Sarah Palin ~ Unbelievable!

ron2

I don't think Palin has the pull or power to overturn Roe vs Wade, which survived may administrations since 1973. Including candidates vocally against it.

Palin as vice president, no.  McCain as president, yes.  The key is the judges on the Supreme Court.

The Republicans have already moved the Court away from full support of Roe vs Wade.  A couple of more judges and who knows?? 

The anti-choice movement is counting on the Supreme Court reversing itself.  They have been working toward that since 1973.

jenns

creationism would be taught in schools over evolution

aerial1313

I listened to an interview last week with a nurse who told first-hand accounts of babies surviving such procedures (born still breathing), which were then left in a room to die. 

By definition that was not a "partial birth abortion" because the infant was still alive.  It sounds more like the induced delivery of a non-viable infant.  This is considered a "natural" death, but I agree with you.  A quick shot would be kinder, but that gets into the area of murdering an infant, so it is not going to happen. 

aerial1313

I also have a very close friend who, at the age of 16, underwent a partial-birth abortion. 

No one should ever be forced into an abortion and I am very sorry for your friend!!  She may have had a late term abortion, but the term "partial-birth abortion" is a rather recent term (and not a medical one).  If your friend was not actually watching the procedure, I doubt she would know what abortion procedure was actually used.

jenn52

Why shouldnt creationism be taught alongside evolution?

Evolution is science so that belongs in public schools.  Creationism is religion and every religion has it's own version, so that belongs in the appropriate place of worship or a private school.

janet_rose

Evolution is science so that belongs in public schools.  Creationism is religion and every religion has it's own version, so that belongs in the appropriate place of worship or a private school.

Read this article for an in-depth description of Intelligent Design Theory.

Defining  Religion:

All of the definitions that we have encountered contain at least one deficiency:

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might include belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic 

Some definitions equate "religion" with "Christianity," and thus define two out of every three humans in the world as non-religious

Some definitions are so broadly written that they include beliefs and areas of study that most people do not regard as religious. For example, David Edward's definition would seem to include cosmology and ecology within his definition of religion -- fields of investigation that most people regard to be a scientific studies and non-religious in nature.

Some define "religion" in terms of "the sacred" and/or "the spiritual," and thus require the creation of two more definitions.

Sometimes, definitions of "religion" contain more than one deficiency.

Source : http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_defn.htm

janet_rose

Assuming that the abortion is legal to begin with, what makes one technique for terminating the fetus better than another?  The goals should be no pain for the fetus and a minimum of trauma for the woman.  

A quick stab into the brain from the base of the neck is a very quick and painless way to kill a human being - even an adult.  Sucking out the brain matter of the fetus allows a reduction in the head size for an easier expulsion of the intact fetus.  These two actions (accomplished when only the head remains in the uterus) are what most people call a "partial birth abortion", but that is strictly a political term.  It is NOT a term used by the medical community.

Reasons for this "partial birth abortion" might include:

• avoiding a C-section in the case of an oversized fetal head  -or-
• minimizing the trauma of fetal expulsion when the woman is fighting for her life

The federal, political definition of "partial birth abortion" is actually much broader than the two actions above.

An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

As a result of the "partial birth abortion ban", many abortion providers have adopted the practice of injecting the fetus with lethal drugs before all late-term abortions.  That avoids any possible problems with the ban, since the law only applies to a living fetus.

Nothing has really changed.  The fetus is just dead before surgery starts, rather than dying painlessly during the procedure. 

 I find this to be a very sad description of a terrible process given in horrifying clinical terms and I find myself amazed that anyone could support such a practice.

dgriego

Creationism or intelligent design is also a theory, it cannot be 100% proven, things can be assumed from the record but absolute proof is not possible. 

Can you come up with a single view of creationism that all religions can agree on?  If not, it doesn't belong in public schools.

dgriego

janet_rose

Assuming that the abortion is legal to begin with, what makes one technique for terminating the fetus better than another?  The goals should be no pain for the fetus and a minimum of trauma for the woman.  

A quick stab into the brain from the base of the neck is a very quick and painless way to kill a human being - even an adult.  Sucking out the brain matter of the fetus allows a reduction in the head size for an easier expulsion of the intact fetus.  These two actions (accomplished when only the head remains in the uterus) are what most people call a "partial birth abortion", but that is strictly a political term.  It is NOT a term used by the medical community.

Reasons for this "partial birth abortion" might include:

• avoiding a C-section in the case of an oversized fetal head  -or-
• minimizing the trauma of fetal expulsion when the woman is fighting for her life

The federal, political definition of "partial birth abortion" is actually much broader than the two actions above.

An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

As a result of the "partial birth abortion ban", many abortion providers have adopted the practice of injecting the fetus with lethal drugs before all late-term abortions.  That avoids any possible problems with the ban, since the law only applies to a living fetus.

Nothing has really changed.  The fetus is just dead before surgery starts, rather than dying painlessly during the procedure. 

 I find this to be a very sad description of a terrible process given in horrifying clinical terms and I find myself amazed that anyone could support such a practice.

I have to agree and reading stuff like this makes my minimally open-mind want to slam shut. How do we post on the other thread about the atrocities of how the wolves are treated and yet we condone this? Sorry, I'm having trouble reconciling that in my brain right now.

