Rachel Maddow Talks About Health Care Reform And Impact Of The Stupak Amendment on "Meet The Press" (VIDEO)

#37 hatememore
" I do not believe in abortion."
--------------
:liar:

@Uffda, guys like Hatey had best realize that every time they pick up Mom's copy of "Glamour" and head for the Jakes, they're committing MUR.DER! Think of all the billions of potential Billy Bobs and Opal Anns being flushed away on that Kleenex(tm).

@Hatey, shame on you. According to Vincent's Bi.ble Commentary, "The word means self-control, HOLDING IN HAND the passions and desires." :D

@36 hatey

I didn't tell you what you believe, simply pointed out the fact that your stating that it is settled that human life begins at conception is anything but settled, and there is nothing scientifically or objectively to prove it. What is human life? Is it a fetus? Is it an egg, or a sperm? Many fundamentalist christians argue that eggs are potential human life, therefore they are protected too. If neither the egg or sperm are a human life, what special thing makes something "human"? Is it possession of a "soul"? If so, when does that soul come into being? Is it at the moment of conception, or do the individual eggs and sperm also have souls?

You're now saying human life should be protected at all ages? Then I am sure you are 100% behind healthcare reform, as to have millions of people without health insurances is to leave them unprotected from illness, sometimes fatal, and financial ruin should they get ill. You evidently believe the government should protect the unborn by making abortion illegal, so why shouldn't the government be providing the same level of protection to all ages, as you say should be happening?

Abortion, to my way of looking at it, is a "necessary evil" that serves a greater good: preventing the greater evil of enforced pregnancies/births, and all the trauma and harm to society that such an enforcement would create.
I'm sad that abortion must be. I look at those tiny fetuses, and they, even in a very small state, look like tiny, enfolding human beings. I can't deny that.
This world is not perfect. Murder is going to happen in different forms, were abortion to be illegal. Women dying from undercover abortions. Babies dying who aren't cared for properly or nurtured or wanted (happens every day).
We don't live in paradise, we live here, on planet earth, where our wars also kill infants and children - and in much crueler ways than abortion does. The fetus can be made to not feel any pain, if they do, prior to an abortion. But a child who has her insides blown out from our drones and our bombs, a child who has his eyes explode because of bombs We drop - that is a terrible way to die. So, too, a baby who is eaten by rats or scalded to death by dysfunctional parents. Or beaten to death.
Let's be real: murder of children babies and infants happens Every Single Day. Abortion is not as evil as making people have babies who can't or won't care for them. Or as evil as all the children and babies our own wars have killed. Wars that are sanctioned by people who use god to say that war is good.

Hatenomore,
Abortion is legal, so we can't have some states allowing it and some forbiding it. Besides, if most people in California voted for abortion to be legal, you'd still be imposed upon.
For myself, I feel it's wrong to impose upon a woman that idea she Must follow through w/a pregnancy. I don't feel right telling another person to be pregnant for 9 months, then give birth, then raise the child and/or give it up, the 2nd option being emotionally extremely painful for most women. Inf act, the entire pregnancy/birth/child raising thing is a huge challenge, even for people who Want children. Abortion for those who can't have them or don't want them is a simpler, easier solution for the woman (who Also has rights, and many would say, More Defined rights than the fetus who is dependent upon her). Abortion is not a happy topic, but neither are unwanted, enforced pregnancies.

mara: I do not believe in abortion. But I also don't believe the federal government should have anything to do with the issue. I believe it is best dealt with, locally. It is not my role to pass moral judgment on anyone, for anything. If I had a vote in the matter, I would vote against most abortions, as I believe it is murder. You may have a different opinion. That is your right. I don't believe I should impose my views on you, and I don't want you imposing yours on me. I live in Calif. I don't want someone from New York or Washington, etc imposing there beliefs on me. I am a big states rights person, and believe each state should have a chance to vote on the subject.

