Wow Daniels New Blog

[ShakeZuma 585]

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.

Oh, I completely agree with you. All that other stuff is what would be best for a total fix, and that would be nice, but I'm not smart enough to come up with a full plan of completely fixing the situation, which would entail ending poverty, educating every single person, and basically changing millions of peoples ways of life etc, etc. I mean, it can be done (hopefully) but thats very much a long term goal whereas abortion is a short term fix in the meantime.

[hudday48 0]

I think its unanimous except for a few extremists that birth control is the much preferred choice over abortion. Not only is it less costly (financially and emotionally (unless you're sterile)) but it helps us avoid the big issue of abortion.However this gold standard will never be achieved. Thats not say to its not worth trying to educate everyone but that will only solve the majority of the cases. Even in that best case scenario it still leaves a decent amount of people who just forgot the pill that morning or were just plain careless with sex. Also the very few cases where people used contraceptives the right way but "nature found a way" (jurassic park quote). This means the issue of abortion will be FOREVER PRESENT.Someone earlier said (sorry I forgot their name) they thought that though abortion is immoral they still support it because it's "population control". Its a very good point that implies some of the intellectuals supporting abortion are doing it for the long term sustainibility of the human race. I don't like the reasoning that something immoral in the short run could be moral in the long run. By this logic if killing humans would be permitted to help us in the future, it sets a horrible precedent. A precedent like killing poor people to help the few rich in the short run to prevent overpopulation? (Call me cynical but I'm afraid I can see that happenning.) If you devalue one form of human life (by taking their right to life away) then they are all at risk, UGH! Its a good argument though.

[weishan14 0]

I believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she wants to get pregnant, however once she is pregnant, she is now thinking "for two" -- it no longer just involves her wants. She now has to consider the life growing inside her. If raising a baby is not in her plans right now, (for whatever reason) there are many, many people who would love to adopt her child and raise the child as their own. Just because having a baby at this time in her life would be inconvient, does not make having an abortion a viable option. It is also a decision that she (and the father) will have to live with the rest of her life. A few facts about the developement of an unborn baby. • Day 1 – fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins• Day 6 – embryo begins implanting in the uterus• Day 22 – heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mother’s• Week 5 – eyes, legs, hands begin to develop• Week 6 – brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming• Week 7 – eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming• Week 8 – every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form; • Weeks 9 and 10 - teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown • Week 11 – baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation• Week 12 – the baby has all of the part necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus; the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester• Week 20 – the earliest stage at which partial birth abortions are performedFor more detailed information, along with picture of the developemental process go to: http://health.allrefer.com/health/fetal-de...pment-info.html

[Farnan 0]

I believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she wants to get pregnant, however once she is pregnant, she is now thinking "for two" -- it no longer just involves her wants. She now has to consider the life growing inside her. If raising a baby is not in her plans right now, (for whatever reason) there are many, many people who would love to adopt her child and raise the child as their own.

Cool. Will you support financial assistance for those mothers to help raise their children? Are you willing to pay for the mother's healthcare up to and including the child's birth? Are you willing to allow another potentially irresponsible, unprepared parent to bring a child into this world? Are you willing to put up with the inevitable back-alley abortions? Are you willing to allow gay adults, who, besides for their sexuality, qualify as an favorable adoptive parent candidate? Legal, Save and Rare.

[swiftD777 0]

My wife and my heart goes out to you Daniel.

To lighten the mood a bit.... did you just offer your wife to Daniel? Wow... it must be nice to win a few poker tournaments.

[ColeSLaw 0]

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.

Are you joking? Bodily integrity overlaps with one's freedom of movement, freedom against arbitrary arrest and detention and is a rationale for criminalizing assault, rape, murder, etc.Why can't people go hitting, poking, touching others without consent? What do you call this right and the corresponding duty?

