Republican 2012 Nomination Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

I don't understand how you can on the one hand not support anyone who believes abortion should be abolished, and at the same time be so strongly opposed to capital punishment. I mean, I get that people are against the anti-abortion 100% of the time people (even in the case of rape/incest/health risk). I don't see how your two views jive together.

[Soxbadger]

Okay, most reasonable people would love the US to attempt to have a more balanced budget and not run a huge deficit every year.

 

Ill be the first person to argue that a deficit so far hasnt hurt the US, but id rather err on the side of caution and not run trillions in the red.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Its nothing more than science.

 

A fetus prior to X months is not a human, therefore it is entitled to no more rights than my sperm are. If the fetus can not survive on its own, its entirely up to the host whether or not it wants to allow the fetus to survive and thus the mother has final say.

 

Once the fetus is viable outside of the womb, I absolutely would be against abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or mothers health).

 

If science was to advance and allow a fetus at 1 second to be able to be taken out of a womb and survive on its own, that would entirely change the discussion.

[EvilMonkey]

Perry can just win office and then provide 'incentives' to get the behavior he want with Taxes like the Democrats do. Don't like people being independent and driving cars? Tax the gas more, make bigger cars more expensive, they drive less. Want people to eat healthier? Junk food tax, ban salt, ban taste, etc. Don't want abortions? Tax the crap out of the service. You are not denying it but merely incentivising people to make a certain choice, just like car size and food content. If Obama can go around the law with all his department heads (EPA, Sec of AG) making rules instead of laws, so can conservatives once they get it.

[Balta1701]

Worth noting though is that Congress would have to pass that tax.

[EvilMonkey]

Worth noting though is that Congress would have to pass that tax.

Just have department of Health & Human services change some rule or regulation that requiers a fee before an abortion can be provided. Or change the head of the EPA and have the fetus classified as hazerdous waste and require abortion providers to jump thru all sorts of EPA hurdles in order to stay open.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jenks,

 

Its nothing more than science.

 

A fetus prior to X months is not a human, therefore it is entitled to no more rights than my sperm are. If the fetus can not survive on its own, its entirely up to the host whether or not it wants to allow the fetus to survive and thus the mother has final say.

 

Once the fetus is viable outside of the womb, I absolutely would be against abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or mothers health).

 

If science was to advance and allow a fetus at 1 second to be able to be taken out of a womb and survive on its own, that would entirely change the discussion.

 

The bolded is kinda laughable, especially your use of the word "human." But regardless, by the end of the 1st trimester a baby is basically fully formed except for the development of some internal organs. Arms, hands, legs, feet, etc etc are formed and moving. It's about 3-4 inches in size. That's what people are allowed to abort right now. I'm for it in cases of incest/rape/health. "Mistake" is not one I accept.

 

I was kinda wishy-washy with this issue for a long time. But my wife and I are starting to get ramped up to start a family, and reading more about it, more about what actually happens during pregnancy (something I think the vast majority are ignorant of) has really changed my mind. It's not just some cell you're flushing out. There's complex development going on, especially in the third month.

[Soxbadger]

I dont see how its laughable as your own post supported my statement.

 

except for the development of some internal organs

 

IE Can not live on its own.

 

I can make a robot that has arms, fingers, feet and hands, that looks really cute and cuddly, but its not a human, its not alive. Once again, complex development= not able to survive on its own.

 

I get that people are emotional about cute little babies and no one wants to imagine their child being ripped apart by a vacuum cleaner. But until the fetus can survive on its own, there is (imo) no good reason to protect it. Potential life is not the same as actual life. If it was it would be a crime to masturbate because youd be killing billions of potential life forms.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont see how its laughable as your own post supported my statement.

 

 

 

IE Can not live on its own.

 

I can make a robot that has arms, fingers, feet and hands, that looks really cute and cuddly, but its not a human, its not alive. Once again, complex development= not able to survive on its own.

 

I get that people are emotional about cute little babies and no one wants to imagine their child being ripped apart by a vacuum cleaner. But until the fetus can survive on its own, there is (imo) no good reason to protect it. Potential life is not the same as actual life. If it was it would be a crime to masturbate because youd be killing billions of potential life forms.

