# Louisiana Woman Is Forced Carry Headless Fetus to Term



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

https://jezebel.com/louisiana-woman-is-forced-carry-headless-fetus-to-term-1849418243



A pregnant woman in Louisiana says she’s being forced to choose between carrying a fetus that lacks a skull and the top of its head (as a result of a rare condition called acrania) to term, or traveling several states over for a legal abortion, since Louisiana has banned abortion with very narrow exceptions.


“It’s hard knowing that I’m carrying it to bury it,” Nancy Davis, who’s 13 weeks pregnant and is already the mother of one child, told local news station WAFB9 on Monday. A few weeks ago, she had her first ultrasound and was told the fetus wouldn’t survive—but that she would have to either carry and birth the nonviable fetus or travel to Florida, the closest state where abortion is still legal. Davis is running out of time to make her decision, however, because Florida bans the health service at 15 weeks.


----------



## Big_Al (Dec 21, 2011)

Simple.
Go to a state that allows abortion.
Pro abortion groups will pay the travel costs.
At least some said they would.
No one is “forcing” this woman to do anything.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Without taking a position on abortion, Davis says she thinks state lawmakers need to consider broadening the list of conditions that qualify for an abortion in the state.

“I just want them to consider special circumstances as it relates to abortion...medical problems, like this is one that needs to be in that,” said Davis.








Mother claims she was denied an abortion despite baby’s condition


A Baton Rouge mother has a week to make an unthinkable decision - carry her baby to term even though she says doctors tell her it will not survive or find another state where she can have an abortion.




www.wafb.com





Davis says her baby was diagnosed with acrania. A rare and fatal condition, where the baby’s skull fails to form in the womb. According to health experts, babies with this condition only survive minutes to hours after birth. But because Davis’s life was not in danger and the baby’s condition does not fall under Louisiana Department of Health’s list of qualifying conditions, she was denied an abortion. Unsure about what to do, Davis is faced with a tough decision. Either carry the baby to term, or cross state lines to get an abortion.


----------



## doozie (May 21, 2005)

I think the point is that there are situations that an abortion should be available in ANY state without having incur any additional inconvenience or scrutiny. 
My gosh, what a thing for a woman to have to endure. Some of these lawmakers should be by her side to hold her hand when she delivers to offer their condolences.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Big_Al said:


> Simple.
> Go to a state that allows abortion.
> Pro abortion groups will pay the travel costs.
> At least some said they would.
> No one is “forcing” this woman to do anything.


The word "Forcing" is being used, intentionally, in the abortion discussion to convey an idea that isn't actually accurate.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Big_Al said:


> Simple.
> Go to a state that allows abortion.
> Pro abortion groups will pay the travel costs.
> At least some said they would.
> No one is “forcing” this woman to do anything.


What is next, travel to another country to get a legitimate medical procedure?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

The rules around abortion were very suddenly thrust on states. It will take some time for good sound rules to be developed and put in practice.

If the laws do not get adjusted to satisfy the citizens of those states they will speak via the ballot. Local decisions are the best decisions. 

The ever growing central planning body in DC breeds contempt for the rules and the rule makers.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> What is next, travel to another country to get a legitimate medical procedure?


Misusing the definition of "legitimate" is illegitimate.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> What is next, travel to another country to get a legitimate medical procedure?


You found an extreme example for an extremist position. I'm pretty certain, and so are you, that the issue will be resolved.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

doozie said:


> I think the point is that there are situations that an abortion should be available in ANY state without having incur any additional inconvenience or scrutiny.
> My gosh, what a thing for a woman to have to endure. Some of these lawmakers should be by her side to hold her hand when she delivers to offer their condolences.


I hate to, but I agree with you on this.
There should be exceptions, but people will take it to the extreme


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> What is next, travel to another country to get a legitimate medical procedure?


Already happens. Back when W Bush ignorantly banned stem cells because he didn't realize some of them were obtained from materials only found in LIVE BIRTH placenta, he set us back 50 years. Panama City is where you will find some of the most cutting edge stem cell treatments. Because even after the ban was lifted, the State of California and other blue states then overreacted to the Republicans and banned placental stem cell procedures, forcing a lot of the critical research to remain overseas, because who would want to come back to a Republican state just to end up facing yet another full stem cell ban?

