• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Chris Matthews doesn't like the term"pro abortion", prefers "pro abortion rights".

I've always said that the Supreme Court decided abortion was legal in 1973. You can argue that is was a flawed decision on a couple of levels. There are two ways to change that, either another SC decision reversing Roe v. Wade or a Constitutional amendment. We will never get rid of enough Democrats to accomplish either, so I don't worry about it.
 
There atheists who are pro-life, any moral person recognizes the wrong in destroying a human life. The whole rape and incest argument is a red herring. If abortions were limited to cases of medical need, rape or incest there would be very few abortions performed. The fact is 99% of abortion is nothing more than post conception birth control.

That's not my point. Once you start to make exceptions, you're not really pro-life. If life is TRULY sacred, there can be no exceptions.

There are people in our society who are the product of rape, who would argue they should not have the same rights as everyone else? Why are rape victims fetus' any different?
 
Last edited:
I've always said that the Supreme Court decided abortion was legal in 1973. You can argue that is was a flawed decision on a couple of levels.

Not that I'm pro-life, but it's definitely flawed law. It's based on the right to privacy and it more or less argues you should be able to have a perfectly healthy leg amputated if you want (and qualify for disability) but we all know that's not the case.
 
Not that I'm pro-life, but it's definitely flawed law. It's based on the right to privacy and it more or less argues you should be able to have a perfectly healthy leg amputated if you want (and qualify for disability) but we all know that's not the case.

At most it's a decision that should be left to each state to make for themselves IMO.
 
You know another term Chris Matthews does not like - and one that applies to him full force?

"Quisling queef."
 
It amazes me that people that constantly ***** that government had way too much control over people's lives can be perfectly fine with the idea that the government should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do as it pertains to things that are occurring inside of her own body. Government can't really get any bigger or more intrusive than when it's making decisions about other people's internal physiology. You all seem to equate taxation as legalized thievery on the part of the government, yet find it completely acceptable for that same government to tell a woman she has to allow something that is growing inside of her to continue to grow inside of her whether she wants it to or not. I completely understand anyone that thinks abortion is immoral, but why should your sense of what is immoral have any bearing on what a woman wants to do with her own body.

During slavery democrats dismissed the personhood of a black man to justify slavery and ownership of him. Today democrats dismiss the personhood of a fetus to justify killing it.
 
Last edited:
That's not my point. Once you start to make exceptions, you're not really pro-life. If life is TRULY sacred, there can be no exceptions.

There are people in our society who are the product of rape, who would argue they should not have the same rights as everyone else? Why are rape victims fetus' any different?

True. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the pro-abortion crowd though. When you point out that there is no need medically for abortion except for a few specific instances, like an ectopic pregnancy. The pro aborts shout rape! Incest! How could you force a woman to carry a child of rape or incest.
 
Not that I'm pro-life, but it's definitely flawed law. It's based on the right to privacy and it more or less argues you should be able to have a perfectly healthy leg amputated if you want (and qualify for disability) but we all know that's not the case.

It also decided for all of us when a fetus is a human being deserving of rights and when it isn't, using arbitrary and medically outdated guidelines. It's the definition of legislating form the bench. Those are issues for the people of this country to decide, not unelected justices.
 
If a single microbe is found in a soil sample from Mars, science will shout the "WE FOUND LIFE ON MARS!!!!!!" headline. On the other hand, a fully developed fetus is considered nothing more than a lump of cells, equal to an inanimate object.. It seems duplicitous to me.
 
And Christian conservatives worship a liberal.

Liberal in the classical sense. Christ was not a left wing statist, he would be considered a Libertarian today,
 
And Christian conservatives worship a liberal.

Lol..love people who say this. Many Christians are very liberal with their rime and donations with helping ohters. Oddly, they do that without the government forcing it on them.
 
Lol..love people who say this. Many Christians are very liberal with their rime and donations with helping ohters. Oddly, they do that without the government forcing it on them.

I wasn't saying they don't, just pointing out that Jesus was a bleeding heart type.

Years ago, 20/20 (I think) did a show where the set up people seeking charitable donations, one in a wealthy conservative area, and one in an equally wealthy liberal area to see who was more charitable. The conservative area won. I think many liberals are more comfortable with charity if they know everyone is being forced to be charitable.
 
Years ago, 20/20 (I think) did a show where the set up people seeking charitable donations, one in a wealthy conservative area, and one in an equally wealthy liberal area to see who was more charitable. The conservative area won. I think many liberals are more comfortable with charity if they know everyone is being forced to be charitable.

Here you go. Nearly 10 years ago, to be exact. I love the last section, about religion. Oh, those awful, awful Christians. Nothing good comes from religion.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

Who Gives and Who Doesn't?

By JOHN STOSSEL and KRISTINA KENDALL Nov. 28, 2006

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

Rich vs. Poor

The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.

But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.

Laurie Tanner is one of those people. She says, "I remember a time when honestly, I couldn't afford a gallon of milk for my son. And I had a good friend that stepped in and helped me, and I've never forgotten that."

The United Way helped Vincent Lau when he was a teenager. Now he donates to them. "I'm glad to help, " Lau says.

Workers at the meat packing plant where Lau works make on average around $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees here than anywhere else.

