I wonder if anyone can answer this question: If the recent mars mission discovers a single cell in the dirt, could we claim that we found life on another planet?

Life, yes. Human life, no. Human life entitled to all the protections of the Bill of Rights? Heck no.

So the cells that make up a fetus are not human cells?

are they less human that those that are fully functional?

Yes. At least in this case. One wouldn't say that a person who's lost all their limbs, while not as functional as the average person, is less human. It's a completely different scenario.

If an underdeveloped brain/limb takes away from the humanity of a person, then why do we protect those that are out of the womb? we shouldn't take care of these people because they are just a mass of underdeveloped cells. The only difference is the physical location of the person in this instance.

Have you ever actually looked at the ruling?

Just because a person is not fully developed, doesn't mean they are less human, yet that is what the pro-abortionist are saying.

I believe what pro-choice advocates say is that a woman has a right to manage the health concerns of her body and her rights count for more than the possible, eventual rights of a potential human that might one day have legal standing.

You can keep saying that it's a person with rights that supersede those rights of the woman carrying the fetus all you want, and I'll keep disagreeing.

Lest anyone think that Akin is just a "rogue nutcase" in today's Republican Party:

Sharon Barnes, a high ranking state Republican, came to the defense of her conservative colleague who she believes only "phrased it (his statement) badly."

Barnes was quoted by The New York Times saying, "abortion is never an option." Barnes went on to biblically claim that, "If God has chosen to bless this person [the rape victim] with a life, you don’t kill it."

Is Ms Barnes just another oddball wandering on street corners, muttering crazytalk?

Not hardly--according to her Linked in profile, Barnes holds the following positions:

President of The 2nd Congressional District Republican Women
President of The Republican Women's Club of St. Louis
Vice President, Membership Committee at National Federation Of Republican Women
Vice President of The Missouri Federation of Republican Women
Chairman of The St. Louis City Republican Central Committee
State Committeewoman, 4th Senate District at Missouri Republican Party
Committeewoman, 24th Ward at Missouri Republican Party
Volunteer at GOP Missouri Republican Party


The reason why GOP leaders are mad at Akin is NOT because he said. What Akin said is squarely within what is now mainstream thinking for the Republican Party.

They are just mad because he spoke out of turn--kind of like revealing the secret fraternity handshake.

In Missouri's defense, I believe that they are just sexually suppressed. Have you ever driven along the Highways in Northern Missouri.... I have never seen so many X's on one road.

And as futile as it may be... I will continue to vote Republican (at least in the primaries) to get the fascists out. With an exception of a few things (like murder, theft, and protecting children) the government has no business telling me how to live my life. And I would like to hope there are more people out there that can't stand the hypocrisy of the Christian Right.

This confuses me. Are you calling the Democrats fascist or the ultra right wing of the Republican Party and that you would remain registered as a Republican in order to vote against the extremists?

I don't see how this is confusing. Yes the Christian Right are essentially facists (and yes even the Democrats are as well). But more so hypocrites. They want government "out of their lives" but they want to tell people who they can marry and what medical procedures they can elect to have. And yes, as an active and frequent voter I do stay in the Republican party so that I may have a vote to oust these hypocritical facists (or just hypocrites because they talk a good talk when it comes to slashing the budget but are super awesome at spending money like Prince Harry in Vegas). I want the old Republican party back, that didn't care so much about social issues such as abortion, that cared more about science and less about war. I want the party back that did actually give a rats *kitten* about civil rights. Not this monster it has turned itself into since the 80's. Hell, even the TEA party isn't what it was back in 2006. So yes, when I comes time I vote for Ron Paul (even with all his flaws) instead of Romney. I voted for Debra Medina instead of Gov. Goodhair (Rick Perry). Because I want (though admittedly rather idealistically) the party to be less about social issues such as these (or at least less hypocritically from a government interference sort of way).

Lest anyone think that Akin is just a "rogue nutcase" in today's Republican Party:

Sharon Barnes, a high ranking state Republican, came to the defense of her conservative colleague who she believes only "phrased it (his statement) badly."

Barnes was quoted by The New York Times saying, "abortion is never an option." Barnes went on to biblically claim that, "If God has chosen to bless this person [the rape victim] with a life, you don’t kill it."