You really have to love this trash heap country and both sides of that trash coin. Call it! Jackarses or Jackarses! I call Jackarses!


----------



## newfieannie (Dec 24, 2006)

lets hope it is resolved because it's definitely not something i would want to go through myself. ~Georgia


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> You found an extreme example for an extremist position. I'm pretty certain, and so are you, that the issue will be resolved.


I agree. The problem is that Roe got overturned and some States have taken things to the extreme because of a small percentage of the population's beliefs. They have taken away a woman's rights and these instances need to be highlighted to show the problems.

You would want the same if the government was able to take away all of your gun rights, correct?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I agree. The problem is that Roe got overturned and some States have taken things to the extreme because of a small percentage of the population's beliefs. They have taken away a woman's rights and these instances need to be highlighted to show the problems.
> 
> You would want the same if the government was able to take away all of your gun rights, correct?


Hmm. Gun to defend my life versus a woman's right to kill a pre-born fetus at any stage of development. What a comparison.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I agree. The problem is that Roe got overturned and some States have taken things to the extreme because of a small percentage of the population's beliefs. They have taken away a woman's rights and these instances need to be highlighted to show the problems.
> 
> You would want the same if the government was able to take away all of your gun rights, correct?


I tried to find this in the constitution.

“A well regulated Medical Procedure, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep or abort a Baby, shall not be infringed.”


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I agree. The problem is that Roe got overturned and some States have taken things to the extreme because of a small percentage of the population's beliefs. They have taken away a woman's rights and these instances need to be highlighted to show the problems.
> 
> You would want the same if the government was able to take away all of your gun rights, correct?


A comparison to gun rights is your pre coffee logic speaking. That is a false equivalency.
The woman you have listed has nothing in any way to do with a woman's right to "choose" to end a life for a non medical issue. This isn't a topic that makes your pov stronger. Choose wisely next time.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wiscto said:


> Hmm. Gun to defend my life versus a woman's right to kill a pre-born fetus at any stage of development. What a comparison.


I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either. I am trying to express the point that in both instances people claim that making one rule means taking it all away.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either.


Here are your comments from post # 13.
_"... some States have taken things to the extreme because of a small percentage of the population's beliefs."_


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either.


You are correct. Over 60% of Americans think it should be limited, right around the time when the fetus can experience life/suffering/pain. And yet here we are, decades later, arguing the case again. Why? Because as even Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, Roe was not a good legal argument because the right to an abortion is not a privacy issue. Everyone thought Roe decided it. It didn't. And now all the big mouthed extremists on both sides, with no ability to reason, get to drag us all into yet another unwinnable argument. Against our will. Because the majority of us just don't have the political will to settle these issues our way and force the extremist positions to the back burner.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that.


I am not for discrimination either, but if I spent all of my posts here denigrating a group of people and posting links that put them in a negative light, it might make it appear that I was.

BTW, can you point to a post or two of yours where you indicate that you are Pro Life? Thanks.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> I am not for discrimination either, but if I spent all of my posts here denigrating a group of people and posting links that put them in a negative light, it might make it appear that I was.
> 
> BTW, can you point to a post or two of yours where you indicate that you are Pro Life? Thanks.


She didn't say she was pro-life.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Neither did I.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)




----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> You found an extreme example for an extremist position. I'm pretty certain, and so are you, that the issue will be resolved.


I'm not an extremist and could see medical issues like this arising that nobody thought of when setting up parameters. I would hope that issues like this would be resolved soon because it's not something anybody should have to experience. 

I think we've all had some sort of medical procedure at least once in our lives and I can't imagine trying to make arrangements in another state, or in my case, province, finding someplace to stay and then feeling like crap physically and emotionally and making the trip back home again. 

The last one I had was a long time ago but all I wanted was to get in, get it done and get home to my own familiar surroundings and crawl into bed.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

painterswife said:


> What is next, travel to another country to get a legitimate medical procedure?


Do you not understand people go to other states all the time for legitimate medical procedures because they are not available in their state? One of our neighbors had to go to Arkansas last December for a certain weight reduction surgery not available any closer to Illinois. Should that procedure be required to be provided in Illinois? BTW, he weighed 410 pounds when he got the surgery and is now at 230 pounds and still slowly losing.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> I'm not an extremist and could see medical issues like this arising that nobody thought of when setting up parameters. I would hope that issues like this would be resolved soon because it's not something anybody should have to experience.