I just heard on the news that Obama referred to Palin as a pig.  In talking about Palin and In the context of "change" he said you can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig.  His defense was that he was trying to use a common phrase used by folks.  UNBELIEVABLE!  Oh, this is going to be a fun election.

DPU

I just heard on the news that Obama referred to Palin as a pig.  In talking about Palin and In the context of "change" he said you can put lipstick on a pig and its still a pig.  His defense was that he was trying to use a common phrase used by folks.  UNBELIEVABLE!  Oh, this is going to be a fun election.

Oh I love those slips of the tongues, regardless who they come from!  Sounds like he tried to take her pitbull/lipstick joke and parlay it into a witty jibe.  And failed.  Pretty big.     Open mouth.  Insert foot.

Not everyone who is pro-choice supports late term abortions.  My personal comfort level ends very early in pregnancy and I would hate to be a legislator trying to decide where to draw that line because there's just no way to compromise between the sides and everyone will draw it at a different week (or not at all, depending).  I personally believe it's a barbaric process and don't condone it.  I just don't see a conceivable situation where a c-section couldn't be performed and give the  infant a fighting chance at life.  I don't support abortions at the stage where a fetus is viable outside the womb, and that moment becomes earlier and earlier as science progresses. 

janet_rose

Can you come up with a single view of creationism that all religions can agree on?  If not, it doesn't belong in public schools.

 If people believe that such a practice is right and okay, then I see no reason why I should even attempt to debate the existence of God with them. I will instead leave it up to God to make peace with them according to His desires; after all I am only human and have not His compassion nor His patience.

jenn52

Why shouldnt creationism be taught alongside evolution? Why shouldn't all theories be presented? Not really fair. Most people in this country believe in some sort of God.

Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is, at best, an idea, a hypothesis if you will, and at worst, pure fantasy. A theory is something that has been scientifically tested over and over and over again, with consistent results every single time, thereby basically proving it. Let's remember that gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Cells are a theory. Creationism is most definitely NOT a theory, and it really, what is it? Steams my artichokes (LOL!) when people call it a theory, or say that Evolutionism is "just a theory". Yep, just like the theory that you are magically being pulled towards Earth and not floating into space...

dgriego

I find this to be a very sad description of a terrible process given in horrifying clinical terms and I find myself amazed that anyone could support such a practice.

I am sorry that death horrifies you.  It is a part of life and the best any of us can hope for is that our death is quick and painless..

No one "likes" or promotes abortion (despite what anti-choice folks like to claim), but as long as there are pregnancies, there will be abortions.  Anyone who was an adult before 1973 knows that from the headlines.

Some abortions are necessary to protect the health/life of the woman.  Many women will self-abort if given no other option and ERs used to see a lot of them - especially teenagers.  Some will even commit suicide in a last desperate attempt to establish control over their lives.

Pregnancy has a whole list of possible complications - including death.  Outside of medical complications, the leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide!!

If we want to decrease the number of abortions, we need

• open discussions  (This would stop if abortion was illegal.)
• good sex education
• readily available contraceptives (not insurance companies that cover Viagra, but not birth control)
• prenatal care for all women (to avoid complications and birth defects)

It would also help if we can

• eliminate rape and incest
• teach parents good parenting skills
• keep parents from kicking out pregnant teens
• teach men that they, too, can prevent pregancies

Roe vs Wade did not rise up in a vacuum.  It came about in reaction to the public horror over deaths from back-alley abortions and self-abortions.  During the years that abortion was illegal in parts or all of the United States (from the late 1800's until 1973), more pregnant women died from complications from self-induced abortions or abortions attempted by untrained or unqualified practitioners than from any other cause.

Stats on abortion from 2004

percentage         totals      weeks from the last menstrual period

• 61.3%                        <9
• 17.8%       79.1          9-10
•   9.6%       88.7          11-12  (end of 1st trimester)
•   6.7%       95.4          13-15
•   3.5%       98.9          16-20
•   1.1%      100.0          21 or more  (late 2nd trimester)

Note that only 1.1% of abortions are late 2nd trimester abortions where a "partial birth abortion" might have been used.  Almost 89% are in the 1st trimester.

dgriego

If people believe that such a practice is right and okay, then I see no reason why I should even attempt to debate the existence of God with them.

ROFL!!  I have no desire to "debate" any religious topic with you or anyone else on this forum.

ETA:  Whoops!  Added the word "no" above. 

Abortion simply "is".  "Right" or "okay" has nothing to do with it.

History aptly demonstrates that banning abortion does not stop it.  Such bans do kill women.

The best we can hope for is reducing the number of abortions. 

janet_rose

Can you come up with a single view of creationism that all religions can agree on?  If not, it doesn't belong in public schools.

i am not a believer in creationism or allowing it be taught in schools, but your reasoning is flawed. scientists and historians have problems agreeing on many many historical and scientific issues... however, that doesnt mean that science  or history shouldnt be taught. not sure when you graduated from school, but i know since i graduated from high school in 1991 there have been a number of things that i learned changed based on new information being learned.

edit: currently there is a project going on to try and prove what the universe was like shortly after the theorized big bang. however, the scientists are aware that the theory may also be proven false or that the work may support some other theories on how the universe was created.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/10/lhc.collider/index.html?eref=ib_topstories