Uffy uffy uffy your setting up a straw man argument. You tell me what I and others supposedly believe, then proceed to tell us why what you say we believe is wrong. Like I said in my prior post, human life begins at conception. Human life, regardless of age, should be protected by society. That is what myself and others believe. By the way, Christians, up until a few hundred years ago, believed that it was ok to kill their babies, after birth, so long as the child had yet to be baptized.

I don't think anyone needs to prove/disprove a fetus has a soul to concede that it is something that, given the time and proper environment, will grow into a human being at some point, at birth, or just before birth (certainly, any baby that can exist outside the womb is as fully human as a baby that is born full-term).
Trying to say that abortion if fine because that's Not a human, and btw, it also doesn't feel pain, is disingenuous.
On the other side of it, trying to insist that No abortions be performed and that abortion is Always wrong is rigid and inhumane, because such a stance does not take into consideration some of the very valid, pressing reasons for why many women get abortions. Both sides try to be extreme in their views. The Conservative side is very extreme, and the Liberal side tries to out-do them, which is a mistake, I think.

@28,29 hatey

You aren't proving your point, hatey. Yes, sperm is alive, an egg is alive, and no one has ever said that a fetus is not alive. However, what anti-abortion supporters are saying is that something "magical" takes place as soon as sperm and egg come together: the new combination suddenly has a soul, or something else that neither the egg or sperm had separately. After all, if that "soul" doesn't suddenly spring into being the moment the egg is fertilized, then did both the egg and sperm have their own souls before fertilization? Does that mean that every egg and sperm has a soul, and every single one of them must be accorded the same rights as an adult human being? If not, then you seem to be arguing that the soul, which most christians I believe feel is a uniquely human trait, comes into being at conception, giving a fetus the same rights as a born human being. If you are arguing that, you are not basing it on any single bit of scientific evidence or proof. It is an assertion based solely on fundamentalist christian theology, something not even all christians agree with.

As I have said, you are welcome to your opinion, but you do not have the right to pass that opinion off as established scientific fact, or even as settled consensus among the majority of Americans. Saying in a way that implies that is no substitute for reality.

k then: So your position is you are ok with murder, so long as it's the mother murdering her child?

The anti-choice movement is basically a misogynist movement. So, you don't want safe, legal abortions performed? That means, of course, that abortions will continue even if the anti-choicers eventually succeed because young women will go back to resorting to backstreet abortionists. Some will die. If you're okay with that and with reestablishing placement of the entire burden of sexuality on women, then how about a little equality of action, e.g. mandatory castration (penis, testicles) of rapists and rerouting his urethra through his mouth so he can piss through his mouth for the rest of his life? A second strike would be loss of both of his hands. Hell, we wouldn't even need to imprison them. Think of how much tax money that would save. And loss of one testicle for the married man who cheats on his wife? His second strike would be loss of the second testicle.

Wait a minute. Didn't a leader in the pro abortion group (Planned Parenthood I think)
That just resigned after watching an Abortion performed while watching through an Ultrasound?
Guess she couldn't stand to watch the babies arms and legs kicking when they started sucking the brains out. Don't worry though Liberals. the baby didn't move when they were done. It was really truly dead.
Thanks
Mom.

Am I the only one that thinks Rachel has the neck of a line backer?
Kill the kids sure. The only thing to decide is up to what age?
Third trimester up to maybe 3 or 4 years old?
Yeah, that's the ticket.
Stupid Liberals
Liberalism is a mental disorder .

The way I see it, the only argument to make is whether it is ok to murder the un-born. Your side says the un-born are not due any legal protections, that supersede the mothers, while the other side believes the unborn does have legal rights. The issue of "life" has not been an issue in the debate for years. Maybe you should catch up.