I agree completely. My point is that a segment of the country would use an example such as this to promote their own extremist view point of abortion on demand, anytime and anywhere. That is unfortunate.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I agree. The problem is that Roe got overturned and some States have taken things to the extreme because of a small percentage of the population's beliefs. They have taken away a woman's rights and these instances need to be highlighted to show the problems.
> 
> You would want the same if the government was able to take away all of your gun rights, correct?


Huge difference between the natural god given right of self defense (constitutionally protected btw) and being allowed to commit murder as a matter of convenience. (Which it is in the vast majority of abortions) Women have never, at anytime, had the right to blatantly murder anyone. Ability? yes, right? No way!


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Evons hubby said:


> Huge difference between the natural god given right of self defense (constitutionally protected btw) and being allowed to commit murder as a matter of convenience. (Which it is in the vast majority of abortions) women have never, at anytime had the right to blatantly murder anyone. Ability yes, right? No way!


I already covered this. She already said she is not for abortion under any and all circumstances.

And is it really possible to murder something that doesn't have a heartbeat? Okay so it has a heartbeat but no discernable signs of consciousness or nerve endings anywhere. It doesn't want to live, doesn't know what life is, isn't conscious at all...............................you get to define that as murder when 60% of the country by every single polling data disagrees with you? You sound like a religious autocrat to me. There's plenty of room for you in the Middle East.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I already covered this. She already said she is not for abortion under any and all circumstances.
> 
> And is it really possible to murder something that doesn't have a heartbeat? Okay so it has a heartbeat but no discernable signs of consciousness or nerve endings anywhere. It doesn't want to live, doesn't know what life is, isn't conscious at all...............................you get to define that as murder when 60% of the country by every single polling data disagrees with you? You sound like a religious autocrat to me. There's plenty of room for you in the Middle East.


Who said “it” doesn’t want to live? Link please. Sorry if I sound religious to you, couldn’t be more wrong there. A human life is a human life.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Evons hubby said:


> Who said “it” doesn’t want to live? Link please. Sorry if I sound religious to you, couldn’t be more wrong there. A human life is a human life.


"A human life is a human life" is a religious statement. There's nothing logical or argumentative about it, it's just a maxim. You're choosing to preach to the rest of us, through the government, an answer that is simply far more difficult than you would like it to be. That's faith, not logic.

Tell me what conscious means to you. To me it means any entity that can perceive the self and the world around it, experience pain and suffering, want things... Etc. The dinner you ate last night had more of that than a fetus at six weeks. Bottom line... Neither you nor the government should be involved in someone else's decision until there is another conscious human being in the equation. Limited term abortion centered around the beginning of consciousness is the only valid government response in a country with free will. You can have whatever spiritual or personal belief you want in your own life.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

wiscto said:


> I already covered this. She already said she is not for abortion under any and all circumstances.
> 
> And is it really possible to murder something that doesn't have a heartbeat? Okay so it has a heartbeat but no discernable signs of consciousness or nerve endings anywhere. It doesn't want to live, doesn't know what life is, isn't conscious at all...............................you get to define that as murder when 60% of the country by every single polling data disagrees with you? You sound like a religious autocrat to me. There's plenty of room for you in the Middle East.



Call me whatever you wish, but I believe the Bible, and it says life begins at conception. To me, that settles it. Others will disagree and people will do as they wish. I neither want nor seek control over them. but they need to understand what they are doing and far too many do not know. I do believe any government that legalizes such things is on a downward spiral and those who elected such a government will suffer longterm.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

poppy said:


> Call me whatever you wish, but I believe the Bible, and it says life begins at conception.


I don't believe in the bible. I don't care what you believe. I don't think that limited term abortion is evil or devastating to our moral direction, because it represents the compassion of the majority toward other human beings who have begun to experience consciousness and all that brings. They're not trying to murder anyone, they're actually for limiting abortions because they're taking that conscious human being into consideration.

People don't need to know anything, they hear your opinion from plenty of people in their lives. If you don't believe in keep government out of our affairs until another conscious human being is in play, then you're not doing anything to prevent the downward spiral, because the downward spiral is being caused by the competition between two totalitarian mindsets seeking to control the rest of us and force their religious prerogatives on us. Well that and greed, obesity, sloth, gluttony, vice... There are some things in the bible that absolutely make sense.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wiscto said:


> I don't believe in the bible. I don't care what you believe.


