Wow Daniels New Blog

[hudday48 0]

"I think it's really hard to KNOW when life really begins. I'm not pro choice, but there has to be a line somewhere?"I assume this is supposed to read I'm not pro-life.How can a poker player possibly be pro-life?If the state has control over a womans body then the state definitely has the right to kill online poker or gambling in general.I hope Danny clears this up.

[chrozzo 19]

"I think it's really hard to KNOW when life really begins. I'm not pro choice, but there has to be a line somewhere?"I assume this is supposed to read I'm not pro-life.How can a poker player possibly be pro-life?If the state has control over a womans body then the state definitely has the right to kill online poker or gambling in general.I hope Danny clears this up.

I think your post here is more WOW than his blog. Oh yes, but we do all see the remarkable connection between online poker and control over a woman's body, i mean the two are almost synonomous. The state has control over your body too...when someone beats the crap out of you for being a moron and you try to kill yourself to save the embarassment..that too is illegal my friend.Now go back to your baby killing and leave us alone.

[nopunk 0]

I think your post here is more WOW than his blog. Oh yes, but we do all see the remarkable connection between online poker and control over a woman's body, i mean the two are almost synonomous. The state has control over your body too...when someone beats the crap out of you for being a moron and you try to kill yourself to save the embarassment..that too is illegal my friend.Now go back to your baby killing and leave us alone.

PWNED.

[hudday48 0]

"I think your post here is more WOW than his blog. Oh yes, but we do all see the remarkable connection between online poker and control over a woman's body, i mean the two are almost synonomous. The state has control over your body too...when someone beats the crap out of you for being a moron and you try to kill yourself to save the embarassment..that too is illegal my friend.Now go back to your baby killing and leave us alone."Did you read the blog. Everything in the paragraph hinted to him being pro-choice except for that line. Some other comments he made seemed pro-life but I sincerely thought he lost his train of thought in that sentence. As a religious man I seriously wanted to hear his take on abortion regardless of which "side" he's on. You could read it and explain to me why I misinterpreted it perhaps? Or you could just give yourself a penis enlargement by insulting someone? Good point sir!!!!I thought it was an obvious mistake but maybe I'm wrong.Sure there isn't much comparison between denying the right to life and denying a persons right to pursue happiness. (hint read what I just wrote)Except that they are both controversial issues of how much control the government should have over people (and their actions). One thing I thought I had noticed largely in poker players was a resentment of government control. I thought this might correlate with them being more protective of their rights when the government would try to inhibit them, right?On another note,You seem very sure of the side you've taken while I am still largely uncertain which side of the fence I'm on. Is anyone willing to have a discussion about abortion? Frankly I'd argue both sides but then again I've done that before to myself. So tell me why you think abortion is wrong so we can have a civilized discussion.

[eddiedean 0]

"I think it's really hard to KNOW when life really begins. I'm not pro choice, but there has to be a line somewhere?"I assume this is supposed to read I'm not pro-life.How can a poker player possibly be pro-life?If the state has control over a womans body then the state definitely has the right to kill online poker or gambling in general.I hope Danny clears this up.

Giggle Giggle

[hudday48 0]

Alright I looked at Daniels blog again and I can admit when I'm wrong. I skimmed through that section of his blog and only that sentence seemed to stick with me.I can admit that I completely misnterpreted almost that entire section.I'd still like it if there were some debate on abortion and abortion issues.

[theresa113 0]

