You should really proofread your posts.

“I seems”
“shouldnt”
“…lets [sic] not defent [sic] the country or the people that attack us”
- Personal question: does that mean we should defent the people that attack us?
“lets”
And you forgot a question mark on the last sentence.
Not trying to be mean, but this is a relatively short post, and when it contains this many typos, it makes the argument less convincing. I make typos as well, but I reread the post after it’s done and edit it.

Do you really think abortion is baby killing? Really? If abortion doctors are baby killers, do you think Tiller should have been killed?

Another point: Abortion is legal. It obviously is an issue of health care. Your tax dollars would go to legal medical procedure. I would say my dollars shouldn’t go to torture (which is unnecessary in keeping the country safe). Torture is illegal. Who has the stronger case?

Also, did you ever read anything I posted on torture? Sunshine and rainbows for them? Not what I said, and you forget that large numbers of those tortured were innocent. And a post on healthcare seems like an odd place to take a stand on providing sunshine and/or rainbows to terrorists (or innocents held without charges).

For God’s sake, you misspelled the title of the post. Is it about Heath candy, Heath Ledger, or the health of the nation? Though I suppose those things are intertwined.

You are obviously wrong because loads of people we held were innocent, like I said in my comment and a thousand other times. And it’s still illegal to torture people, even terrorists. Also, what about all the people we tortured to death. Doesn’t that make you so proud?

Why would I answer your question before you answer mine?

And yes, sex education will be much better under the current administration. Abstinence-only sex education should be a thing of the past and hopefully will be.

The elective thing was a good point.

Your grade is an F. How can you not even make sure the title is correct? It’s hard to take something seriously when the first two words (one of which you corrected) are misspelled and a typo, respectively.

Go Dr! Abortion is baby killing. Why does a doctor performing a partial birth abortion deliver the baby feet first up to the neck before sucking the brain out of the CHILD? Maybe it’s because even the biggest monsters like Mr. Tiller didn’t want to hear the cries of their victims. Maybe, but I know it’s all good medicine right. I would like to know from Adam, because I haven’t asked this yet, when do you consider the transition between defenseless blob and person to occur? I mean is an infant still a defenseless blob because it needs its mother? Is a senior citizen a defenseless blob if they are in a nursing home unable to care for themself?

Dr, great job, abortion has no place in a healthcare bill and I would argue that most elective procedures don’t have a place in a government funded program that according to the left is purely to provide essential care for those who can’t afford it. Are they also going to cover sex change operations? How about plastic surgery like nose jobs and face lifts? Why not right, the governments picking up the tab and we all know that according to our American mentality, self esteem is the most important thing in the world! Barack Obama is my hero! And please note (Adam) that I didn’t claim that the plan will include these other items because I just haven’t read it, like most of the house of representatives, so I can’t say that, just speculation.

Thanks for answering for me, aks.

aks, look, we have a lot of problems. The majority of conservatives, real conservatives, including myself believe that we need a culteral reform. We need to start increasing our society’s value of human life. We need more focus in the law enforcement side of government towards enforcing drug laws. Drugs not only give us babies addicted to drugs, but it also gives us adults who are not looking for work and end up living on the government or crime. You’re right about that. Your argument about the back alley abortions is lame. Drugs are illegal and people still do them, does that mean they should be legal instead of fighting them? I almost don’t want to know your answer. If our culture geared back to a solid value in human life and rights, we would see fewer unwanted babies (including embryos and fetuses). If people were more responsible with their sexual activities we would see fewer unwanted babies.

I’ve heard it said that it always begins the same way, referring to government invasions on human rights. The first thing that has to happen is the value of life has to be greatly reduced and abortion is doing just that. You people who are so for abortion because it’s legal, think about some other decisions the government has made. The government said it was legal to go to Iraq, but you oppose that, legal to torture potential terrorists, but you oppose that. Those are unrelated issues, but my point is that you have to stop using the “legal” excuse unless you are in favor of everything that is “legal”. It is a moral issues. At one time slavery was legal and women couldn’t vote, those things violated equal human rights, but nowhere near the level that abortion does. I still haven’t seen a liberal respond to whether they are bothered by partial birth abortions. I would also like to know if any of you pro-choice people are willing to watch an ultrasound film of an abortion, it’s a medical procedure and that’s it right?