I agree. No one has to care what anyone believes.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> I agree completely. My point is that a segment of the country would use an example such as this to promote their own extremist view point of abortion on demand, anytime and anywhere. That is unfortunate.


She shouldn't become the poster child for any agenda but just like anything else, if nobody really knows these things happen, nobody can change anything.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> I agree. No one has to care what anyone believes.


Personally I thought that was kind of the whole point of freedom. And if people can't live with each other when they have different views on something that is ultimately a difficult philosophical question, then freedom is dead and there is no point. Because you can secede, you can move to another country, but if the people there are thinking freely then there will inevitably be a disagreement over this exact issue.

So. Again. I would argue that in this case it is the government's duty to stay out of it until another conscious human being is involved. And it is the citizen's duty to stay out of it until another conscious human being is involved.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Yes, the less government the better. The smaller and more local the representation, the better the people are represented. The people in that area seem satisfied with their representation; if not, then expect things to change.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Adoptive mom of a hard to place child here. About as radically pro life as you can get. And yet, I recognize that when a guy wrecks his Harley and is brain dead, and wants to donate his organs, we keep him "alive" with machines just long enough to make appropriate arrangements for recipients to be ready, and harvest his organs. We recognize he is not alive. If a fetus has no brain, is it not brain dead? Can we not recognize that as an extenuating circumstance requiring medical procedures? Good grief, under draconian strict laws Josie Duggar and her mom Michelle would likely both have died. See, Josie had to be delivered by emergency c section because of mom's high BP.

So yeah, some states need to formulate SOUND laws both protecting the unborn (pro life from conception) AND recognizing sometimes there is not going to be a living baby born, or that carrying it may kill the mom. Either way, leave the parents in peace with their very difficult decisions.

In the meantime, no one is forcing this woman to do anything. Many will pay for her trip and her surgery, and she can get help. Either she is using this politically or she is being used.

I'll crawl back under my rock now, rant over, lol


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

nodak3 said:


> Adoptive mom of a hard to place child here. About as radically pro life as you can get. And yet, I recognize that when a guy wrecks his Harley and is brain dead, and wants to donate his organs, we keep him "alive" with machines just long enough to make appropriate arrangements for recipients to be ready, and harvest his organs. We recognize he is not alive. If a fetus has no brain, is it not brain dead? Can we not recognize that as an extenuating circumstance requiring medical procedures? Good grief, under draconian strict laws Josie Duggar and her mom Michelle would likely both have died. See, Josie had to be delivered by emergency c section because of mom's high BP.
> 
> So yeah, some states need to formulate SOUND laws both protecting the unborn (pro life from conception) AND recognizing sometimes there is not going to be a living baby born, or that carrying it may kill the mom. Either way, leave the parents in peace with their very difficult decisions.
> 
> ...


I disagree with your last statement. I don't feel she should have to make travel arrangements or travel for surgery. Under these circumstances, she should have ready access to what she needs. 

Maybe she would just like to open dialogue for situations that fall outside the hard no category and realistically, I belive only politicians have the ability to change laws so if there is no awareness there is no change.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

There is a difference between a law that does not allow you medical care in your community and having to travel because there is not a facility or specialty doctor in your community that offers that particular medical service.

Those who think it is fine to make a woman travel for such a needed abortion are really only glad because it hinders abortion entirely.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Those who think it is fine to make a woman travel for such a needed abortion are really only glad because it hinders abortion entirely.


_"I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either."_

I haven't given an opinion on this specific case, but maybe you can clarify this statement, that you made earlier, with your post above.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> _"I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either."_
> 
> I haven't given an opinion on this specific case, but maybe you can clarify this statement, that you made earlier, with your post above.


