Bill O'reilly And Glen Beck

[irishguy 14]

Im still looking for an answer to the question that was posed.

And again just because you don't think so doesn't mean it wasn't a valid answer. Here's a hint he doesn't feel qualified from a "theological perspective or a scientific perspective" to answer the question however he is " pro-choice." and he "believes in Roe v. Wade". Oh and also he came "to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don’t think women make these decisions casually." I think they — they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be — and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I’ve now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

[Nimue1995 1]

copernicus is looking for specifics in a general world.

[copernicus 0]

And again just because you don't think so doesn't mean it wasn't a valid answer.

Ok, so you believe he really doesnt have an opinion, and I am quite certain that he does. The voters who will decide this election, those currently undecided, did not get an answer, and if you read commentaries around the web they dont think they got an answer./thread

[irishguy 14]

Ok, so you believe he really doesnt have an opinion, and I am quite certain that he does. The voters who will decide this election, those currently undecided, did not get an answer, and if you read commentaries around the web they dont think they got an answer./thread

I think what he voiced was his opinion not a definite answer but his opinion. I have the same opinion on the issue as well as whether I can say with 100% certainty there is a god, its an issue where I don't feel as though I'm qualified to give an absolute. McCain made a good comment when asked to define rich, he talked a little as to why a specific number wasn't relevant to him or his platform and then jokingly said "...how about 5 million?" and then "But seriously, I don’t think you can - I don’t think seriously that - the point is that I’m trying to make here, seriously — and I’m sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues.". Clearly 5 million wasn't an answer but does that mean he avoided the issue? I don't think so I think he gave a complete response to the question without "specifically" answering it. While not the same issue it certainly makes the point.

[copernicus 0]

I think what he voiced was his opinion not a definite answer but his opinion. I have the same opinion on the issue as well as whether I can say with 100% certainty there is a god, its an issue where I don't feel as though I'm qualified to give an absolute. McCain made a good comment when asked to define rich, he talked a little as to why a specific number wasn't relevant to him or his platform and then jokingly said "...how about 5 million?" and then "But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously — and I'm sure that comment will be distorted — but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.". Clearly 5 million wasn't an answer but does that mean he avoided the issue? I don't think so I think he gave a complete response to the question without "specifically" answering it. While not the same issue it certainly makes the point.

OMG, it isnt the same issue at all!!! He explained why the answer doesnt matter to his policy. Raising taxes on anyone is bad in a slow economy, Im not going to raise them on anyone, so an arbitrary line of "rich" has no relevance.That is not the same as BHO saying (obviously not his words, Im exagerrating to make my point) "I believe killing babies is OK but Im not qualified to have a reason why".

[LongLiveYorke 38]

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let’s deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?OBAMA: Four months. Before four months, it's still a fetus and it's okay to abort it. After four months, it's a baby and it's not okay to abort it.WARREN: Why exactly four months?OBAMA: Well, you asked a silly question and I gave a silly answer. Obviously there's no real way to determine in a general sense when something becomes a "baby" and gets human rights. We would need a proper definition of the term "baby" and any definition that would suffice would make the answer to your question a tautology. So, my real answer is "somewhere between when it is conceived and when its umbilical cord is cut." It happens somewhere in that time frame. When exactly depends on your perspective. But we can all agree that it's good for society to limited the cases where abortions are necessary. And since it's always going to be impossible to answer your question, I'd rather switch gears toward one that we can actually do something about and that isn't twisted and demented by semantics, religion, and philosophy.Seems like he gave a pretty clear answer to me.

[vbnautilus 48]

That is not the same as BHO saying (obviously not his words, Im exagerrating to make my point) "I believe killing babies is OK but Im not qualified to have a reason why".

I thought he pretty clearly explained that he is not in a position to rule on such a deep philosophical/moral question and that the struggle to make that decision was a personal one which should be left up to individual women. What more do you want? McCain doesn't explain why he so firmly believes that human rights begin at conception, he just states that it is his 'belief'.

[copernicus 0]

WARREN: That was a freebie. That was a gimme. That was a gimme, OK? Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. As a pastor, I have to deal with this all of the time, all of the pain and all of the conflicts. I know this is a very complex issue. Forty million abortions, at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?OBAMA: Four months. Before four months, it's still a fetus and it's okay to abort it. After four months, it's a baby and it's not okay to abort it.WARREN: Why exactly four months?OBAMA: Well, you asked a silly question and I gave a silly answer. Obviously there's no real way to determine in a general sense when something becomes a "baby" and gets human rights. We would need a proper definition of the term "baby" and any definition that would suffice would make the answer to your question a tautology. So, my real answer is "somewhere between when it is conceived and when its umbilical cord is cut." It happens somewhere in that time frame. When exactly depends on your perspective. But we can all agree that it's good for society to limited the cases where abortions are necessary. And since it's always going to be impossible to answer your question, I'd rather switch gears toward one that we can actually do something about and that isn't twisted and demented by semantics, religion, and philosophy.Seems like he gave a pretty clear answer to me.

