Conk NH Sheriff To Use "Deadly Force" To Prevent Abortions

[CID1990]

Doesn't science say that life begins at conception?

Yes, no and maybe. What is life? Ability to survive? Potential to become a life?

Well Jon if we had to look to you for what constitutes life (much less intelligent life) we might have to rethink our position.

[89Hen]

Doesn't science say that life begins at conception?

Yes, no and maybe. What is life? Ability to survive? Potential to become a life?

Then wouldn't it make sense to err on the side of saving the life?

[dbackjon]

Yes, no and maybe. What is life? Ability to survive? Potential to become a life?

Then wouldn't it make sense to err on the side of saving the life?

How far back do you err? Conception? Implantation? Ban birth control? Masterbation?

[89Hen]

Then wouldn't it make sense to err on the side of saving the life?

How far back do you err? Conception? Implantation? Ban birth control? Masterbation?

Conception. Why would you consider a sperm or egg a distinct life? Not sure what you meant by implantation.

[dbackjon]

How far back do you err? Conception? Implantation? Ban birth control? Masterbation?

Conception. Why would you consider a sperm or egg a distinct life? Not sure what you meant by implantation.

When the fertiziled egg implants on the walls of the ovary. Which doesn't happen all the time. Would a drug that prevents implantation be considered an abortion?

[89Hen]

Conception. Why would you consider a sperm or egg a distinct life? Not sure what you meant by implantation.

When the fertiziled egg implants on the walls of the ovary. Which doesn't happen all the time. Would a drug that prevents implantation be considered an abortion?

IMO yes. Same reason as above. Would be like asking if a chemical abortion is OK at 3 months.

[mainejeff]

Baby killer!!!

Chuck E. Cheese Whore!

[89Hen]

Baby killer!!!

Chuck E. Cheese Whore!

Reformed.

[YoUDeeMan]

In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is simply a matter of convenience. A matter of avoiding responsibility for the consequences of enjoying one's self.

It's absolutely disgusting.

Yup. YOU have the ability to raise a child that would have been aborted, but you choose do not do so...it is simply a matter of convenience. A matter of avoiding responsibility of saving one innocent life because you choose to not get involved.

If you are so concerned about life, that is absolutely disgusting.

No way around that, John. You are choosing to not get involved that deeply...and it is simply a matter of convenience.

[CID1990]

When the fertiziled egg implants on the walls of the ovary. Which doesn't happen all the time. Would a drug that prevents implantation be considered an abortion?

IMO yes. Same reason as above. Would be like asking if a chemical abortion is OK at 3 months.

Gotta disagree on that one, Hen.

The zygote implants itself in utero after being fertilized but it is still not viable at that point. So I would say an abortion could be acceptable at that stage. That is my opinion, like my a$$hole.

Jon, I realize you are somehow trying to box people in somehow, but since I am much smarter than you and cannot see your logic, I can only advise you to give it up now because you are about to fail again. Badly.

[89Hen]

In the overwhelming majority of cases, it is simply a matter of convenience. A matter of avoiding responsibility for the consequences of enjoying one's self.

It's absolutely disgusting.

Yup. YOU have the ability to raise a child that would have been aborted, but you choose do not do so...it is simply a matter of convenience. A matter of avoiding responsibility of saving one innocent life because you choose to not get involved.

If you are so concerned about life, that is absolutely disgusting.

No way around that, John. You are choosing to not get involved that deeply...and it is simply a matter of convenience.

That arguement was lame last week too.

[89Hen]

The zygote implants itself in utero after being fertilized but it is still not viable at that point. So I would say an abortion could be acceptable at that stage. That is my opinion, like my a$$hole.

I would have to read more on this to respond. I wasn't sure what Jon was referring to when he mentioned implantation. My initial reaction is that it sounded like a chemical abortion after conception and that was no different than a mechanical abortion.

[UNHWildCats]

Just to be clear, this guy is a fringe candidate running in the GOP primary against the incumbent sheriff, not the current sheriff, he also has ZERO law enforcement experience.