Maybe he is what I call Pro-Solution. That is what I label myself. I would personally prefer if there were no so thing as an abortion, not because I feel that life begins in the womb but because I know it is one of the worse decisions that a woman may have to make in her life.I would prefer for money to be spent on research and education. There has to be better solutions out there for birth control. Many existing solutions are never discussed with your GYN unless if you the paitient bring it up. Solutions such as using a diaphram or an IUD which have nominal side effects. Doctors are quick to prescribe the pill or a hormone derivative such as the patch or depo provera. Hormones have side effects and the worse side effect is the lack of libido (we have a libido... we just don't want to be pregnant and this is what they prescribe to us?!?!?) No wonder the pill works so well. Parents are uncomfortable talking about sex and birth control and protection with their kids. So many schools have restrictions in sex education. If we had good birth control and knowledge ideally we should not need to have abortions. I would love to start a Pro-Solution campaign. I believe this is where most Americans reside which is somewhere in the middle of the pro-choice and pro-life debate. I do not want the right to an abortion to be taken away, but we could reduce the needs with birth control that works, has no side effects and is easy to use.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Here is my two cents... How do we all feel about murdering a child that is one day old? I'm assuming that all of us would agree that this is a crime. How about a baby that's been in the womb for 8 months and three weeks? Would we still be ok with having an "abortion" at this point? I'm assuming most of you would say no. How about 6 months? What then? I don't have a clue where that line should be drawn when it goes from being abortion to murder. I really don't, and I don't think anybody does. To that point, in our society, if a mother killed her 2 day old baby we would call that murder and she would go to prison. When a mother decides to have an abortion, effectively killing the forming baby, why is that any different? There are lawas against murder, and I guess it just comes down to when you feel like a baby in the womb becomes human. Again, I don't know... but I'm certainly not pro-choice. Not because I want to infringe on women's rights, but because I don't want to give any human the right to choose murder.***************************************************************** This is very personal and private, but in light of the discussion I'm comfortable sharing: Years ago, an old girlfriend I was with had an abortion. I was fine with it at the time, but as I got older, and thought more about it, I realized that it was a mistake. Not my choice at all, mind you, but there was nothing I could do. I had no rights, and I had no power to change the outcome. So as you can see, I've been on both sides of the fence. I'm on the side now, though, that I'll never come back from. I just don't see how abortion is anything less than a brutal murder of an innocent child.

[AlphaOmega 0]

Technically, if you look at end results, then contraceptives can be viewed as devices of murder since they prevent the formation of a zygote.I use the old "when the fetus is viable it is alive" argument, and I think that this is considered to be after the second trimester, though I'm not entirely certain. It makes sense if you view the above logic as reasonable.Also, hiding abortion behind a "woman's right to choose" is wrong. It should have nothing to do with a woman's choice, because if we preserved the right of choice to that degree and consistency, then crime would be pretty rampant as it would fall upon an individual choice that was protected by our government. If abortion is ever concetely implanted in our society, it should be for reasons other than the preservation of a woman's choice.These opinions aren't consistent with only one side or the other, they are just arguments against certain ideologies. I also consider myself a Pro-Solution advocate, as should we all. This whole argument begs the question of "which is the greater crime, killing the baby or bringing it into an impoverished world." In my opinion, both are crimes in certain situations (though this opinion will probably always differ from person to person) but the point is that it is more beneficial to society to make the topic insignificant and isolated. In other words, we need to make abortion a last resort for those who really need it, rather than a commonly accepted practice simply for poverty control.Daniel,I just read the rest of your reply, particularly the part about the brutal murder of an innocent child. I think you should consider the first sentence of my post.BTW and for what it's worth:I've been on both sides of the fence as well, and have had firsthand experience with girlfriends as well as close friends. It's not a pretty thing, regardless of what side you stand on. It also pains me that the main priority of society today seems to be the resolution of a somewhat trivial argument rather than examining why we have to argue it in the first place.

[David_Nicoson 1]

Technically, if you look at end results, then contraceptives can be viewed as devices of murder since they prevent the formation of a zygote.

By that logic failure to copulate is murder as well.

[nutzbuster 7]

Here is my two cents... How do we all feel about murdering a child that is one day old? I'm assuming that all of us would agree that this is a crime. How about a baby that's been in the womb for 8 months and three weeks? Would we still be ok with having an "abortion" at this point? I'm assuming most of you would say no. How about 6 months? What then? I don't have a clue where that line should be drawn when it goes from being abortion to murder. I really don't, and I don't think anybody does. To that point, in our society, if a mother killed her 2 day old baby we would call that murder and she would go to prison. When a mother decides to have an abortion, effectively killing the forming baby, why is that any different? There are lawas against murder, and I guess it just comes down to when you feel like a baby in the womb becomes human. Again, I don't know... but I'm certainly not pro-choice. Not because I want to infringe on women's rights, but because I don't want to give any human the right to choose murder.***************************************************************** This is very personal and private, but in light of the discussion I'm comfortable sharing: Years ago, an old girlfriend I was with had an abortion. I was fine with it at the time, but as I got older, and thought more about it, I realized that it was a mistake. Not my choice at all, mind you, but there was nothing I could do. I had no rights, and I had no power to change the outcome. So as you can see, I've been on both sides of the fence. I'm on the side now, though, that I'll never come back from. I just don't see how abortion is anything less than a brutal murder of an innocent child.