Uffy: I really don't see a lot of abortion clinics being bombed or abortionist being murdered, as you claim. There have been isolated incidence's, perpetrated by a few un-balanced individuals who never have represented those of us who oppose abortion on legal and moral grounds. As to when life begins, uh, scientifically, it has been established that the sperm is "alive", the "egg" is alive, and the combining of the two does not change that. Life, in the context we are speaking, pre-exists conception, human life begins at conception. Or are you trying to convince me that sperm/egg are not alive? That the combining of the human sperm and egg does not constitute a live human embryo? Or are you trying to say that from a live sperm/egg combo, what results is not alive, but becomes alive at some later date? Your argument really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Rachel: thought you were great on Meet the Press. Really enjoyed the show with Dick Armey but this was good....

@24, 25 hatey

There, that wasn't so hard now, was it? You finally admit that even if tax money weren't being used to fund abortion, you'd still oppose it. That is your freedom as an American. On the other hand, abortion is still legal, and I would expect you then, as a law and order kind of guy, to be fully opposed to those who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions, especially when those murders take place in a church.

I'm also glad you said it is your opinion that all choice ends at conception. In your roundabout manner, you are stating your opinion that life begins at conception. But, and this is a big but, there is absolutely no objective, scientific evidence to support that opinion, and so opposing a lawful procedure based on an opinion totally unsupported by objective facts, makes no sense.

In my opinion, Choice begins and ends at conception. You made the CHOICE to conceive, conscientiously, or sub-conscientiously, when you chose to have sex. You take your chance's and bear the risks. I admit that there are always exceptions, but they should be treated as such.

Uffy: This Country was founded as a Nation of Laws, not of Persons. But to answer your question, I have many reasons to oppose abortion. I have a right to oppose my taxes to be used for such purposes. I also have the right to believe that the Federal Government is exceeding it's constitutional authority by even addressing the issue, in a legal manner. Personally, as you well know, I believe elective abortions be akin to murder.

@ 10.bebeholmes

I stand by my statement, NOBODY is "pro-abortion". People are either pro-choice or anti-choice. I don't like abortion but that doesn't give me the right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

Oh and just because a woman is pro-choice it doesn't mean she will abort a pregnancy if she gets pregnant.

Elective ABs should be between a woman, her doctor and her faith... BUT IMHO, federal funds should NOT be used for ABs but more education and birth control.

@20 hatey

You're getting closer, but you are still hiding behind law, not expressing your personal view. First you say that you oppose funding with taxpayer money for an elective procedure. Then you say it's a states right issue. Are you trying to tell my you have absolutely no opinion of your own, that your whole viewpoint on the issue is defined by outside actions of funding or jurisdiction?

splfd:Conservatives are against Federal Government interference. Republicans, of late, are not.

According to most constitutional lawyers,etc, Roe vs Wade is the worst decision since Dred Scott. By the way, you do know that "ROE" admits to lying about the circumstance's, do you not? Personally, I believe it to be a State's Rights issue, not a federal government one.

#15

Of course, there's always the possibility that said individuals use such terms because they believe that accurately reflects their positions... as opposed to a blanket charge that they do so because they somehow lack pride.

While the difference between Progressive(s) and Liberal(s) may be few, they still be.

#12
"Then there's that constant charge that we deliberately kill innocent civilians.."
-------------------
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a constant charge. But it's certainly one proven true in a court of law.

@8 hatey

Still no answer about whether you support Roe v. Wade? Seems pretty cut and dried....yes or no?

#11 bebebrain

You believe it's okay to force taxpayers too, as evidenced by your support for a war wherein payments were forced upon little, innocent, unborn taxpayers.

Like your gay black grandkid...

@12 locrylics

Mercenaries like those in Blackwater HAVE deliberately killed civilians and some have even stood trial for it, so you and I funded the murder of innocent civilians.

As for the charge of me being a liberal----damn straight I'm a liberal, and I'm proud of it, unlike the folks who seem to go out of their way to give themselves some other name like "progressive", or "independent", or some other name. You want to try and insult me by calling me a "lib"? I don't see it as an insult, I see it as an honor!

#10 beenexposedasaracist

If your daughter ended up pregnant after being raped, is it your position that she should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term because the religious beliefs of others say abortion is wrong?