How about this, in the 1920’s the government in the United States began a program where they involuntarily sterilized over 50,000 people for reasons like mental disability using the logic that doing so would produce fewer disabled and unwanted children. My question is, were they right in doing that? It was legal, so it must have been right to do it right?

You always misunderstand me on health care reform. I do want reform, reform is needed, I just don’t trust the government to run the program. They may be needed to lead reform and possibly put in place laws to protect people and doctors and help bring down costs, but they should not be controlling the system or running insurance programs.

I’m not saying that changing culture is easy, but if we have schools, elected officials, and most importantly parents leading the way in educating and setting the example, over time it can be done. A lot of it comes down to the removal of Bible and religion, but I don’t really want to go there again with you, so beside that topic, there are certainly ways to encourage more conservative sexual practices. There has to be, our government is spending gross amounts of money researching homosexual behavior under the influence of alcohal in Buenos Aires and even more money trying to find out why Chinese prostitutes are abusing alcohal/drugs and ending up engaging in risky behavior, so apparently I’m not the only one who believes that we can go the right way, even though I think they are wasting money and going about it the wrong way.

I don’t support torture to the point of death, so of course I don’t want to watch it. I don’t want to see every medical procedure, but in the cases of real and sound medicine I wouldn’t be offended by it. An abortion is the ending of a life. You still have never told me when you consider a person to be a person, you know, when they pass the stage of “blob”. I’m very curious and I think it’s a simple question.

You responded to the torture thing, but what about past human rights issues, were people wrong then to question the status quo? And what about what happened in the 1920’s? Any thoughts? Where is the line in stopping unwanted babies? Adam? aks?

I’m trying to make a link between the anti-slavery people and the equal rights people of their respective eras. Equal rights should extend to all people of all sexes, races, religions, scientific beliefs, nationalities, income levels, and AGES. The thing is, in a partial birth abortion, and even in some “normal” abortions, should that child come all the way out of the woman’s body, that child would be crying. The child has a heart beat very early on that is being stopped by an abortion. The child has brain waves very early that are being stopped by an abortion. My question remains, at what point is a “blob” a “person”. If you say birth like most pro-abortion people, tell me what happens in the birth canal or during the birth process that suddenly gives that baby the soul that it didn’t have seconds earlier. Explain to me what I don’t understand, how is that baby less of a person seconds before it’s born? If you have a belief about something like this, you have to be able to come up with a simple answer like this.

I agree with you, education is the way to go, we may differ on the methods and ideas we want taught, but we agree that education is the way to go. I’ll say this too, I would rather see condoms and birth control pills (not plan B) included in the government plan or any other insurance plan than see abortions paid for with my tax dollars.

You hit the nail on the head, religious “people” do commit crimes and scandals and everything else. People do, not the Bible. Those crimes are not a result of being a Christian. We are all sinners, faithful or not, and people commit crimes, based on sin nature, not based on faith.

People do love sex, people love a lot of things. People love money, alcohal, drugs in many cases, gambling, all sorts of things. The issue isn’t that people love limitless amounts of pleasure, it’s that we must as a culture shift toward more solid morality. Whether you base it on the Bible or not, surely you can agree that irresponsible sex, greed, drugs, alcohal abuse, and gambling to the point of bankruptcy are things that are out of control and future generations need to be taught to be more responsible. Education doesn’t solve everything of course, but abortions don’t either.

My last question before about where the line is was referring to my previous comment when I asked about what our wonderful, harmless U.S. government did in the 1920’s involuntarily sterilizing over 50,000 mentally handicapped and otherwise undesirable people so that they wouldn’t reproduce creating unwanted babies. Our government was trying to create a better race before Hitler was. My question is, if abortion is ok, was that ok? Where is the line?

Fine, go with viability. I would argue that many abortions are performed after viability is achieved. According to this definition:
1. capable of living.
2. Physiology. a. physically fitted to live.
b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.

Do you believe that every abortion performed, including partial birth abortions, is performed on a baby that is not able to live outside the uterus? Another question on that, if a baby is born that needs to be on machines and other medical technology needs to be used in order to keep that baby alive, is it ok to kill or “abort” that baby’s life after birth? After all, it’s not “viable” yet right?