[Farnan 0]

Are you joking? Bodily integrity overlaps with one's freedom of movement, freedom against arbitrary arrest and detention and is a rationale for criminalizing assault, rape, murder, etc.Why can't people go hitting, poking, touching others without consent? What do you call this right and the corresponding duty?

No kidding. I love when people bring up this argument--like they expect a 1 page piece of paper that outlines an entire government to deal with a particular issue with any sort of specificity.

[endo 0]

To those that bring up population control with regards to the long term sustainability of the human race and/or the earth - I think you severely underestimate both the human race and the earth.How is "viable embryo" defined? An "autonomous" newborn cannot survive on its own either. Why are miscarriages so traumatic? How do women who want children view what is within them during pregnancy?

[missIdaho 1]

I have to admit this is an issue I will never view as anything other than goverment sanctioned murder. It has nothing to do with "women's rights". Why should a woman have the right to kill a child? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[Zeatrix 0]

Just use protection and it will never come to abortion...And to those that think abortion is murder, is male masturbation murder? We are talking billions of half humans!Joke aside, but WHERE do you draw the line, really...

[wilheldp 0]

No kidding. I love when people bring up this argument--like they expect a 1 page piece of paper that outlines an entire government to deal with a particular issue with any sort of specificity.

I love when people think that the Constitution grants us rights. All the Constitution does is tell the government that they cannot enact laws that limit the rights granted therein. If we didn't expect the government to control absolutely every aspect of our lives, then a 1 page document would be more than sufficient to outline the role of government.Nobody seems to care or even notice that every time they turn to the government to protect more of these inane rights, it increases the size, power, and tax-consuming nature of the government. This fact, plus a few wars scattered throughout our history, have moved us from hardly any taxation to a tax rate of almost 33% for the middle class.And in case anybody is wondering how this ties into the abortion issue, why are we turning to the government to tell us whether or not abortion is right? A lot of the firm positions on the issue are deeply rooted in religion, and there is supposed to be a clear separation of church and state. Government should be in charge of laws...PEOPLE should be in charge of their own morals. I don't need a moral conservative or liberal in the White House telling me what I should think about abortion, homosexuality, or any other moral issue.

[yergan 0]

I dont see why there has to be such a clear distinction between abortion and murder.Why can abortion be legal up to a certain point, murder remain illegal, and the killing of a feutus a separate offence. Another interesting point out of the abortion debate, is the way it relates to child support payments. I see it as a huge contradiction that a man generally has no say on whether an abortion occurs, yet must then deal with the consequences of the womans choice.There are 2 scenarios Im referring to. The man wants the abortion, the woman doesnt: the man would then be forced to pay child support for something he didnt want.The man doesnt want an abortion, the woman does: the man has no way of stopping the woman aborting the child he would happily care for.It just seems like a major contradiction to me.

[The Diplomat 0]

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.

I am going to share something brutal here. Back in 99 my wife and I lost our first son. I guess it was referrred as a still-born baby. He only lived for a day ans passed away in our arms. I can assure you that this was the most tragic experience we've had and something that will stay with us forever. It completely changed us. We almost lost ourserveles but we somehow made it through and we believe it has made us a lot stronger in many ways. People get mislead by thinking, OH Well this baby was just 1 day old, or still in the womb or whatever. A pregnancy is something that pretty much goes on for an entire year. That's a long time. A lot of emotions go on, a lot of interaction with the baby in the womb go on. There are serious consequences with abortion that extend beyond simply terminating someone's life. What about the dignity of human life? Comtenplate the following thought for a while: What about the pain the unborn child will experience during the termination of it's life?I would have done anything to keep my baby alive. If they had said, lay down we'll open your stomach for a transplant I would rushed for it. Any life has the potential to make a big difference in the world. It may sound simplistic but that's a good enough reason for me to give everyone a chance to live. There are tricky issues, such as rape, or newborns guaranteed to have serious mental or physical problems. These are common arguments for abortion that we hear, cases of rape, incest or the woman's life is in danger but I am not even sure these represent a large percentage of abortions. There are also numerous successful stories of people just overcoming what others deemed impossible obstacles. Just because a child is born out of a rape does not mean he/she is doomed to fail in life at all.If you want to have an abortion I am not the one that will stop you. Go ahead and just know that you will have to live with that decision for the rest of your life. What if, and what if?... At the end of the day abortion is about lossBoth sides of the abortion debate agree on one fundamental though: To reduce the need for abortions is necessary. So the real issues behind all this really are: Increase Sex education, self-esteem building for teenagers and dialogue within family and school circles, more volunteers as community mentors !p.s I have since then been able to have a family with a 2 year-old son and 5 month old girl. My kids are what life is all about man. No argument there.