Mull it over before you get back to me.

@ 11 bebe

Please tell me when taxpayers HAVEN'T been forced to pay for something they were against. Every single taxpayer who has ever lived has funded something they disagree with. To claim otherwise is simply impossible. The ONLY way you could ever agree with EVERYTHING that your tax dollars fund would be if you personally wrote the budget each year. In the 60's, the Vietnam War was very unpopular with a large portion of the electorate, yet it got funded by all taxpayers, whether they supported the war or not. In 2003, Bush attacked Iraq, and it was funded, even though I personally opposed it. In other words, I and many taxpayers were FORCED to fund the war. I personally oppose taxpayer funds, including my own, going to faith-based initiatives, but guess what? I was FORCED to fund them. So tell me now, why would taxpayer funding of abortion be even one tiny bit different? You may claim it's because some people object on religious grounds. The same could be said of any of the examples I noted above. You may claim it's because it is funding murder. The same could be said in the funding of any war. You'll have to come up with a pretty good argument for me to agree with you on this one.

@ 7 uffdayguy

Only a lib could put abortion and mercenaries in the same sentence. Then there's that constant charge that we deliberately kill innocent civilians...but you want us to believe you support the military. Faith based intiatives seem to receive bipartisan support (I disagree with them for Constitutional reasons; along with HR 32__)

But I digress...

@9.Uffdaguy

So Ufffdddggg, you think it is okay to force taxpayers

@2.Plasma001

Nobody is "pro-abortion"? Are you kidding me or are you just that stupid? There are more than one million abortion murders committed each year in the U.S. and you say that nobody is pro-abortion. Get real!

@8 hatey

So are you now going to try to tell me that you have no objections to Roe v. Wade?

If your only complaint is that you don't want your tax money to go to an elective procedure, my argument still holds. Going into Iraq was an "elective procedure". Using mercenaries who are above the law was an "elective procedure". Giving taxpayer money to religious groups was an "elective procedure".

My opposition is that I don't want my tax dollars being spent on elective procedures, which abortion is, for the most part. By the way, the amendment does make allowances for health concerns. It only disallows elective abortions.

@5 egor

So your complaint is that you don't want your tax money to fund something you personally disapprove of? Fine, then I want a law that says we shouldn't force taxpayers to pay for mercenaries to go to foreign countries and kill their citizens. I personally oppose the use of mercenaries like Blackwater killing people on behalf of the US taxpayer, but I don't see anyone giving that the same concern as abortion. I personally oppose giving my taxpayer money to faith-based initiatives, but the repubs shoved that down my throat too.

When will repubs come to the realization that everyone will ALWAYS see some portion of their tax money going to fund things they personally oppose? Taxpayer funding for abortion should be treated no differently than taxpayer funding for mercenaries, religious charities, agriculture subsidies, NASA, the military, road construction or anything else. To elevate abortion funding over these and other programs is ludicrous and disingenuous, not to mention hypocritical.

Nobody was asking for taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. However, nobody was forcing private insurance companies to cover it, either. But now they're being forced NOT to cover it. This is the difference!

This does NOT limit a woman's access to abortion; they can go to their local clinic and get one anytime they have to. It will just not be funded with the tax dollars of people who believe it is wrong.

How come women always seem to be the ones that have concerns uncovered. Like abortion if heath is a concern and birth control. I wonder if the Senate will delete birth control as a preventative.

I thought conservatives were against government interfering in their privacy.

Nobody is "pro-abortion", I would say I'm pro-choice but I don't believe elective AB's should be funded by taxpayer $$$$s any more than elective breast augmentation. Now, funding birth control, well, yes, that make a bit of sense...

Rachel has a personal ax to grind. Abortion is not a disease or a disability. It is an elective procedure. The politics has more to do with funding and campaign energy from a small minority of fanatics and nothing to do with the mainstream concern about abortion being insured for reimbersement. It is a matter of principle for these fringe activists.