I have always posted that I am fine with a restriction on abortions somewhere from 16 to 20 weeks unless there is a medical need after that. I also believe that a huge portion of the population would agree to that approx timeline. There will be extremists on both sides that want it all or nothing but I have never been one of them. I have also stated that the timeline may in the future trend down some as more medical advancements make it possible to have the fetus live at earlier dates without harmful repercussions. I do believe that anyone should be able to have an abortion up to 12 weeks with no input from anyone but the person carrying the fetus.

is that enough clarification for you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> "A human life is a human life" is a religious statement.
> 
> Bottom line... Neither you nor the government should be involved in someone else's decision until there is another conscious human being in the equation. Limited term abortion centered around the beginning of consciousness is the only valid government response in a country with free will. You can have whatever spiritual or personal belief you want in your own life.


I can understand how it could be considered a religious statement, but I assure you in my case it is not. It’s a simple statement of fact. consciousness is not the determining factor as to what is or is not a human life. a human being can be unconscious and still be considered alive.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either. I am trying to express the point that in both instances people claim that making one rule means taking it all away.


If you are not for abortions, then why do you constantly and consistently defend abortions, and women's 'right' to 'choose' to have abortions, for any reason or none?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> What is next, travel to another country to get a legitimate medical procedure?


That is downright.......Canadian.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wiscto said:


> I already covered this. She already said she is not for abortion under any and all circumstances.


Have you actually read other posts by PW? Saying you are not for abortion under any and all circumstances in one post, doesn't eliminate all of the other posts in other threads that clearly say the opposite of that.



wiscto said:


> And is it really possible to murder something that doesn't have a heartbeat? Okay so it has a heartbeat but no discernable signs of consciousness or nerve endings anywhere. It doesn't want to live, doesn't know what life is, isn't conscious at all...............................you get to define that as murder when 60% of the country by every single polling data disagrees with you? You sound like a religious autocrat to me. There's plenty of room for you in the Middle East.


At all stages of growth (from fertilization / conception to death), all human people (including unborn children) are alive. To deny such a fact is to dehumanize unborn children. 

It takes time for a biological body to grow and develop. If unborn children were not alive, they would not grow from fertilized eggs into fetuses (so no pregnancy), would not be born (so no birth), or grow into anything ... so no abortion necessary for any reason, and no more people. 

How do you know that unborn children do not want to live? All living beings (including unborn children) are blessed with a thing called 'survival instinct', and all living beings (including unborn children) want to live (unless suicidal). What is your definition of life? How do you know whether or not unborn children are devoid of consciousness? 

Federal and state laws have already defined what various kinds of killings (including murders) are, regardless of the supposed % of people that agree with you or not. 

The case PW presented is an extremely rare but obviously possible circumstance, which people in each state will have to address, and such things are very unlikely to happen overnight. 

Caring about not only the lives of pregnant women, but also the lives of their unborn children, does not require religion, religious beliefs, or religious people, any more than the laws we already have in place regarding the various kinds of killings (such as murder, manslaughter, etc.). Topics such as abortion also do not require people to insult one another if they do not agree.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wiscto said:


> "A human life is a human life" is a religious statement. There's nothing logical or argumentative about it, it's just a maxim. You're choosing to preach to the rest of us, through the government, an answer that is simply far more difficult than you would like it to be. That's faith, not logic.
> 
> Tell me what conscious means to you. To me it means any entity that can perceive the self and the world around it, experience pain and suffering, want things... Etc. The dinner you ate last night had more of that than a fetus at six weeks. Bottom line... Neither you nor the government should be involved in someone else's decision until there is another conscious human being in the equation. Limited term abortion centered around the beginning of consciousness is the only valid government response in a country with free will. You can have whatever spiritual or personal belief you want in your own life.


Claiming that the statement 'a human life is a human life' is a religious statement is a personal opinion. Preaching is what preachers do. Expressing opinions is something we all do here from time to time. Such opinions may be based on logic, laws, personal opinions, research, faith, or a combination of such things.

Your beliefs about what consciousness is are just that -- your own personal beliefs. How do you know what anyone else ate last night, or if what was eaten was alive or not, or if it was devoid of consciousness or not?