[bayouboy 0]

I have to admit this is an issue I will never view as anything other than goverment sanctioned murder. It has nothing to do with "women's rights". Why should a woman have the right to kill a child? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Agreed and it greatly saddens me that it continues to go on.

[76clubs 0]

This is really a tough issue.I can honestly say I would not want a girl I had knocked up to have an abortion, and if she did I would feel horrible about it every day for the rest of my life. I can't even imagine what you go through everyday Daniel with this little secret of yours. I truly feel sorry for your loss.However, I can also say that I am prochoice. I just dont think it is the government that should be able to say if a woman can get an abortion or not. Just my opinion, no one here will change it, so no need to flame.

[JoRaff 0]

To the dude who said contraception is also techincally viewed as murder...no, it isn't because it's not stopping / killing something that's already there, something that can develop into a human at that point. Therefore contraceptions that kill sperm can't fit into that category.And I'd like to share that it feels very comforting to finally find people that share the same views such as mine. Abortion IS murder, and that whole "women's rights" thing brought into this subject is irrelevant.AMEN

[zimmer4141 0]

This is the one issue where I am truly torn. I lead toward being pro-life because I believe the baby becomes human at fertilization of the egg. This is my humanistic view.My sociological view leans toward pro-choice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many people who will have abortions would be single mothers, often under 20, and people who do not want the baby. This new child has very little chance in life under these circumstances. I tend to agree a bit with Shake that it is a form of population control. I wish it did not have to come to having an abortion, but it does in many cases.This might be a little off topic, but it is sad IMO that in America at least, as the income of the parents, and as the IQ of the parents go down, the average number of children they have go up. There are so many issues surrounding abortion other than the act itself. I guess my perspective on it is that Abortion is a good thing other than the fact that the act itself is completely brutal and immoral.

[ColeSLaw 0]

Nobody seems to care or even notice that every time they turn to the government to protect more of these inane rights

What rights are those?

it increases the size, power, and tax-consuming nature of the government. This fact, plus a few wars scattered throughout our history, have moved us from hardly any taxation to a tax rate of almost 33% for the middle class.

Step away from the militia.

In case anybody is wondering how this ties into the abortion issue, why are we turning to the government to tell us whether or not abortion is right? A lot of the firm positions on the issue are deeply rooted in religion, and there is supposed to be a clear separation of church and state. Government should be in charge of laws...PEOPLE should be in charge of their own morals. I don't need a moral conservative or liberal in the White House telling me what I should think about abortion, homosexuality, or any other moral issue.

You should read some Rawls.Society requires a division of labour, a division of labour requires social cooperation, so on which terms do we cooperate?Rawls argues for a system that respects a reasonable plurastic society. How do you do that? By setting out rules that respect everyone's belief so long as they do not hurt others. The aim is not a secular government, but a religiously neutral one, for a secular government would be anti-religious. In other words, the government is not telling you what I should think on moral questions, but ensuring your beliefs do not hurt others. You can hate homosexuals, pro-choicers, Muslims, etc etc all you want, but such a society would recognize them in a way equal to how it recognizes you.

[blueodum 0]

To the dude who said contraception is also techincally viewed as murderNo, no. You misuderstood.I said hardcore Catholics consider contraception IMMORAL. Not murder.