My wife and my heart goes out to you Daniel. Many folks I know who have gone down this road have had it haunt them later in life. It is so very sad to me and I truly feel for you dude (the girl too!) It has to really bother you at times and for that I have great sympathy. But you make some great points too regarding all those embyo's that will go to waste in that story. Such a tragedy. Man, what a dilemma!This is a very tough topic but I agree with Theresa113's post whole heartedly. The best option is to find ways to not even have to consider an abortion in the first place. Regarding the when does life start debate, does anyone really want to take a stance on this? Only God really knows when life begins.

[ColeSLaw 0]

Also, hiding abortion behind a "woman's right to choose" is wrong. It should have nothing to do with a woman's choice, because if we preserved the right of choice to that degree and consistency, then crime would be pretty rampant as it would fall upon an individual choice that was protected by our government.

With much respect this is nonsense.The issue at debate is who are the subject of rights in our society, rights that include among others freedom of bodily integrity? Born humans clearly are the subject of such rights and animals clearly aren't in our society. But what about a foetus? As DN mentioned, that is a more difficult question and it is debated in terms of both the rights and duties of both the mother and foetus. Different belief systems take different approaches: a Daoist believes life begins when qi is inhaled with the first breath of a baby, a Catholic believes a foetus deserves protection. No one is arguing for unconstrained choice that in your example includes the choice to commit crimes on others.

[blueodum 0]

There are lawas against murder, and I guess it just comes down to when you feel like a baby in the womb becomes human.Yah, and hardcore Catholics take it to the limit and think any form of contraception is immoral.It's a tough issue and I'm in favour of letting the medical establishment guide lawmakers in this matter.

[theresa113 0]

I must say, this is probably some of the best discussion I have seen on this issue and who would have thought you would see such intelligent converstaion about life, conterception and abortion on a poker site. I appreciate the male perspective here because honestly, I have never considered that the abortion would haunt a man as it would haunt a woman. I am embarrassed to say that I have never thought of that but maybe it is because I in the past I have been quite defensive about this subject. I once took someone very close to me get an abortion. It is what she wanted and though I did not atempt to change her mind, I would have preferred if she made a different choice. I understood her reasoning thoug and since she is so close to me, I decided to support her. Anyway, when we left the clinic, there were 5 men with signs at the exit. It was not what anyone needed to see at the time. There was an entrance and an exit to the place and they were at the exit. I guess this is where my definsive nature lies.I do want to say that that there is only one time in my life that I did not use some sort of birth control. I was married for 6 months, it was Thanksgiving morning. When my ex and I decided not to use anything that morning, I said I may get pregnant and are you 100% sure. He said yes (we were talking about having kids young) and 9 months later I gave birth to my son.I was using a diaphram at the time*** which I consider to be one of the best forms of birth control. Ask your women and I bet most have never used one. We really need to get to a point where abortion is not an option. We need to get to a point where we feel comfortable about sex and that we can discuss it with our partners and our doctors. We need to be open minded to try new birth control methods.I believe in birth control so much that I was one of the trial subject for the patch. The time when I was a trial subject they already did the studies to ensure that the delivery of the hormone was correct. My study was to test the adhesive and the side effects. I hear the adhesive has changed because OMG it burned sometimes and left some really bad welts but I feel my participation in the study was worth it. Anyway, I want to thank the men on this site for your points of view. You have opened my eyes to the after effects of what a man goes through as well. Maybe one day we can all work together so no one ever has to experience the pain of regret. I would love for us to be able to celebrate the miracle of all life.*** Edit... I took a shower after this post and realized that I was wrong on the conterception of use at this time. We were using the sponge (I used a diaphram after the birth of my son). The Sponge was an awesome birth control method. Unlike a condom, you did not feel the barrier between you and your partner and unlike the pill you did not have hormonal side effects. This is why I really want Americans to ban together... What is a sponge?The sponge is a donut-shaped polyurethane device containing spermicide and a woven polyester loop that hangs down into the vagina for removal. Note: In 1995, the sponge was taken off the market in the United States by its manufacturer. However, it is expected to be available in U.S retail stores when it receives FDA approval. The sponge is currently available in Canada.We had a great product and now we don't. I feel like we go backwards instead of forwards with birth control.

[wilheldp 0]

The issue at debate is who are the subject of rights in our society, rights that include among others freedom of bodily integrity?

I'm just curious, where are these rights of which you speak written down? Is the freedom of bodily integrity right next to the freedom to not be offended? I swear, this is what is wrong with our society these days. People make up rights as they go along, then violently, litigiously, or publicly defend their made up rights.