It does? "When exactly depends on your perspective". The question was "What is your perspective", and he answers with some obvious sophistry."Sometime between when it is conceived and the umbilical cord is cut" and filling in the blanks "and even though my opinion is obviously not conception or any time soon thereafter since I support late term abortions , Im not going to tell you when I really think"If you can find a clear answer in there we have different definitions of clear.

[irishguy 14]

OMG, it isnt the same issue at all!!! He explained why the answer doesnt matter to his policy. Raising taxes on anyone is bad in a slow economy, Im not going to raise them on anyone, so an arbitrary line of "rich" has no relevance.That is not the same as BHO saying (obviously not his words, Im exagerrating to make my point) "I believe killing babies is OK but Im not qualified to have a reason why".

OMG clearly I said it's not the same issue. Yes McCain explained why the answers doesn't matter to his policy kind of like how Obama explained that he is pro choice and why. The fact that you continue to ignore this doesn't change the fact that he said it.As for your quote are you saying you have to be able to answer when a fetus becomes a life in order to be for or against abortion?

[vbnautilus 48]

It does? "When exactly depends on your perspective". The question was "What is your perspective", and he answers with some obvious sophistry."Sometime between when it is conceived and the umbilical cord is cut" and filling in the blanks "and even though my opinion is obviously not conception or any time soon thereafter since I support late term abortions , Im not going to tell you when I really think"If you can find a clear answer in there we have different definitions of clear.

You're missing the point. We're dealing with an obvious moral gray area. Why is it not an acceptable answer to maintain that it's a gray area? Look, I am a neuroscientist whose main focus is understanding the neural basis of human consciousness. If someone asks me "at what point in development does a human become conscious?" It is a much more accurate and complete answer for me to repond that its not an answerable question than it is for me to be pinned down to a specific day in development. That wouldn't be avoiding the question; some questions require an answer that points to uncertainty. This is quite clearly one of them.

[copernicus 0]

As for your quote are you saying you have to be able to answer when a fetus becomes a life in order to be for or against abortion?

Yes, absolutely. If the fetus is "alive" by whatever definition is chosen, then abortion is murder at that point, no different than murdering your child when he's 6 months old. Of course if thats okay with you, then you tell me where YOU draw the line.

[copernicus 0]

You're missing the point. We're dealing with an obvious moral gray area. Why is it not an acceptable answer to maintain that it's a gray area? Look, I am a neuroscientist whose main focus is understanding the neural basis of human consciousness. If someone asks me "at what point in development does a human become conscious?" It is a much more accurate and complete answer for me to repond that its not an answerable question than it is for me to be pinned down to a specific day in development. That wouldn't be avoiding the question; some questions require an answer that points to uncertainty. This is quite clearly one of them.

No, I think you're missing the point. The question isnt strictly confined to the philosophical/scientific arena. It has direct implications on peoples day to day lives via legislation (if you think the POTUS will really have that much influence). If you are going to influence legislation that affects a potential human life, you HAVE TO come to an opinion as to when something is or isnt a human life. Yes its gray, yes you may be "wrong" if there is ever some method of determining that, but you CANNOT legislate without an opinion.

[vbnautilus 48]

Yes, absolutely. If the fetus is "alive" by whatever definition is chosen, then abortion is murder at that point, no different than murdering your child when he's 6 months old. Of course if thats okay with you, then you tell me where YOU draw the line.

(are we really going to get into the abortion debate?)Killing anything that is 'alive' is not murder, unless you consider killing bacteria to be murder as well. Children do not have the same rights as adults. (We do discriminate based on developmental age). It does not follow that a 4 celled organism which will form a child necessarily has the same rights as a child. In other words, the question is really not about what is 'alive'. The question is when does a developing human organism comes to have the same rights as an already born human organism. The question posed to Obama was "When does a baby get human rights in your view?"

[vbnautilus 48]

No, I think you're missing the point. The question isnt strictly confined to the philosophical/scientific arena. It has direct implications on peoples day to day lives via legislation (if you think the POTUS will really have that much influence). If you are going to influence legislation that affects a potential human life, you HAVE TO come to an opinion as to when something is or isnt a human life. Yes its gray, yes you may be "wrong" if there is ever some method of determining that, but you CANNOT legislate without an opinion.

Right, but that is the whole basis of the pro-choice position. That since it is a philosophical question that can't be determined, it shouldn't be legislated on. It should be left up to individuals to decide.And in fact Obama made the distinction in his response. What he said was: WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. And then he goes on to say what he thinks about what the laws should be. I can't really imagine giving a more accurate answer than this myself.

[copernicus 0]

(are we really going to get into the abortion debate?) No, this isnt about abortion in particular, its about whether a non-answer to a direct question is acceptable from someone who is supposed to be a leader.Killing anything that is 'alive' is not murder, unless you consider killing bacteria to be murder as well. Strawman, we are obviously talking about human life.Children do not have the same rights as adults. (We do discriminate based on developmental age). Strawman. We are not talking about rights in general, we are talking about the right to live in particular.It does not follow that a 4 celled organism which will form a child necessarily has the same rights as a child. Thats your opinion, and I agree with that opinion. WHAT IS BHO'S OPINION"??????In other words, the question is really not about what is 'alive'. The question is when does a developing human organism comes to have the same rights as an already born human organism. The question posed to Obama was "When does a baby get human rights in your view?"

