Interesting concepts....mind changes and "facts".

What are the real differences between a young mother-to-be who has an approved abortion and the young mother who tosses her baby into the trash can?

Any thing but a legal concept?

What are the differences between a soldier such as yourself who kills in a legally approved manner and a murderer?

Any thing but a legal concept?

Good question. In the case of AIDS in third world countries, preventing condom use is deadly.

On the flip side, how can you convince Muslims in Africa to use a condom?

What a tragedy.

So you admit that abortion is murder?

So you admit that abortion is murder?

What leads you to believe that?

you really need to look around, bart.

the world is overpopulated and you're okay with that.

14 year old girls are having babies either because they got raped, or just made a mistake, and you're okay with that.

teenager's lives get ruined when they have children at a time that they cannot afford it. they need to drop out of school, find jobs, go through labor, pay medical bills (even if you give the baby to adoption), and if you keep, baby food, diapers, toys, beds, clothes, food. this is why i am pro abortion, too many of my friends have to go through this every day. and i am so aphauled at their living condition.

who cares if it is murder?

you can't exactly give them a choice on the matter now, can you?

abortion should be legal and that's the bottom line.

Interesting concepts....mind changes and "facts".

What are the real differences between a young mother-to-be who has an approved abortion and the young mother who tosses her baby into the trash can?

Any thing but a legal concept?

The latter is an infanticide. The killing of an actual, living, breathing human being. The former is a termination of pregnancy.

Some of thos toilet and trash can babies are preemies.

You don't know what I'm ok with and what I'm now ok with, dipshit.

Question to you: Is there any difference between a 4-week old embryo/fetus and a preemie baby?

well, it seems that you are pro-choice, am i correct?

if you are, then all of that falls under the pretense that you are okay with it.

and why did you repeat yourself, you repeat yourself?

First we have to distinguish as to whether flushing a preemie is infanticide or not.  Then we can go from there.

You don't know what I'm ok with and what I'm now ok with, dipshit.

Faith in something greater than one self.

Politicians to not meet the criteria.

Faith must be placed only in things which reward faith. Because humans and things made by humans will always fail, they do not deserve faith-not even loved ones like moms and dads.

Having faith in some kind of "God" is all that is proper, just, correct and true.

With faith we find ourselves making chioces that are proper, just, correct, and true.

Without faith we find ourselves spreading aids and demanding that our government is responsible for this plague, and that "they" should "do sometning" about it.

Many of you members cry about responsiblity and who is stepping up and who is not. Stop blaming others for your misery and ask who is responsible for YOUR life.

Hey hunin, stop blaming others for your confusion and ask who is responsible for YOUR psychosis.

Or not. I lay frame-traps well, myself, Bart.

Except that you seem ok in your own little world, we're pretty sure of that.

Interesting concepts....mind changes and "facts".

What are the real differences between a young mother-to-be who has an approved abortion and the young mother who tosses her baby into the trash can?

Any thing but a legal concept?

...
I think one of the best places to find common ground here is to find goals or means we agree on instead of arguing about esoteric differences that are going to remain a chasm. That chasm can be practically reduced before it is philosophically reduced.

... Americans are readying to deal with it pragmatically for the good rather than ideologically for the grandstanding.
...

A great comment ...practicality before philosophy....I would have chosen the reverse. I suppose it depends upon the most immediate need. That is, as long as our basic needs are unsatisfied the center of action will necessarily be around them...once satisified, we tend toward "philosophy".

At any rate, the philosophic view concerning abortion might center around the concept of limits. Any number of situations can occur, say, an hour prior to birth  for a women desiring an abortion. Power can go off, doctor called away, etc...which would result in an actual delivery of a bonifide human being as opposed to an aborted "fetus".This limit might even be moved up to a minute or even a second...in philosophical terms. Or, it may be moved back a month, three months, or etc....

The point is...while a logical and legal arguement may be made for an abortion accomplished 1 secont prior to birth....the "common sense" view would be otherwise.

The question is who, when, how, or even why are limits applied?

And a bigger question might be .... just how far would you, or anyone, personally go to accept responsibility for such a decision? ....assuming we may be obliged to account for our actions in some grander sense.

It isn't necessary to debate philosphy or principle before pragmatics, if the two roads can lead the same direction or arrive closer to a better endpoint. One thing I think you are overlooking, RB, is that the vast majority of abortions do take place in the first trimester.  Were I making the rules, these abortions would be legal and between only the woman and her doctor (birth control & family planning receiving greater focus and subsidy). Second trimester abortions would require certification of medical need. Third trimester would be authorized in direst medical necessity.

If you focus more on education & birth control, I think you stand a much greater chance of getting way, way closer to where you want to vis-a-vis abortion.