 

Yeah, see this is the ignorance thing i'm talking about. Go research how/when babies or "bags of cells" as you probably think of them, begin forming different body parts and organs. By week 3 the brain, heart and spinal cord are formed. By week 6 the brain and heart are functioning. Are they not "alive" at that point?

 

Edit: I should add too that even under your theory that life = capable of living outside of the womb, it's rare but babies as early as 22 weeks have survived. Under Roe v Wade you can abort legally up through 28 weeks. So....that's "humans" under your definition being aborted.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Brain activity doesn't begin until something like the 6th week. It's still an embryo at that point. Even by the time it's actually a fetus, it's not like the brain or heart are really developed or functional.

[StrangeSox]

Anyway there's simply a different definition that other people hold of when something becomes human and when a woman loses dominion over her body to the fetus living inside of her. That doesn't make opposition to capital punishment bizarre or nonsensical.

[Jenksismyhero]

Anyway there's simply a different definition that other people hold of when something becomes human and when a woman loses dominion over her body to the fetus living inside of her. That doesn't make opposition to capital punishment bizarre or nonsensical.

 

When his anti-capital punishment view is based on the the sanctity and finality of life, I think it does. In both instances you're making a judgment call about whether something is worth keeping alive.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Yeah, see this is the ignorance thing i'm talking about. Go research how/when babies or "bags of cells" as you probably think of them, begin forming different body parts and organs. By week 3 the brain, heart and spinal cord are formed. By week 6 the brain and heart are functioning. Are they not "alive" at that point?

 

I have done the research, which is why my first post says at X months. Meaning whatever the scientific community agrees on.

 

Edit: I should add too that even under your theory that life = capable of living outside of the womb, it's rare but babies as early as 22 weeks have survived. Under Roe v Wade you can abort legally up through 28 weeks. So....that's "humans" under your definition being aborted.

 

And as I said, if science changes, I agree that we need to change our policies. So if 22 weeks is new number, then no abortion after 4.5 months. =

 

Just because my position is consistent and based on rational science, does not mean I am "ignorant". If anything your position is ignorant because you absolutely wont even discuss my argument: "What rights does a non-living entity have."

 

Its simple to keep showing me a time line of a baby being developed, but its no more persuasive than going down to the Museum of Science and Industry as a 6 year old and seeing the wall of fetuses and how they progress.

 

So if youd like to argue why a non-living entity deserves protection, feel free. If you want to argue that a 3 day old fetus can survive on its own, feel free. But quite frankly if you think im going to change my position because babies are cute and cuddly and therefore deserve a law that makes no scientific sense, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

The fetus depends on its mother to live. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive.

 

Lets take this to a personal anecdote.

 

When I was a kid my mom was pregnant. She miscarried. It was never my brother/sister because it was never alive, it never existed.

 

Under your argument, that was my brother/sister who was deserving of the same rights and protection as my actual living sister. Not really very convincing.

[NorthSideSox72]

When his anti-capital punishment view is based on the the sanctity and finality of life, I think it does. In both instances you're making a judgment call about whether something is worth keeping alive.

If your perspective is that life begins at conception, than your view makes perfect sense. If you feel that life begins when a fetus is able to be born and survive (say, 4-5 months), then there is nothing at all conflicting about the views you say are inconsistent.

 

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

When his anti-capital punishment view is based on the the sanctity and finality of life, I think it does. In both instances you're making a judgment call about whether something is worth keeping alive.

 

Unfortunately that isnt my argument about death penalty.

 

Argument on death penalty:

 

Humans are imperfect therefore death penalty could kill someone innocent. Id rather not kill an innocent person.

 

Argument on abortion:

 

Potential life is not life.

 

They have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Texsox]

If you want to argue that a 3 day old fetus can survive on its own, feel free.

 

A newborn is incapable of surviving on its own. The problem I always have with using "survive on its own" as a criteria is a newborn needs someone or some animal to provide it food. Which last I checked is kind of an important thing.

 

If the answer was neat and easy, we wouldn't still be debating abortion. Lots of pretty smart people look at the same facts and come up with different conclusions. And what a hodgepodge of laws we have. In the abstract a woman is attacked on the street and her "bag of cells" is killed. She is heartbroken and good minded citizens want justice for the mom and the "bag of cells". But what if the woman (can't call her mom) was on her way to receive an abortion? Does the attacker deserve punishment for killing the "bag of cells"? Now we would have the prosecutor asking the woman, hey how much did you want to have this baby?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I have done the research, which is why my first post says at X months. Meaning whatever the scientific community agrees on.