[xtxoxpxd 0]

I don't have a clue where that line should be drawn when it goes from being abortion to murder. I really don't, and I don't think anybody does.

just because we don't know where the line should be doesn't mean one doesn't exist. i personally believe abortions should be illegal only if the baby is viable outside the womb. i think thats as good a place to draw the line as any.

[AlphaOmega 0]

By that logic failure to copulate is murder as well.

No, that's very different. Maybe the wording was bad, but what I was trying to say was that if you feel that abortion kills a little baby, then maybe you should consider contraceptives in a similar ballpark (which most Catholics did for some time). Anyway, this isn't something that I personally hold in high esteem, just food for thought really.

[suitedinc 0]

Here is something interesting.....a severe contradiction in the law....and the definition of life.If my wife has an abortion, the law says she is within her rights to terminate the "fetus", as it is not "life" yet. However, if my pregnant wife were to be murdered, and the "fetus" died as a result, the perp would be tried on 2 counts of murder. Now how is it possible to murder what is not "life"?When does "life" begin is not the right question to be asking here, even though a baby is completely formed at 10 weeks (within the first trimester), this includes the ability to feel pain. I think the direction of questioning is more like this....Will this zygote, fetus, embryo, whatever you want to label it, ultimatley be anything other than human? NO. It will never be a chicken, a dog, a cat, or a mouse. It will absolutley 100% be a human being. Once conception has happened, by the choice of two people, how can we justify stopping it? It is a human being at the core. That being said, I would not go so far as to say that conterception is wrong. This in fact keeps the human from forming in the first place and an egg or a sperm on their own are not a human, until the connect and bring both sides of the DNA puzzle together.Another interesting side note in this.....abortion is BIG business with a lot of money flowing through it. I've talked to a former owner of a clinic. You would be astonished at what is taught to these scared ladies in the name of a dollar.

[econ1 0]

"I think it's really hard to KNOW when life really begins. I'm not pro choice, but there has to be a line somewhere?"I assume this is supposed to read I'm not pro-life.How can a poker player possibly be pro-life?If the state has control over a womans body then the state definitely has the right to kill online poker or gambling in general.I hope Danny clears this up.

The difference between one's belief in when life does or doesn't begin and how much involvement government should have in our daily lives is MASSIVE.That's like saying that Daniel is for higher rakes because he believes taxes should be raised to help pay for better social programs.

[Victorvdb 0]

Without any first-hand experience with aborted pregnancies from friends, I'd like to put in my 2 cents as well.I'm dutch, and we have very liberal abortion laws here - basically any woman can abort a pregnancy, for reasons that cause a "distressing" situation (that i basically any reason), up to 24 weeks pregnancy (practical 21 week + few days).The law argues about protecting unborn life on the one hand and protecting the pregnant woman on the other hand - implying that the life of the pregnant woman can be ruined by NOT having the abortion. It also says that the maximum time of abortion was chosen as such, that the unborn child would be able to survive autonomically outside its mothers body.Personally, I think 24/21 weeks is a bit too far away, but I am definitely a pro-choicer and I have multiple reasons for it. First of all, having a baby can ruin both the mothers life, and the babies life can be of low quality (poor mother, bad social environment - prostitution/drugs)Second of all, having a baby can lead to complications that kill the mother and these complications can be known on forehand.Third of all, if the child is unwanted, it can likely be unloved.And finally, my opinion on all of this could change, when there was a good way of "catching" newlyborns and have them be adopted etc. However with the current systems in place in both the US and in the Netherlands, with foster homes, and so on, this is just appaling, and a bad way of handling an unwanted pregnancy. Get this up to gear and I'd be much more inclined to reach another compromise with pro-lifers. As it is, I think my points are valid and I stand by them (with respect to other opinions as always)And for your all perusal abortion stats from 96/97 for some countries (source = ministry of internal affairs of holland) - abortions per 1000 women (although I expect pregnancies here) 15-44 years.Netherlands (1997) 6,5 Belgium (1997) 5,7 Germany (1997) 7,7 England and Wales (1997) 15,8 Sweden 18,7 United States (1996) 22,9 Bulgaria (1996) 51,3 Estonia 53,8 Victor

[econ1 0]

Technically, if you look at end results, then contraceptives can be viewed as devices of murder since they prevent the formation of a zygote.