Another employee at the plant, B.J. Motley, has a wife and four kids to support, but he gives part of his paycheck to charity every week

"My mom always says 'it's always good to give,'" he says. "[I've] got a great family and I've been blessed."

And what about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, compared to the rich and the working poor, they give less. "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor," says Brooks. "The middle class give the least."

The Church Connection


Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.

So how did our little test turn out? Tune into a special edition of "20/20," "Cheap in America," to find out.
 
I wasn't saying they don't, just pointing out that Jesus was a bleeding heart type.

Years ago, 20/20 (I think) did a show where the set up people seeking charitable donations, one in a wealthy conservative area, and one in an equally wealthy liberal area to see who was more charitable. The conservative area won. I think many liberals are more comfortable with charity if they know everyone is being forced to be charitable.


I guess I don't get your point, then. You know Jesus preached charity to others and conservatives don't preach (or act) against that, only of forcibly taking from people to do it in others names.
 
I think many liberals are more comfortable with charity if they know everyone is being forced to be charitable.
Exactly.

I guess I don't get your point, then. You know Jesus preached charity to others and conservatives don't preach (or act) against that, only of forcibly taking from people to do it in others names.
How long have you been a racist?
 
51 years and counting.

Liberals are all for charity with other people's money. Not, exactly, "charity " I don't think.

If you don't believe in the government taking money from white people and giving it to black people then you must be a racist.
 
It amazes me that people that constantly ***** that government had way too much control over people's lives can be perfectly fine with the idea that the government should be able to tell a woman what she can and cannot do as it pertains to things that are occurring inside of her own body. Government can't really get any bigger or more intrusive than when it's making decisions about other people's internal physiology. You all seem to equate taxation as legalized thievery on the part of the government, yet find it completely acceptable for that same government to tell a woman she has to allow something that is growing inside of her to continue to grow inside of her whether she wants it to or not. I completely understand anyone that thinks abortion is immoral, but why should your sense of what is immoral have any bearing on what a woman wants to do with her own body.

What's your take on the death penalty?

I kind of agree.

I do not personally believe in using abortion as a means of birth control, but it is not MY right to dictate to someone else about their body. I am Pro-Life, but will ALWAYS vote Pro-Choice.

Very thorny issue....aborition,IMO, is murder. Which makes me soul search for an answer because my views on most things are very libertarian...In cases of incest I suppose a case can be made that any resultant life could be one of incredible long term suffering. In cases of rape the may result in a new rapist, or at least a person predisposed to aberrance. In many cases of either the child will be viewed and treated in a less than favorable manner leading to further developmental / sociological issues. Worst case we have a new rapist or murderer. Best case, maybe a model citizen that one day cures cancer.
In the end my faith helps make the decision for me and I know that's not an option for everyone. Some will call it a cop out......whatever. I just don't believe that any child is "unplanned" by Him which limits me to the only available (to me) choice.



But there is no evidence there is any "fetal pain or suffering" when terminating a 1st trimester pregnancy. It is not a "miniature baby" that's crying while being aborted. It's a bunch of cells the size of a walnut.

Maybe not?

Abortion painfully kills babies.

Abortion is difficult and painful for the unborn child. Surgeon Robert P. N. Shearin states that: [1]

As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain…. First, the unborn child's mouth, at eight weeks, then her hands at ten weeks, then her face, arms, and legs at eleven weeks become sensitive to touch. By thirteen-and-a-half weeks, she responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be termed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain. http://www.abortionfacts.com/facts/13


So what if it's terminated as birth control? That's exactly what it is.

The hypocritical thing that no republican wants to talk about is when abortion was illegal in this country, they were still happening by the millions. It was just segregated into two subsets: 1) Those with money had access to safe abortions and 2) Those without money had access to unsafe abortions

The rich and powerful never had a hard time finding an abortion when they needed it. And so-called right-wing religious people never prosecuted them. Back then it was "family business" you didn't talk about in good company.

But God forbid a poor person tries to get an abortion when it's against the law. Then you persecute them and use them as some righteous poster example of the moral decay of America. It's hypocritical and the right-wing knows it, which is why anti-abortion is a non-issue to most of America. It shouldn't even be on a political platform anymore and thank God it's been so little of the talk this primary season.

Politically it should be left to the states.
 
Or your opinion as to when life is sacred.

Abortion = murder

But the mother was raped.

Oh, then it's just an abortion.

OK then!

I think the difference is that you are forcing someone to carry a child she was forcibly impregnated with, vs. forcing someone to accept the natural consequences of their own choices. The loss of the child is a tragedy either way...however the burden on a woman (or especially child) who is impregnated through rape I guess some believe outweighs the loss of life. Sort of like if you deplore the loss of innocent civilians in a war, but you know that it is sometimes necessary to protect the lives and welfare of others.

I would not abort if I was raped, nor would I encourage one of my daughters to. I would think creating a beautiful new human life would be the one bright light to come out of such a terrible situation. But I certainly have compassion for women who are in this position.

As a purely practical matter though, pregnancy though rape is extremely uncommon and if a rape exception would be required to pass a law that protects millions of other lives, you compromise. You don't say "Let all of them die, so I can be consistent."
 
Top