 

You've done the research but don't know when certain organs begin to form and at what week the earliest pregnancy was successful. Right.

 

 

 

Just because my position is consistent and based on rational science, does not mean I am "ignorant". If anything your position is ignorant because you absolutely wont even discuss my argument: "What rights does a non-living entity have."

 

Its simple to keep showing me a time line of a baby being developed, but its no more persuasive than going down to the Museum of Science and Industry as a 6 year old and seeing the wall of fetuses and how they progress.

 

So if youd like to argue why a non-living entity deserves protection, feel free. If you want to argue that a 3 day old fetus can survive on its own, feel free. But quite frankly if you think im going to change my position because babies are cute and cuddly and therefore deserve a law that makes no scientific sense, you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

The fetus depends on its mother to live. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive.

 

So are you suggesting a being with a heartbeat and brain activity is not alive? That unless you can live 100% independent you're not alive? Seriously? I take it we you don't think a person in a vegetative state is "alive?"

 

Lets take this to a personal anecdote.

 

When I was a kid my mom was pregnant. She miscarried. It was never my brother/sister because it was never alive, it never existed.

 

Under your argument, that was my brother/sister who was deserving of the same rights and protection as my actual living sister. Not really very convincing.

 

Did she miscarry air? What do you mean "it never existed?"

[Jenksismyhero]

If your perspective is that life begins at conception, than your view makes perfect sense. If you feel that life begins when a fetus is able to be born and survive (say, 4-5 months), then there is nothing at all conflicting about the views you say are inconsistent.

 

I'm not sure i'd agree that life begins at conception, but I also think allowing abortion up through 28 weeks is wrong. As of now I'd say that it's acceptable up through 5-6 weeks probably. I dunno how having a heartbeat and having brain function doesn't make you "alive." "Life" is obviously an incredibly difficult word to define, but let's compare it to its opposite - death. "Death" is when you have no heartbeat and you have no brain function. So if you have both...

 

Under my definition of being alive or of "life" (which is obviously the sticking point here), he's still emphasizing "innocent life" in believing that capital punishment is wrong. IMO abortion is doing the same thing.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not sure i'd agree that life begins at conception, but I also think allowing abortion up through 28 weeks is wrong. As of now I'd say that it's acceptable up through 5-6 weeks probably. I dunno how having a heartbeat and having brain function doesn't make you "alive." "Life" is obviously an incredibly difficult word to define, but let's compare it to its opposite - death. "Death" is when you have no heartbeat and you have no brain function. So if you have both...

 

Under my definition of being alive or of "life" (which is obviously the sticking point here), he's still emphasizing "innocent life" in believing that capital punishment is wrong. IMO abortion is doing the same thing.

I get that, from your perspective of when a fetus becomes "life" in the human sense, his views are inconsistent. But given his perspective, they jive just fine. So it really does come down to when you think "life" begins, and I am not sure there will ever be a real concensus on that.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

"Life" is obviously an incredibly difficult word to define, but let's compare it to its opposite - death. "Death" is when you have no heartbeat and you have no brain function. So if you have both...

 

An adult with the level of brain functionality of a 5-6 week old embryo (no thoughts, no feelings, no memory, no sensory perception) would almost certainly be considered 'dead' by most people.

[Soxy]

I'm not sure i'd agree that life begins at conception, but I also think allowing abortion up through 28 weeks is wrong. As of now I'd say that it's acceptable up through 5-6 weeks probably. I dunno how having a heartbeat and having brain function doesn't make you "alive." "Life" is obviously an incredibly difficult word to define, but let's compare it to its opposite - death. "Death" is when you have no heartbeat and you have no brain function. So if you have both...

 

Under my definition of being alive or of "life" (which is obviously the sticking point here), he's still emphasizing "innocent life" in believing that capital punishment is wrong. IMO abortion is doing the same thing.

I think the problem I have with this is that your biology is a bit off--at 6 weeks you have neural cells that seem to be functioning. I will grant you that. However, in general they are just that undifferentiated neural cells. To say we have a functioning brain at 6 weeks post conception is overly simplistic and borderline wrong.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think the problem I have with this is that your biology is a bit off--at 6 weeks you have neural cells that seem to be functioning. I will grant you that. However, in general they are just that undifferentiated neural cells. To say we have a functioning brain at 6 weeks post conception is overly simplistic and borderline wrong.