Alpha - while I totally appreciate your desire to be balanced in your approach to the issue I couldn't disagree with the quote above more. There is a huge difference between stopping a zygote from forming and aborting a developing life. You may as well have said "Technically if you look at end results then masturbation can be viewed as a device of murder."I realize you were just trying to make a point but, logically, your comparison just doesn't hold water.

[hudday48 0]

Its sort of a matter of two debates. Please correct if I'm wrong.1. What is human?2. Does a womans right to pursue happiness overide a humans right to life?#2 is a non-issue to me. Life has more intrinsic value then happiness to me. But I understand the reason for this debate.This is going to sound weird but I know people who have argued in favour of infanticide. Of course there were extenuating circumstances but its hard for me to beleive that an infant no matter how young isn't "human". When you see a baby for the first time its really hard to think you have right to kill such a beautiful innocent creature. Intellectually I have to admit that my personal definition of what is human involves self-awareness, intelligence and consciousness. I could never kill a baby but the people who argue that they aren't fully human aren't completely insane.I understand why people think that a fertilized egg is human because of the genetics. I just don't feel much attachment to a fertilized egg as I should because of the difficulty in conceiving that this tiny thing is a human.On the other end of the spectrum I beleive that I don't understand the logic of anti-birth control groups. To me it seems obvious that a human couldn't possibly be human until the egg is fertilized. I also don't beleive that sex is something sacred that means the act of procreation.So does anyone have ideas of what it means to be human? What was my definition missing?

[ShakeZuma 585]

If my wife has an abortion, the law says she is within her rights to terminate the "fetus", as it is not "life" yet. However, if my pregnant wife were to be murdered, and the "fetus" died as a result, the perp would be tried on 2 counts of murder. Now how is it possible to murder what is not "life"?

This is the biggest question I have always had regarding abortion. If I were to go up to a pregnant woman on the street, kick her in the stomach, and kill the baby, I would go to jail for murder (presumably). So why, then, would it be ok for the same woman to walk into a doctors office and have the same baby killed? That just doesn't make any sense to me.I firmly believe that killing a fetus is killing a baby and therefore murder. However, and this is where I'm sure I'll lose most everybody, I think abortion should be completely legal.Why? Population control. Yeah it sounds sick, but the worlds population is growing exponentially, and the earth cannot hold but so much before it reaches a critical mass and blah blah blah... I could go on forever on this subject so I'll just stop here; but the simple fact is, the better we control the population, the less likely nature will control it itself (i.e. massive pandemics and such, which historically is what has kept populations in control).Weird I know, but whatever, I ain't normal.edit: And I forgot... A womans right to chose what to do with her body? How is it her body? It's her child's body that she's killing. I can see in the instances where an abortion is done to save the life of the mother, but in any other instance, this argument makes absolutely no sense to me. It isn't HER body.

[AlphaOmega 0]

Alpha - while I totally appreciate your desire to be balanced in your approach to the issue I couldn't disagree with the quote above more. There is a huge difference between stopping a zygote from forming and aborting a developing life. You may as well have said "Technically if you look at end results then masturbation can be viewed as a device of murder."I realize you were just trying to make a point but, logically, your comparison just doesn't hold water.

It's not something that I completely agree with either, and yes, masturbation could also be viewed in the same respect (again something that most Catholics once believed). Again, it's simply a response to, "hey, we stop a baby from forming." Well, so do lots of things, contraceptives included.I think this thread is a prime example of a problem with this issue. It's not that both sides of the argument can't be well argued or conveyed, it's that we almost would rather convince others of our opinions rather than analyze the real problem at hand, which is getting a solution to the reason why we have abortions in the first place.ShakeZuma,I can see all the logic behind the population control argument, but again, why not attack the problem at its source?The benefits of sex education/birth control serve society sooo much better than having abortion to fall back on, think rampant STD spread and the countless teens (and some adults) who are completely unfit to raise children, especially when they don't want to.

[garamond10pt 0]

Here is something interesting.....a severe contradiction in the law....and the definition of life.If my wife has an abortion, the law says she is within her rights to terminate the "fetus", as it is not "life" yet. However, if my pregnant wife were to be murdered, and the "fetus" died as a result, the perp would be tried on 2 counts of murder. Now how is it possible to murder what is not "life"?

Just to clear something up, in (I think) all jurisdictions in the US where this can be charged, it's under a specially passed part of the criminal law, not the standard murder charge, or by a specifically added section defining unborn children as victims under the murder provision. These have been subject to some bit of controversy in that some see this as trying to open the door to criminalizing abortion.