Unborn children are living human people, at the beginning of their lives as humans, who like all other humans, have the right to live. Unless an unborn child is dead (and thus, unable to grow into anything, and if not aborted could cause health problems for the pregnant women he or she is inside of if not removed), he or she is a living human person, who is endowed with consciousness, and has just as much of a right to live as the pregnant woman he or she lives inside of. This is why we have laws (such as laws about abortion, murder, manslaughter, etc.) that are intended to protect and defend the lives of all people, including unborn children. If someone murders a pregnant woman, the murderer may be charged with murdering 2 people, not just 1, regardless of how long the pregnant woman was pregnant ... depending on the state.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wiscto said:


> I don't believe in the bible. I don't care what you believe. I don't think that limited term abortion is evil or devastating to our moral direction, because it represents the compassion of the majority toward other human beings who have begun to experience consciousness and all that brings. They're not trying to murder anyone, they're actually for limiting abortions because they're taking that conscious human being into consideration.
> 
> People don't need to know anything, they hear your opinion from plenty of people in their lives. If you don't believe in keep government out of our affairs until another conscious human being is in play, then you're not doing anything to prevent the downward spiral, because the downward spiral is being caused by the competition between two totalitarian mindsets seeking to control the rest of us and force their religious prerogatives on us. Well that and greed, obesity, sloth, gluttony, vice... There are some things in the bible that absolutely make sense.


If you don't care what poppy believes, then why did you reply to poppy's post?

Doing everything you can to protect and defend the life of all people (including unborn children) shows compassion for all people equally. When do you believe that human beings begin to experience consciousness? I agree that abortions should be allowed for legitimate medical reasons (such as removing an unborn child that has already died, or a tubal pregnancy, etc.). Laws are and will continue to be made to regulate abortions, in order to protect and defend the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children. Such laws may be interpreted as religious or not, but absolutely make logical, legal, and moral sense.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wiscto said:


> So. Again. I would argue that in this case it is the government's duty to stay out of it until another conscious human being is involved. And it is the citizen's duty to stay out of it until another conscious human being is involved.


Unborn human children are endowed with life, consciousness, and the right to live, just as all other living human people. If abortions only affected pregnant women, other people would not get involved. Women do not get themselves pregnant, they do not give birth to themselves, they do not provide abortions for themselves, and they do not pay themselves to abort themselves.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

CC Pereira said:


> If you don't care what poppy believes, then why did you reply to poppy's post?
> 
> Doing everything you can to protect and defend the life of all people (including unborn children) shows compassion for all people equally. When do you believe that human beings begin to experience consciousness? I agree that abortions should be allowed for legitimate medical reasons (such as removing an unborn child that has already died, or a tubal pregnancy, etc.). Laws are and will continue to be made to regulate abortions, in order to protect and defend the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children. Such laws may be interpreted as religious or not, but absolutely make logical, legal, and moral sense.


So much wrong with that post. Wow


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

nodak3 said:


> Adoptive mom of a hard to place child here. About as radically pro life as you can get. And yet, I recognize that when a guy wrecks his Harley and is brain dead, and wants to donate his organs, we keep him "alive" with machines just long enough to make appropriate arrangements for recipients to be ready, and harvest his organs. We recognize he is not alive. If a fetus has no brain, is it not brain dead? Can we not recognize that as an extenuating circumstance requiring medical procedures? Good grief, under draconian strict laws Josie Duggar and her mom Michelle would likely both have died. See, Josie had to be delivered by emergency c section because of mom's high BP.
> 
> So yeah, some states need to formulate SOUND laws both protecting the unborn (pro life from conception) AND recognizing sometimes there is not going to be a living baby born, or that carrying it may kill the mom. Either way, leave the parents in peace with their very difficult decisions.
> 
> ...


If an adult man chooses to donate his organs if he is unable to use them, and chooses not to live for the rest of his life on life support if required for his survival, then wrecks his bike and becomes brain dead ... in such a case, the adult man got to choose to live or die. Unborn children on the other hand, could live until and after birth outside of a pregnant woman if allowed to, do not get such choices until they become adults. The adult man on life support is alive until removed from life support. Brain development is very different than brain damage. For one, a developing brain does not require medical procedures, unless it is damaged. A C section (which could save the life of both a pregnant woman and her unborn child) is also very different than an abortion (which could save the life of a pregnant woman, but always results in the death of an unborn child). 

I agree that there are legitimate medical reasons for abortions, and so do many others, which is why laws are already in place and are still being made, in order to protect and defend the lives of both pregnant women and their unborn children. Not regulating abortions and allowing them for any reason or none, would be like not regulating the killing of any living human person and allowing it for any reason or none.