Inclusion of the Bible does not guarantee anything, but it doesn’t hurt. You’re big on watching things happen over time right? Do you really not see an alarming trend concerning STD’s, crime, and general behavior in this country as the Bible has been removed? Remind me again, in the Constitution, who did Mr. Jefferson credit as providing the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all men?

As far as morality, who generally has better self esteem, the girl who’s respecting herself and waiting to find her future husband or the girl who feels like she needs to “express” herself sexually? Look at the studies showing alarming rates of depression and suicidal thoughts in women who have abortions. Is that all made up? Are the pro-choice people really looking out for women?

The Bible has no place in government or schools.

Girls comfortable with their sexuality have very high self-esteems. Being comfortable with it and knowing what you want is not the same as sleeping around because of self-esteem issues.

The APA in 2008 found no evidence that abortion leads to increased mental health problems.

No we shouldn’t go by the Creator’s definition, because it depends on whose creator you are talking about. Are we speaking of Scientology’s doctrine? Separation of church and state was meant to protect people’s religious freedom, not the church.

Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible removing the supernatural acts performed by Jesus. He hardly seems to hold as much stock in the Bible as you think. It is more likely many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, meaning they believe in a creator but not necessarily a specific doctrine.

Tiller was tried and found innocent in Kansas. In the 19 charges brought against him he had the proper documentation from doctors certifying that the health of the woman was in jeopardy.

First of all, he was found innocent. Second, if it wasn’t illegal he should have been arrested, not shot.

AKS: did you read my previous post at all. Answer to your question in no and no

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, so that’s exactly who you were talking about.

http://www.adherents.com/people/pf/Benjamin_Franklin.html. You can read their statements several different ways. For instance, many historians consider Franklin a deist. He also rejected the divinity of Jesus.

Jefferson and Madison campaigned against state financial support of churches. By excluding miracles from the New Testament, Jefferson’s Bible emphasizes the way Jesus lived, not that he was a God.

Don’t call me too stupid to understand history because I don’t take some quotes you pulled as the only source on the religion of the Founding Fathers. I’m too stupid to understand history and am drinking koolaid but the Earth is 6,000 years old? I don’t like throwing that card out there, but when you call me stupid because I don’t care about the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers, it irks me. Maybe you would understand better than to use quotes from a website with an agenda. That’s not history.

My main point is that their religious beliefs don’t matter, the system of government they created does. One of the most innovative and brilliant ideas was a separation of church and state.

Your idealized version of America never existed. You idolize these people like they were without flaws. The campaigns had more mudslinging back then they we do now. Many of the Founding Fathers owned other people, raped them, and beat them. Franklin famously enjoyed the company of many women.

I don’t know why I’m even talking about this. I don’t give a damn what the religious views of the Founders were. They set up a government so that their views don’t matter.

And by the way, love it or leave it applies more to you than to me. It seems you don’t love what it has become, only some ridiculous version of what you think it once was. I love this country, the one that exists. Do you?

The age comes from radiometric age dating.

Why does hate crime legislation have anything to do with the separation of church and state?

I’m simply not okay with the Bible or Ten Commandments in state-funded facilities.

I’m liberal, and what you assume about me is garbage.

I do have a problem with Christian morals when they infringe on the rights of other Americans, such as homosexuals. What does accountability have to do with giving a group of Americans equal rights?

It would need to be determined that violence was committed based on race, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation. I don’t think a stupid high school fight will result in hate crime charges.

I’m sick of talking about this. Look it up and dismiss it. I don’t care. There is science behind carbon dating. I just don’t want to discuss it with you because your mind is made up. It’s pointless for us to discuss this.

We know those things are wrong without religious symbols. It’s also unconstitutional.

I am against the death penalty. I don’t agree that most crimes are treatable, though I think that’s what should be done for drug problems.

There is no science to intelligent design, therefore it should not be taught in science class.

Many Christians are “baby killers” as well. Don’t lay it all on evolutionists or atheists.

The legal fees it costs to execute a man often cost more than life imprisonment.

I never support the death penalty. We have executed innocent men, and there is a chance it can happen again. I believe a life in prison would be worse than a humane death.

Yes.

We got off subject here, you never answered a question from a while back. Define viability. I’ll be specific here, I want you to answer 2 questions.

