacuated on 9/11/01 from Newark Airport trying to get home (was in the financial district on 9/10/01) and it took me an extra week to get home....

so perhaps I'm more paranoid than most - and then you'll all have to forgive me because while we all changed that day, I never recouped from the incident nor will I ever.  Yeah, it's my problem - but it's also EVERYBODY's problem.

And while I have Muslim friends - I also married French......and have watched France's Islamic population grow in leaps and bounds the past 30 years, coming close now to 30 percent of the country (60 million people in France, well over 25 percent are Muslim).......and I don't want that happening here.  I want freedom for EVERYBODY - not people planning to take us down.....there are far too many extremist Muslims who want to do America harm (remember *Death To America* you hear chanted....remember so many of them dancing in the streets once 9/11 happened - Americans have short memories and forget far too quickly in my opinion).

I did read yesterday from some political blogger that down the road here in America, we should expect bombings in the street, car bombings - and when I spoke to my neighbors about this, they said *We are surprised it hasn't happened here yet* -

It's a very scary world today....so forgive me for my own paranoia - paranoia in this case being a heightened sense of reality.

Have a nice day!!