[JohnStOnge]

How far back do you err? Conception? Implantation? Ban birth control? Masterbation?

Conception. That is the point at which genetic recombination is complete and a new individual has come into existence.

Masturbation involves the release of sex cells that are all part of a larger organism's body.

And that's the difference. When one masturbates they eject cells that are part of their body. The sperm cells are not new living individual organisms with separate biological identities.

Conception is the point at which a new individual member of our species that has never existed before comes into existence. The single cell, or zygote, present at that point is not a cell "belonging" to any other individual's body. It is an entirely new "body." An entirely new individual. An entirely new individual animal that has never existed before.

The first moment of your existence and of mine was as zygotes. That's when our lives began (unless you're an identical twin; in which case it becomes more complicated). That is the objective truth.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yup. YOU have the ability to raise a child that would have been aborted, but you choose do not do so...it is simply a matter of convenience. A matter of avoiding responsibility of saving one innocent life because you choose to not get involved.

If you are so concerned about life, that is absolutely disgusting.

No way around that, John. You are choosing to not get involved that deeply...and it is simply a matter of convenience.

That arguement was lame last week too.

The facts don't change because you don't like the argument.

[YoUDeeMan]

Yup. YOU have the ability to raise a child that would have been aborted, but you choose do not do so...it is simply a matter of convenience. A matter of avoiding responsibility of saving one innocent life because you choose to not get involved.

If you are so concerned about life, that is absolutely disgusting.

No way around that, John. You are choosing to not get involved that deeply...and it is simply a matter of convenience.

That arguement was lame last week too.

The facts don't change because you don't like the argument.

[JohnStOnge]

The zygote implants itself in utero after being fertilized but it is still not viable at that point.

It IS viable. That thing about "viability" as defined by being able to survive outside of the mother's body is a crock. The organism is suited to live in a certain environment. It is viable in that environment. To say it is not "viable" because it will die if removed form that environment is nonsense.

It's like saying a fish is not viable because if you remove it from water and place it on the table in your dining room it will die.

I have never understood the logic of saying that there is some kind of reason for saying that a member of our species can be terminated if it hasn't reached the point of being able to survive outside of the mother's body but can't be if it is able to. So, does that mean that individuals at a certain stage of development have no right to live now but 100 years ago they might have a right to live because technology has advanced to the point where they can be sustained outside of the mother's body?

That way of looking at things makes no sense at all.

[JohnStOnge]

Yup. YOU have the ability to raise a child that would have been aborted, but you choose do not do so...it is simply a matter of convenience. A matter of avoiding responsibility of saving one innocent life because you choose to not get involved.

If you are so concerned about life, that is absolutely disgusting.

No way around that, John. You are choosing to not get involved that deeply...and it is simply a matter of convenience.

There is a difference between opting not to assist someone and taking positive action to kill them.

Suppose I say that I don't think it should be legal to kill two year olds. Do you think that means I am obligated to take care of everybodys' two year olds?

Maybe there are people that have two year olds that they don't think they can take care of. They just don't have the resources. Should they be allowed to kill them in order to solve the problem? And if I answer that question by saying "no," does that mean I am obligated to be the one to take care of the two year olds?

Of course it doesn't.

[CID1990]

The zygote implants itself in utero after being fertilized but it is still not viable at that point.

It IS viable. That thing about "viability" as defined by being able to survive outside of the mother's body is a crock. The organism is suited to live in a certain environment. It is viable in that environment. To say it is not "viable" because it will die if removed form that environment is nonsense.

It's like saying a fish is not viable because if you remove it from water and place it on the table in your dining room it will die.

I have never understood the logic of saying that there is some kind of reason for saying that a member of our species can be terminated if it hasn't reached the point of being able to survive outside of the mother's body but can't be if it is able to. So, does that mean that individuals at a certain stage of development have no right to live now but 100 years ago they might have a right to live because technology has advanced to the point where they can be sustained outside of the mother's body?

