NY Gov. says pro-life people not welcome in his state

801 dude wrote:

Being opposed to killing is not "telling people how to live their lives".

Even if we set aside "when life begins", isn't it better to err on the side of not killing another human?

Im with the guy above, I'll trade my opposition to every weirdo leftist policy for no more killing. I'll support all your bizarre proclivities if the killing stops. Deal?

I respect this position. I disagree with it, but I really respect it (assuming you're also against abortion in cases of rape and incest). I'm definitely an "err on the side of life" person for the most part, but the trouble with abortion policy is that it involves another person's actual life, not just the fetus's potential one so it's a lot more messy than just erring on the side of life.

For example, several years ago there was a 9-year-old kid in South America who was raped and ended up pregnant. I believe that she should have been able to have an abortion if she chose, that the "right" of this fetus in the early stages of pregnancy did not outweigh the right of this kid to salvage as much of her childhood as she could. (The reason it was news is that abortions were completely illegal where she was from.)

There are other less extreme examples from this country. The point is since nobody can define where exactly life begins you're balancing erring on the side of life with the health and well-being of a life that already exists. There are two competing interests here, so unless it's scientifically clear when exactly life begins (it's not), one cannot trump the other 100% of the time.

Cuomo never had any realistic prospect of national office. No one wants to listen to that drone. At best he wants third just among New York politicians in terms of prospects, way behind Clinton and Gillibrand.

Wow Unbelievable wrote:

Cuomo never had any realistic prospect of national office. No one wants to listen to that drone. At best he wants third just among New York politicians in terms of prospects, way behind Clinton and Gillibrand.

Which is also the exact order of money received from Jewish PACs

labor and delivery doctor wrote:

since you continue to say that a fetus is a living organism, then you might as well go ahead and trap every single sperm cell that was ever inside of your testicles (gametes) and never tough any of them with your fingers because you are going to kill one of those poor helpless emotional pain-feeling spermie wormies.

Young man, I am very curious, how, exactly, do you nurture and preserve every single one of the innocent helpless christian spermie wormies that gets ejaculated from your vas deferens? How many of those innocent lil fully developed spermie wormies have you already murdered.

I await anxiously for your uneducated/conservative response

I'm open to someone having a different opinion, but there is absolutely no logic in your post. A sperm left in the state it is in upon ejaculation doesn't do anything. It doesn't develop into a person. A fetus does. There is simply no logic or relevance to comparing individual sperm cells to a fertilized egg.

I'm with you canspo. I never got that sperm/egg argument either.

For me, sperm and eggs are clearly not lives. The second they meet, that cell is not "a life." It is as alive as any other cell in our body, but the sperm+egg cell does not have any fundamental rights despite having unique human DNA. The vast majority of people agree with me, as the vast majority of people support the availability of the morning after pill.

So then the question becomes where during the next 9 months does life begin? Science just can't answer that question, so it comes down to personal feeling.

I don't understand the argument that having the potential for life means that something is, itself, a life. I don't even get it in the context of the abortion debate because the presence of a human life isn't necessary for something to be protected. It's possible to outlaw abortion while still recognizing that a fetus isn't a life, but somewhere on the cell/baby spectrum and thus is deserving of some protections.

But you seem like a reasonable person so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

runn wrote:

Josh Hamilton's Addiction wrote:

Good. Cuomo is a terrible governor otherwise, though.

Cuomo is finished. In his hope to become president he has a textbook company as a major contributor. He comes up with the ludicrous education plan that requires all new textbooks and tests printed by ... You guessed it.

Anyone involved with education- teachers, administrators, parents who love their children- want him out.

He cut aid but told schools they have to spend more money and then put 2% tax cap on budgets.

The children lose.