[wilheldp 0]

What rights are those?Step away from the militia.You should read some Rawls.Society requires a division of labour, a division of labour requires social cooperation, so on which terms do we cooperate?Rawls argues for a system that respects a reasonable plurastic society. How do you do that? By setting out rules that respect everyone's belief so long as they do not hurt others. The aim is not a secular government, but a religiously neutral one, for a secular government would be anti-religious. In other words, the government is not telling you what I should think on moral questions, but ensuring your beliefs do not hurt others. You can hate homosexuals, pro-choicers, Muslims, etc etc all you want, but such a society would recognize them in a way equal to how it recognizes you.

Well, one of those rights is being highlighted in this thread. Some people would argue to the death that a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body. Others would argue just as hard that a fetus, embryo, etc. has a right to life. Obviously both sides can't be correct, so either just one of those rights really exist, or as I would argue, neither one is a right...it's a moral choice.The "right" that pisses me off more than ever these days it the right to not be offended. People think that they have the right to not see a Christmas tree if they aren't Christian. If somebody, mostly politicians, says something that is taken out of context by the media and offends some group of housewives in Utah, then that person will be chastised until they are eventually forced to quit their job. We have freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country. You don't have to like what is being said or how others express their religious beliefs, but unless it infringes on your rights (and to not be offended isn't one of them) then that person is well within their rights. I know that was poorly worded, but I'm not going to bother to fix it just to argue intelligently with you...reason to follow.So, arguing for smaller government makes me a militia member, huh? If I don't think that a third of my paycheck should be taken away from me every week to pay for a war I don't agree with, services that I don't use or want, and the retirement and well-being of those that refuse to work then I'm obviously some nut-job with an arsenal in Montana...is that what you are trying to imply? All I have to say to that is you better read up on Socialism because that is what you are advocating.I agree with Rawls to an extent. If the way that you choose to exercise your rights infringes upon the rights of others, then you are clearly in the wrong, and should be punished. However, if new rights are made up and accepted by the majority of society, then our most basic rights of expression are erased in favor of the "what's happening now" rights. If someone is forced out of their job for something that they have said, then does that person really have freedom of speech?

[Farnan 0]

I love when people think that the Constitution grants us rights. All the Constitution does is tell the government that they cannot enact laws that limit the rights granted therein. If we didn't expect the government to control absolutely every aspect of our lives, then a 1 page document would be more than sufficient to outline the role of government.

I'm not sure what kind of semantical debate can be had with respect to whether there is a difference between the Constitution granting us rights and limiting the governments ability to infringe on those rights. The Constitution grants power to the government and reserves certain rights for it citizens. As a government formed BY THE PEOPLE--not the government giving us rights--regardless of how people describe these rights--the point of this abortion issue is to prohibit the government from restricting our freedoms beyond what the courts interpret to be constitutional.The point i was trying to make about the fact that the document is only 1 page long---the so called "strict constructionists" believe that if the right is not specifically mentioned in the document, it isn't there. But it ignores the fact that the language is purposefully vague and depending on how you DEFINE the right in question (narrowly or broadly) will ultimately affect whether that right is addressed in the Constitution.

Nobody seems to care or even notice that every time they turn to the government to protect more of these inane rights, it increases the size, power, and tax-consuming nature of the government. This fact, plus a few wars scattered throughout our history, have moved us from hardly any taxation to a tax rate of almost 33% for the middle class.

Well if those rights are not protected, the government is going to restrict those freedoms thus increasing the size of the government and its power over you. How abortion flows into taxation... well i'm not following you.

And in case anybody is wondering how this ties into the abortion issue, why are we turning to the government to tell us whether or not abortion is right? A lot of the firm positions on the issue are deeply rooted in religion, and there is supposed to be a clear separation of church and state. Government should be in charge of laws...PEOPLE should be in charge of their own morals. I don't need a moral conservative or liberal in the White House telling me what I should think about abortion, homosexuality, or any other moral issue.