Agree with the last, but "when does a fetus become a human life" is generally accepted to be the same question since most people accept that aborting a human life is violating its rights.

[vbnautilus 48]

Agree with the last, but "when does a fetus become a human life" is generally accepted to be the same question since most people accept that aborting a human life is violating its rights.

No, you're begging the question with that. It's not the same question at all - the one about life is pretty much indisputable, no one disputes that a 2 celled organism is alive, and it is human if its human. The question about whether it has rights is THE question. Or, what does it need to have in order to be afforded rights -- consciousness? A heartbeat? I don't know, but I certainly don't want lawmakers deciding. There are already too many laws restricting things most of us agree are OK, we certainly don't need more laws restricting things we cannot agree on.

[copernicus 0]

Right, but that is the whole basis of the pro-choice position. That since it is a philosophical question that can't be determined, it shouldn't be legislated on. It should be left up to individuals to decide.And in fact Obama made the distinction in his response. What he said was:WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. And then he goes on to say what he thinks about what the laws should be. I can't really imagine giving a more accurate answer than this myself.

Right, but that is the whole basis of the pro-choice position. That since it is a philosophical question that can't be determined, it shouldn't be legislated on It is????? In 40 years of discussing the issue Ive NEVER heard that as a primary argument much less the "whole basis" for being pro-choice.And for about the 3000 th time, I know what he thinks the law should be, that wasnt the question. It continues his ugly record in the Senate of voting "Present" on any issue that he thought could negatively impact a future Presidential campaign run.

[vbnautilus 48]

Right, but that is the whole basis of the pro-choice position. That since it is a philosophical question that can't be determined, it shouldn't be legislated on It is????? In 40 years of discussing the issue Ive NEVER heard that as a primary argument much less the "whole basis" for being pro-choice.

Absolutely -- why else is it called pro-choice rather than pro-abortion? It's an issue that can't be resolved by consensus and needs to be left up to individual choice.

[El Guapo 8]

Cop, I think you are being Naive if you really think that the president, just because he is the president needs to have a hard line answer on every issue.I think it is unrealistic, and although I agree the answer was not perfect and playing to the crowd on hand a bit, I don't have a major issue with it.

[vbnautilus 48]

Let's also compare the "reasoning" in McCain's answer: A AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. I HAVE A 25-YEAR 4 PRO LIFE RECORD IN THE CONGRESS, IN THE SENATE. AND AS 5 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I WILL BE A PRO LIFE 6 PRESIDENT AND THIS PRESIDENCY WILL HAVE PRO LIFE POLICIES. 7 THAT'S MY COMMITMENT, THAT'S MY COMMITMENT TO YOU.Where is the "why" here? He just states his belief. Obama gave more explanation of his position than this.

[Balloon guy 158]

Cop, I think you are being Naive if you really think that the president, just because he is the president needs to have a hard line answer on every issue.I think it is unrealistic, and although I agree the answer was not perfect and playing to the crowd on hand a bit, I don't have a major issue with it.

sorry, but you opened this can of worms..DEAL WITH IT

[El Guapo 8]

sorry, but you opened this can of worms..DEAL WITH IT

I'm good at starting stuff then sitting back and letting others fight.

[JustDoIt 10]

Ok...we disagree, but even if youre right, isnt it still a big "so what"if RvW is overturned? Abortion then returns to being a state by state decision and by population density at least, the important states are overwhelmingly pro-life.

It is a state issue and that is where it should be decided. Shame on Activist Judges!

[copernicus 0]

Let's also compare the "reasoning" in McCain's answer:A AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. I HAVE A 25-YEAR4 PRO LIFE RECORD IN THE CONGRESS, IN THE SENATE. AND AS5 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I WILL BE A PRO LIFE6 PRESIDENT AND THIS PRESIDENCY WILL HAVE PRO LIFE POLICIES.7 THAT'S MY COMMITMENT, THAT'S MY COMMITMENT TO YOU.Where is the "why" here? He just states his belief. Obama gave more explanation of his position than this.

what are you smoking?The reason he is anti-abortion at any time of development is BECAUSE he believes life begins at conception. Its fully explained.

[copernicus 0]

No, you're begging the question with that. It's not the same question at all - the one about life is pretty much indisputable, no one disputes that a 2 celled organism is alive, and it is human if its human. The question about whether it has rights is THE question. Or, what does it need to have in order to be afforded rights -- consciousness? A heartbeat? I don't know, but I certainly don't want lawmakers deciding. There are already too many laws restricting things most of us agree are OK, we certainly don't need more laws restricting things we cannot agree on.

The question is not about "life" its about human life. Stop bringin up irrelevant points!