Cuomo is a schmuck and his latest comments prove it, but the "children lose" b.s. has gone on long enough in NY, particularly LI, where property taxes are out of control due largely to teacher/admin and police salaries and benefits. It's absolutely criminal what the teacher's union has gotten away with over the years...happy the gravy train has at least slowed a bit over the last few years.

another average american wrote:

(assuming you're also against abortion in cases of rape and incest).

I'm not a "two wrongs make a right" kind of guy, but it would be acceptable as policy, given that rape is cited less than 1% of the time - an acceptable compromise. And I'll still give the left their laundry list.

nobbb ball wrote:

R2D3 wrote:

He says extreme conservatives, who are defined by views on multiple issues, are not welcome in New York.

I'm not going to argue about abortion (because NO ONE will ever change ANYONE'S mind), but I will say that for an elected official to make such a statement is in very poor taste. Basically, anyone who disagrees with me can get out.

This isn't 1930s Germany.

Don't give up so easily. The majority of Americans now recognize that defenseless unborn children need the help of some good people. The majority now consider themselves to be pro life. Rational arguments are inspiring people to do what they know in their hearts to be right.

R2D3 wrote:

He says extreme Republicans who are defined by "right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon and anti-gay ...extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are."

Take Cuomo's Goebblesque marginalization of Christians, gun owners, and fiscal conservatives as "extremists", then compare it to the rhetoric used by the Nazis to marginalize Jews, Catholics, and Slavs as "extremists". The similarities would shock any normal person.

Cuomo is just part of the evolution of the Nazi party, an intolerant Statist who wants to marginalize and eventually remove by force those who fight against Statism and PC absurdities. And because of this, Cuomo is just another tyrant who will eventually suffer a tyrant's fate via the pushback of responsible citizens.

right kip winger wrote:

another average american wrote:

(assuming you're also against abortion in cases of rape and incest).

I'm not a "two wrongs make a right" kind of guy, but it would be acceptable as policy, given that rape is cited less than 1% of the time - an acceptable compromise. And I'll still give the left their laundry list.

My problem is with people who equate abortion with murdering a child, who then say that abortion in the case of (x) is okay. Is it okay to murder a child of rape? Clearly not. So implicitly these "pro-lifers" are recognizing the difference between a child and a fetus and recognizing that the child has rights that the fetus does not.

I'll throw a view that might be labeled as one working with the idea USA is a constitutional republic and that form of govt will endure.

Is the Constitutional Republic the better model of govt is another issue. It is the form we live with.

The third trimester idea that the fetus will at some point start having a chance of developing normally outside the womb seems to be a reasoned and reasonable definition erring on the side of the 'life comes earlier than birth' faction.

another average american wrote:

My problem is with people who equate abortion with murdering a child, who then say that abortion in the case of (x) is okay. Is it okay to murder a child of rape? Clearly not. So implicitly these "pro-lifers" are recognizing the difference between a child and a fetus and recognizing that the child has rights that the fetus does not.

Your problem is the one time the right does not agree but will make a pragmatic compromise for policy? You are dashing my hopes of a middle ground.

The idea isn't population control. The idea is that most people (in particular modern women) are completely whimsical and self-centered. If killing babies is considered okay than they will continue to kill increasingly greater numbers. An easy solution is to just have first trimester abortion and to prosecute for murder any woman attempting an abortion (for non-medical reasons) after first trimester. What is really at issue in the abortion debate is the privileged status of women and the resulting mental dependance of women on government. The "socialists" took over American society precisely by identifying the intrinsic female drive for companionship/authority/safety in a mate and substituting in place of the mate (which she was convinced could only detract from her existential happiness) a complete reliance on government and liberal ideology. Thus we now have a whole contingent of modern women who believe government exists to address their personal needs and the consequences of their choices.

Please picking and choosing words out of context is the key to most fox outrage. See President Obama telling business owners that they didn't build the roads.

Yucatan Asteroid redux wrote:

Cuomo didn't say that. Cuomo said intolerant people are not wanted in the state of New York.