I agree that the government shouldn't be in charge of our morals. But without standing up for the rights our founding fathers intended to reserve to us---how are we to stop the government from regulating/legislating our morality?

[Farnan 0]

All I have to say to that is you better read up on Socialism because that is what you are advocating.

Oh, great! The socialism/communism "trump" card. Everything that is considered socialism is deemed BAD. First off, Socialism is technically a system where "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy" No one is arguing for government/collective ownership of our economy. But social programs that provide safety nets for members of our society is needed unless you plan on instituting a heartless social darwinistic econmic structure where if someone falls on bad times, whether or not through the fault of their own (i.e. family member gets sick, sector of the economy becomes obsolete, etc.), they're ****ed. It is better for everyone to provide these safety nets--where people can catch their footing and regain their financial standing. Do you have any idea how many old retired folks were either on the street before Social Security was developed? The lucky ones just placed tremendous financial strains on their families and lived with them. There is a reason for these programs-and most americans either don't learn about them or forget all too easy. Just because YOU don't need the service at this time doesn't mean you won't need it in the future. My house hasn't burned down or robbed and i don't have any kids, but dammit my taxes pay for fire stations, police and schools. You know what? DEAL WITH IT. Think of it as a cover charge for living in the best country on earth. There are a lot of things you enjoy that you DON'T pay for--so be thankful for that and instead focus on true government waste like government pork projects.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Telling states what they should do when they aren't restricted by the Constitution = wrong.Constitution deals with abortion = wrong.Fed/Supreme Court should say "yay" or "nay" on abortion = wrong.Just like homosexuality, bigamy, adultery, etc. I think the government has a limited role if there need be one at all. Let the states decide what's legal/illegal in their borders.

[wilheldp 0]

Oh, great! The socialism/communism "trump" card. Everything that is considered socialism is deemed BAD. First off, Socialism is technically a system where "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy" No one is arguing for government/collective ownership of our economy. But social programs that provide safety nets for members of our society is needed unless you plan on instituting a heartless social darwinistic econmic structure where if someone falls on bad times, whether or not through the fault of their own (i.e. family member gets sick, sector of the economy becomes obsolete, etc.), they're ****ed. It is better for everyone to provide these safety nets--where people can catch their footing and regain their financial standing. Do you have any idea how many old retired folks were either on the street before Social Security was developed? The lucky ones just placed tremendous financial strains on their families and lived with them. There is a reason for these programs-and most americans either don't learn about them or forget all too easy. Just because YOU don't need the service at this time doesn't mean you won't need it in the future. My house hasn't burned down or robbed and i don't have any kids, but dammit my taxes pay for fire stations, police and schools. You know what? DEAL WITH IT. Think of it as a cover charge for living in the best country on earth. There are a lot of things you enjoy that you DON'T pay for--so be thankful for that and instead focus on true government waste like government pork projects.

Noone may be arguing for government control of our economy, but that is exactly where we are. I won't continue this debate on here out of respect for the original topic, but suffice it to say that our country was founded on a representational democracy, our hypocritical President keeps harping on the spread of democracy, and we are moving towards socialism at an alarming rate.

[Farnan 0]

Telling states what they should do when they aren't restricted by the Constitution = wrong.Telling states what they should do when they aren't restricted by the Constitution = wrong.Constitution deals with abortion = wrong.

Reasonable minds can differ as to the conclusions you reach and the interpretation of those issues you present. There are plenty of different views on how the Constitution is interpreted.Most people on each side--strict constructionists and those who liberally construe the constitution--do not 100% of the time offer intellectually honest legal opinions. For example, a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment results in a view that directly ties the right to bear arms to the operation a militia (i.e. no individual right to bear arms)--but those on the right tend liberally construe that provision so as to make it work with their own views.Also, those who always strictly construe the constitution cannot agree with the "dormant commerce clause" (i.e. the power to regulate commerce limits the power of the states to make laws that have a significant impact on commerce).Not to mention to think that a strict interpretation is appropriate given the text of the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"