1. When is a baby (fetus) viable?
2. Is there a point after birth where a person is no longer viable?

I said before, almost all babies in partial birth abortions and many in regular abortions could be “viable”, so how can we say that we are following the Supreme Court on that. Also, if a baby is born and needs machines and technology to stay alive you could say that the baby isn’t viable, can you “abort” that baby at that time? An elderly person kept alive by pills and machines could be said that they aren’t “viable”. My concern and you think I’m nuts, I know, is that we are taking value away from life. Hitler did it too, he killed many people who weren’t Jews because they weren’t viable. Teams of doctors determined that because of a handicap or birth defect or illness that the individual wasn’t viable and was just a useless eater. You once argued that many babies that are aborted would just be born into welfare homes or would be born addicted to drugs, so what you’re saying is that those babies shouldn’t live because of those circumstances. It’s better to kill them. It sounds a lot like Nazi doctrine, a welfare baby is just a liability to the state right? No purpose, just a useless eater. How far will that go, is an elderly person on social security and medicare living on medication and machines just a welfare case lacking viability?

Again,
1. When is a baby (fetus) viable?
2. Is there a point after birth where a person is no longer viable?

Real answers, please. How about an exact month, day, even hour count, before or after birth for question number 1, and a specific for number 2. This was after all the topic of the post and you did not answer the question.

So do you support abortions performed after 5 months?

Way to stick with the Supreme Court without any real statement of conviction on your part, well played.

Wasn’t really a compliment, more an observation of your spineless behavior.

This seems like a move in the wrong direction, if we’re talking about true reform. If we’re talking about a government take over, then I suppose it’s on the right track…

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/flex-spending-accounts-hit-health-bills/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.168952:b28660307:z10

Since abortion was brought up in this debate, I thought the following was interesting:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ig2n-N48bvgGAWA-wHlMPQpOdinQD9BGMCP00

I loved this article, makes you think, well, makes me think, many are already convinced that the government knows best. I guess what I really can’t help wondering is if maybe health coverage costs more than the government is letting on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/ap_on_go_co/us_fact_check_health_insurance

Sorry, didn’t notice it was pending.

Fred Thompson posted this on his facebook page:

“Nancy Pelosi said, “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over a fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we’re going to get health care reform passed.” Does it bother anyone else that the gate she’s working so hard to get around is the Constitution that she swore to uphold?”

I think it’s a fair question.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/health-care-law-increase-costs-experts-conclude-new-report/

So many healthcare lies….

Oh, because foxnews states healthcare is going to rise, I’m going to believe that because they are so fair and balanced. Thirty-four million more people are going to be insured and health care costs will go down, and Conservatives are bitching? This is the real issue: they’re upset because poor people now can get something that they have and they don’t like it. They are no longer “special.” That’s what the issue is with gay rights, civil rights, health care, etc. It’s not a cost issue; they just want to be superior to someone else.

I want to ask a question that nobody is really talking about. The logic on this reform deal is that insurance will be affordable right? The plan according to Washington calls for people to be able to buy their own coverage by forcing premiums down and knocking out the rules on pre-existing conditions (so many holes in this thinking….) right? Since we didn’t get a universal coverage type of reform, the fall back is medicaid, but the primary goal is to see people buy their own insurance, if I understand right. If I’m wrong here, Adam and Skye, please correct me or my question doesn’t make sense. If I’m right, then here is the question:

Looking at the foreclosure and bankruptcy claims all over the country along with the articles you can find all over talking about massive credit card debt and student loans crushing household budgets, what is to say that people can afford health insurance even with lower premiums?

My answer is that many people won’t be able to afford it even if it is cheaper, and not always because of some great injustice where the rich white guys held them back, in fact most of the time that excuse doesn’t work at all. Many people still won’t be able to afford it because they’d rather go to a movie, drive a fancier car than what they need, live in a nicer house or apartment than what they need, go out to eat more than they need to, go to concerts or ball games, buy video games and dvd’s and cd’s, go to bar, or buy lottery tickets. So many people who complain about not being able to afford insurance blow money like they don’t have a care in the world. Obviously this is not true for all people, but if you deny that it’s true for many, you’re very naive.

How about this quote:
“To say that the thriftless, the lazy, the vicious, the incapable, ought to have reward given to those who are far-sighted, capable, and upright, is to say what is not true and cannot be true. Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it.”