 

Good point, "function" isn't the right word. "Activity" is probably a better term. I still think that brain activity, a heartbeat, movement, etc. are evidence of "life" even if the fetus is not yet "viable." That stuff begins way before the 24-28 week period Roe set.

[Soxbadger]

First and foremost this is an argument about why my death penalty stance has nothing to do with abortion. Whether or not abortion is right or wrong, has nothing to do with my death penalty stance. I do not support the death penalty because there is to much risk of mistake. That means that if we caught Hitler we could have used the death penalty because there was no mistake. I simply believe that there undoubtedly will be a time when an innocent man is put to death. That to me is not okay.

 

That being said, I will now discuss the abortion topic which is entirely unrelated.

 

You've done the research but don't know when certain organs begin to form and at what week the earliest pregnancy was successful. Right.

 

Im neither a Dr. nor a scientist, so any information that I would have would be entirely based on another persons research. Im not sure what relevance this has, my opinion consistently has been "leave it to the scientists/drs", Im not an expert, nor would I ever claim to be.

 

So are you suggesting a being with a heartbeat and brain activity is not alive? That unless you can live 100% independent you're not alive? Seriously? I take it we you don't think a person in a vegetative state is "alive?"

 

Nope thats not what Im saying at all, and you already knew it. When something has been "alive" you have a different set of rules to declare it "no longer alive". When something has never been alive (aka fetus) the first step is for it actually to be alive before it is deed.

 

A person in a vegetative was alive, therefore a Dr determines when they are no longer living.

 

The "dependence" method is only to determine when something comes into being, not when something that has been alive is no longer alive.

 

Its pretty simple:

 

Baby born breathes air = LIVING

 

Fetus inside mother, entirely dependent on mother for survival, can not even survive if c-section and in nicu = not living

 

Area in between, gray, to be left to scientists and drs.

 

Did she miscarry air? What do you mean "it never existed?"

 

She miscarried and almost died. But it was never anything more than a fetus, it was the equivalent of the blood she lost.

 

"Life" is obviously an incredibly difficult word to define, but let's compare it to its opposite - death. "Death" is when you have no heartbeat and you have no brain function. So if you have both...

 

But in order for something to be considered dead, it has to have first been alive.

 

Part of being alive is things like, breathing air, ability to survive on its own (even if its for less than a minute) are what differentiate a fetus from a person in a coma or low functioning human. They may not be able to survive for an hour, but they could surely survive a few minutes.

 

Could a fetus?

 

No.

 

In order to be dead, it must have lived. A rock is not dead because it never lived. Now granted, human cells are living. Therefore technically when I bleed part of me is dead, but we dont call people who get nose jobs murderers, because well, there nose is nothing but a part of them, which they are free to do whatever they want with.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm going to actually give some props here.

 

 

Its really too bad he has near-zero chance to win the nomination. He'd probably have a better shot in the general than most of the other GOP candidates.

 

More from Huntsman along the same lines:

 

 

 

When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science - Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position....I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a - a party that - that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future and it's not a winning formula.

 

Well, I wouldn't necessarily trust any of my opponents right now, who were on a recent debate stage with me, when every single one of them would have allowed this country to default. You can imagine, even given the uncertainty of the marketplace the last several days and even the last couple of weeks, if we had defaulted the first time in the history of the greatest country that ever was, being 25 percent of the world's GDP and having the largest financial services sector in this world by a long shot, if we had defaulted, Jake, this marketplace would be in absolute turmoil. And people who are already losing enough as it is on their 401(k)s and retirement programs and home valuations, it would have been catastrophic

[NorthSideSox72]

More from Huntsman along the same lines:

I liked Richardson in 2008 because, despite his personal foibles, he was business-minded, and he was reasonable. He was interested in fiscal discipline in a way most Dems weren't, and he had a record of being able to get two-party support for a ton of initiatives. Plus he had foreign policy experience.

 

Huntsman, it is the same sort of story. He's the only guy I see in the current GOP field who seems to be reasonable (this aspect is even more dramatic in the 2011 GOP, where extremism is in vogue), he's got foreign policy experience, and his fiscal mindset while conservative, is not living outside of reality.