It is, after all, birth control of last resort.

The limits distinguish between zygote, embryo & fetus.

The accountability, or final judgments, are left to individuals and their God. They have to be.

No doubt...I'm just saying that the "debate" on this topic must always be on the philosophical end prior to the pragmatic....the nature of "limits" demands it.

"You're just saying" is about right. Could you put forth an argument, perhaps a stronger argument than the one you've put forth so far (I didn't see one, but be that as it may), in support of what you're "just saying"?

No doubt...I'm just saying that the "debate" on this topic must always be on the philosophical end prior to the pragmatic....the nature of "limits" demands it.

The Sad Truth Is That All Terrorists Are Muslim

Editorial Written by Abd al-Rahman al-Rashid, September 4, 2004

Translated by Worldpress.org contributing editor Peter Valenti



It is certainly true that not all Muslims are terrorists, however, sadly we say that the majority of terrorists in the world are Muslims. The kidnappers of the students in [the city of Beslan in the Russian state of] Ossetia were Muslim. The kidnappers who killed the Nepalese chefs and laborers [in Iraq] were also Muslims. Those who perpetrate acts of rape and murder in Darfur are Muslims, and their victims are Muslim also. Those who blew up civilian housing complexes in Riyadh and Khobar [Saudi Arabia] were Muslims. Those who kidnapped the two French reporters [in Iraq] were Muslim. The two women who blew up those two planes a week ago [in Russia] were Muslim.

Bin Laden is a Muslim and [the rebel cleric in Yemen, Husayn Badr al-Din] al-Hawthi is a Muslim, and most of those who carried out suicidal acts against buses, schools, houses, buildings all over the world in the past ten years also were Muslims. What a terrible record—doesn’t that say something to us about ourselves, our societies and our culture?

These images are grim, shameful and despicable for us when we gather them and lay them out together in one day [here in this article], however instead of ignoring and justifying them we must first recognize the validity [of this sad truth] and not compose articles and speeches declaring our innocence. It makes it easier for us to treat ourselves if we recognize the sickness. [For] self-treatment begins first by recognition. Then it is incumbent on us to repudiate our terrorist offspring, as they are a natural result of a distorted culture. Listen to what television sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi said, publicly issuing a fatwa giving permission to kill American civilians in Iraq. Imagine that, a religious scholar urging the killing of civilians, a sheik who belies the wisdom that old age supposedly brings, inciting the tender youth to kill civilians, [and] all the while he has two daughters who are studying in the safety of British protection in the infidel United Kingdom.

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1941.cfm

Listen to what television sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi said, publicly issuing a fatwa giving permission to kill American civilians in Iraq. Imagine that, a religious scholar urging the killing of civilians, a sheik who belies the wisdom that old age supposedly brings, inciting the tender youth to kill civilians, [and] all the while he has two daughters who are studying in the safety of British protection in the infidel United Kingdom.

I do not know what you mean by "the nature of 'limits'" or what that demands. But as to pragmatics vs. philosophics, which seems to be binding you, if you regard it all as a question of birth control, and if you believe that in & of itself that is not a bad thing, then you're on what I would see as a pragmatic path -- or just as well could be (even if not easily).

In a sense I agree with you...birth control, and abortion as a form,  are certainly pragmatic approaches to overpopulation. It's also pragmatic, that; in a effort to prevent starvation, adults would devour their young.

But it's the nature of limits, the line drawing, the settiing of boundaries that assist us in resolving our dilemmas. Consciously or otherwise we use this concept to determine the differences between night and day, right and wrong and this "philosophical" effort must always precede any pragmatic action....For example, we have concluded somehow that overpopulation is a "bad" thing and then we explore pragmatic approaches.

We define ourselves by where we draw the lines and abortion is an excellent example. We have chosen the moment of birth as the point in which an individual gains status as a human being...rather than say, conception, puberty or transfer into adulthood; probably because it is simply an easily definable event.

For me, at least, this line is a bit too arbitrary since there is little difference in status between the "person" an hour before birth or an hour after....so I'm forced to conclude that terminating a one week old fetus is no different that killing a six-year old child.

Right up there with the arbitrary delimitation of "death". Sometimes, it makes me conclude that when the victim of an attack is on "life-support", the perpetrator should be tried for murder not attempted murder.

Yours is mental masturbation masquerading for philosophizing. Forced to conclude, my foot.

You got a mouse in your pocket?

it's like the question, "do you, bart katz, have a brain?"

both answers are no.

   

what question? 

what you said just proves my point.......

       

what you said just proves my point.......

       

That was the point. 

Smerf is pointless as well as clueless.

That was the point. 

well, as soon as you learn how to use complete sentences, i'll take your word for it.