That way of looking at things makes no sense at all.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree. Logically speaking, if you oppose abortion from a strictly moral or humanist sense, then viability outside the womb is central. If you oppose abortion for religious reasons, then chances are you consider the fetus sacrosanct from the moment of conception. I do not subscribe to that point of view, and so I consider your viewpoint to be "nonsense".

See? It can be done in less than 24 single spaced paragraphs, too.

[89Hen]

That arguement was lame last week too.

The facts don't change because you don't like the argument.

Facts? If you don't give money to every homeless person you see, you are for poverty.

[Gil Dobie]

Facts? If you don't give money to every homeless person you see, you are for poverty.

.........or against drug and alcohol abuse.

[Cap'n Cat]

There are lots of contradictions and both sides exhibit hypocrisy and inconsistent belief structures when it comes to the topic of abortion.

I do agree with JSO that killing to protect life is in fact acceptable to us as a society. Pretty much only the Quakers would disagree I think. I am not in agreement that whacking abortionists is somehow cricket. However, it is no wonder that we seem to have a national disconnect over this when you consider that someone who murders a pregnant woman in most states is also charged with the death of her fetus.

At the end of the day, the argument comes down to what we place more importance on: the right of a woman to decide if she wants an abortion, or the personhood of a fetus.

I think I have made it pretty clear that I am an agnostic. I am opposed to abortion from an ethical standpoint rather than a religious one. I have no issue with abortion in the case of threats to the health of the mother, disabilities that will profoundly affect the well being of the child, and of course, in the case of rape. However, in these cases, with the exception of rape, abortion is not really a choice, it is an imperative.

I disagree with the notion that someone should be able to simply decide that having a kid is inconvenient and uses abortion as just another method of birth control. Even more onerous to me is those who select for gender. In other words, those who want a boy and abort when they learn that the baby is a girl. Should this be a right? I am sure there are some who think so, but I am certainly not declaring "war on wimmin" by being opposed to it.

One thing I am certain of: being anti abortion has always been a platform of the GOP. It is not somehow a new concept. Abortion has remained legal under Presidents like Reagan and two Bushes, all of whom professed opposition to abortion. Roe v Wade is pretty strong case law and it is VERY unlikely that it will ever be overturned, so all this chicken little stuff over the stance of Romney on abortion is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

By the way- if you read Roe v Wade, its finding is pretty much in concurrence with belief system of most moderates, in that it does allow the prohibition of abortion when the fetus is viable. I am usually a strict constructionist, but in that the decision at least on the margins protects the right to life of a fetus that is 7 months along (and younger in some cases) I don't really have a problem with Roe v Wade.

Definitely a contentious subject, but very irritating when it becomes an election issue, because for the most part the point is moot.

Good post, Cidley.

[Chizzang]

Here's what I am pretty certain of...
If men got pregnant a guy could have a legal abortion at the Airport or shopping mall
Men have been lording over women since we figured out we were strong enough to rape them and kill them

Women can decide for themselves
It's 100% a women issue in my opinion
Yeah yeah yeah.. I know it's your baby too (blah blah blah) go adopt one if you want one so bad
otherwise STFU
As long as men are predators and as long as there is pre-marital sex
As long as there is Rape and gender inequality
This is 100% a women issue

[Cap'n Cat]

Conks show their true colors in threads like this. It's the reason they'll fade into the background for the next 40 years.

[89Hen]

Here's what I am pretty certain of...
If men got pregnant a guy could have a legal abortion at the Airport or shopping mall
Men have been lording over women since we figured out we were strong enough to rape them and kill them

Women can decide for themselves
It's 100% a women issue in my opinion
Yeah yeah yeah.. I know it's your baby too (blah blah blah) go adopt one if you want one so bad
otherwise STFU
As long as men are predators and as long as there is pre-marital sex
As long as there is Rape and gender inequality
This is 100% a women issue