Is Ms Barnes just another oddball wandering on street corners, muttering crazytalk?

Not hardly--according to her Linked in profile, Barnes holds the following positions:

President of The 2nd Congressional District Republican Women
President of The Republican Women's Club of St. Louis
Vice President, Membership Committee at National Federation Of Republican Women
Vice President of The Missouri Federation of Republican Women
Chairman of The St. Louis City Republican Central Committee
State Committeewoman, 4th Senate District at Missouri Republican Party
Committeewoman, 24th Ward at Missouri Republican Party
Volunteer at GOP Missouri Republican Party


The reason why GOP leaders are mad at Akin is NOT because he said. What Akin said is squarely within what is now mainstream thinking for the Republican Party.

They are just mad because he spoke out of turn--kind of like revealing the secret fraternity handshake.

In Missouri's defense, I believe that they are just sexually suppressed. Have you ever driven along the Highways in Northern Missouri.... I have never seen so many X's on one road.

And as futile as it may be... I will continue to vote Republican (at least in the primaries) to get the fascists out. With an exception of a few things (like murder, theft, and protecting children) the government has no business telling me how to live my life. And I would like to hope there are more people out there that can't stand the hypocrisy of the Christian Right.

This confuses me. Are you calling the Democrats fascist or the ultra right wing of the Republican Party and that you would remain registered as a Republican in order to vote against the extremists?

I don't see how this is confusing. Yes the Christian Right are essentially facists (and yes even the Democrats are as well). But more so hypocrites. They want government "out of their lives" but they want to tell people who they can marry and what medical procedures they can elect to have. And yes, as an active and frequent voter I do stay in the Republican party so that I may have a vote to oust these hypocritical facists (or just hypocrites because they talk a good talk when it comes to slashing the budget but are super awesome at spending money like Prince Harry in Vegas). I want the old Republican party back, that didn't care so much about social issues such as abortion, that cared more about science and less about war. I want the party back that did actually give a rats *kitten* about civil rights. Not this monster it has turned itself into since the 80's. Hell, even the TEA party isn't what it was back in 2006. So yes, when I comes time I vote for Ron Paul (even with all his flaws) instead of Romney. I voted for Debra Medina instead of Gov. Goodhair (Rick Perry). Because I want (though admittedly rather idealistically) the party to be less about social issues such as these (or at least less hypocritically from a government interference sort of way).

I don't believe that an embryo or a fetus is a complete human with human rights that trump the human rights of the complete human in which that embryo or fetus is developing. You apparently do, Angryguy77. Silly questions about Martian aliens have nothing to do with this topic.

An unfertilized egg is a human cell. Spermatozoa are human cells. A red blood cell or a white blood cell is a human cell. None are complete humans with human rights.

An embryo or fetus is made of human cells. No one would argue otherwise. Unlike an unfertilized egg or a spermatozoon or a blood cell, an embryo or fetus has the potential to develop into a complete human with human rights. No one would argue otherwise.

I don't believe that an embryo or a fetus is a complete human with human rights that trump the human rights of the complete human in which that embryo or fetus is developing. You apparently do, Angryguy77. Silly questions about Martian aliens have nothing to do with this topic.

This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.

Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?

Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.

This is not about health of the mother, this is about the majority of abortions. Health of the mother is the only exception I would make for an abortion.

Your logic is flawed to me to be honest. How is it a different scenario? A person who is born without a limb or is mentally ill is still underdeveloped. Why are they human and an underdeveloped person in the womb not?

Pro-abortionists call it a mass of cells and define it as not being human. If they were to call it human they wouldn't be able to justify the belief.

Of course you think my logic is flawed. You're using different definitions for what qualifies as human with respect to who we give rights to. That's it. There is no more. We just flat out disagree. You have beliefs that I don't share. I think viability of the fetus outside the womb is probably central to any discussion of abortion, but I doubt you do.

Her body, her choice. You think the fetus incapable of surviving outside the womb counts a person with equal standing as anyone else and I don't.

I'm curious as to why you make an exception for the health of the mother, though. Aren't the rights of either life equal? We might as well harvest organs from patients in comas against the wishes of the family members, in order to save the lives of people who need them. Sure they have equal rights, but it'll save the life this other person over here so that justifies it.