Hitler would be proud wrote:

Take Cuomo's Goebblesque marginalization of Christians, gun owners, and fiscal conservatives as "extremists", then compare it to the rhetoric used by the Nazis to marginalize Jews, Catholics, and Slavs as "extremists". The similarities would shock any normal person.

Cuomo is a practicing Christian.

Cuomo:

“If they are extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York.”

Hitler:

“The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.”

"How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus!"

Of course Im opposed to all abortions. The unborn child did not do any wrong in any case.

The extremely rare examples such as you cite are outliers, with a 9yo, I don't know the answer. In some cases there is no good answer. Everything in life cannot be put in a neat tidy box and one-off oddball scenarios cant excuse the wrong that occurs in most convenience abortions.

Right Kip Winger wrote:

another average american wrote:

My problem is with people who equate abortion with murdering a child, who then say that abortion in the case of (x) is okay. Is it okay to murder a child of rape? Clearly not. So implicitly these "pro-lifers" are recognizing the difference between a child and a fetus and recognizing that the child has rights that the fetus does not.

Your problem is the one time the right does not agree but will make a pragmatic compromise for policy? You are dashing my hopes of a middle ground.

I worded it wrong. It's not my "problem," but I do think it's a huge inconsistency that demonstrates that the majority of pro-lifers view the fetus not as an unborn child as they like to call it, but as something with fewer rights than a child.

They make that distinction themselves, but then still like to discuss abortion as the killing of a child.

If you truly believe abortion is murder, there can be no compromise. If I think the government is allowing murder, I do not say "Well, as a compromise, you can still murder a few if you stop the majority of murders." To me, that's a morally untenable situation, and I do lose respect for people who say that some murder should be legal. I'd rather work with pro-lifers to hammer out a better compromise, and no, I don't know what that looks like.

tired of closeminded rednecks wrote:

Show me a pro-lifer who is a college graduate who is not a Southern Baptist or Catholic, and I will give you everything that I own.

My wife and I both have MBA's - undergrads in Economics and Biology respectively. We are both pro-life. Really don't understand why valuing the life of a baby is shocking. I admit to being rather indifferent to the subject until my wife became pregnant. Studying the 9 month development of a baby, seeing the ultrasounds, etc. completely changed my mind. For me, the advances made by science in learning about fetal development, confirm life begins long before the actual delivery.

By the way, both my wife and I have large families who all have at least a Bachelor's degree and a few who have earned a Phd. None of them favor abortion - hard to understand why anyone supports such a barbaric procedure. Study up on it - just brutal.

count me in wrote:

[quote]tired of closeminded rednecks wrote:

My wife and I both have MBA's - undergrads in Economics and Biology respectively. We are both pro-life. Really don't understand why valuing the life of a baby is shocking. I admit to being rather indifferent to the subject until my wife became pregnant. Studying the 9 month development of a baby, seeing the ultrasounds, etc. completely changed my mind. For me, the advances made by science in learning about fetal development, confirm life begins long before the actual delivery.

By the way, both my wife and I have large families who all have at least a Bachelor's degree and a few who have earned a Phd. None of them favor abortion - hard to understand why anyone supports such a barbaric procedure. Study up on it - just brutal.

I'm a pro-choicer in general, and the key difference that I wish pro-lifers would understand is that it all depends on what you consider a baby. So you call being pro-life "valuing the life of a baby." I also value the lives of babies every bit as much as you, but the difference is where we consider life to begin. So if you get one thing out of this discussion, please get that! Pro-choicers are not "baby killers," as we are so often called. Heck, I'm a vegetarian because I "value life" so much! I don't want to eat an animal. I don't want to harm any being! The difference is you consider the fetus a baby throughout its development, and I don't. Neither one of us wants to harm babies.

By the way, not many pro-choicers "favor abortion" as you put it. It would be great if there were zero abortions in the world. But the world is unfortunately messy and complicated and I can't pretend to know the situation of each woman who seeks an abortion.