I agree that no one is forcing this woman to do anything.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> I disagree with your last statement. I don't feel she should have to make travel arrangements or travel for surgery. Under these circumstances, she should have ready access to what she needs.
> 
> Maybe she would just like to open dialogue for situations that fall outside the hard no category and realistically, I belive only politicians have the ability to change laws so if there is no awareness there is no change.


I've had multiple surgeries, and I had to travel elsewhere for them all. I have also had to travel to another state for medicine. Everything isn't available everywhere, and I don't see any reason why abortions should be any more available than any other medical procedure. Also, if only politicians have the ability to change laws, then what would be the purpose of all citizens having the right to vote for or against laws and politicians?

Just remembered, two surgeries I didn't have to travel for ... but most of them I did have to travel for. If you live in the sticks, you can expect to travel for a lot of things, including medical procedures.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I have always posted that I am fine with a restriction on abortions somewhere from 16 to 20 weeks unless there is a medical need after that. I also believe that a huge portion of the population would agree to that approx timeline. There will be extremists on both sides that want it all or nothing but I have never been one of them. I have also stated that the timeline may in the future trend down some as more medical advancements make it possible to have the fetus live at earlier dates without harmful repercussions. I do believe that anyone should be able to have an abortion up to 12 weeks with no input from anyone but the person carrying the fetus.
> 
> is that enough clarification for you?


If such a huge portion of the population would agree to your timeline for abortions, then most of our laws would reflect that, but they don't, and rightly so. I agree that this is not really an all or nothing issue, and I believe that some exceptions should be allowed, for legitimate medical reasons. If abortions only affected pregnant women, then yes, whether or not pregnant women get abortions would be no one else's business but their own. However, women do not get themselves pregnant, are not pregnant with themselves, do not give birth to themselves, and do not abort themselves, so other people get involved in the decision to or not to get abortions.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> Have you actually read other posts by PW? Saying you are not for abortion under any and all circumstances in one post, doesn't eliminate all of the other posts in other threads that clearly say the opposite of that.


Actually, you are incorrect and unfortunately, you draw your own conclusions based on your opinion of anyone who doesn’t fully support your position.

She has always been very clear on her parameters fully and I don’t believe anyone who is pro choice is eager to see any woman be faced with that decision, she simply feel you don’t have the right to control someone else’s bodily autonomy.


----------



## SWTXRancher_1975 (8 mo ago)

Clearly she should do her best to bring it to term then foist it over onto the state to be yet another burden to the fine folks of Louisiana. That is what the GOP says they want after all. I'm sure a braindead baby with no prospect for life has tons of people waiting in line to adopt.

I mean that's not going to happen because 75% of these are stillbirths, and the overwhelming majority of what is born alive die within hours. Seems like an obvious reason to abort if you ask me.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The vast majority of fetuses can survive outside the womb once they reach the proper stage of development. Abortion bans should have exceptions for those fetuses that will die once they are born.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1559672670358310917


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> If such a huge portion of the population would agree to your timeline for abortions, then most of our laws would reflect that, but they don't, and rightly so. I agree that this is not really an all or nothing issue, and I believe that some exceptions should be allowed, for legitimate medical reasons. If abortions only affected pregnant women, then yes, whether or not pregnant women get abortions would be no one else's business but their own. However, women do not get themselves pregnant, are not pregnant with themselves, do not give birth to themselves, and do not abort themselves, so other people get involved in the decision to or not to get abortions.


You seem to have no real understanding of my position on abortion after all of our interactions. I have decided not to address your many sliding positions on the subject in this thread at this point. I will wait until Witsco comes back and responds. While Witsco and I don't always agree on things, we do have a good understanding of our lines in the sand and why they exist and I believe Witsco will rebut your posts in a much clear and more concise way than I can.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

GTX63 said:


> _"I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either."_
> 
> I haven't given an opinion on this specific case, but maybe you can clarify this statement, that you made earlier, with your post above.





CC Pereira said:


> If you are not for abortions, then why do you constantly and consistently defend abortions, and women's 'right' to 'choose' to have abortions, for any reason or none?


I think you guys are misunderstanding her, but, granted, it is an awkwardly worded sentence.

When she said:


painterswife said:


> I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that.


As written, it could be interpreted as being against abortion at every stage, or as not being for it at all stages. Maybe a clearer way to say that would have been “I am not for abortions at _every_ stage of development.”


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I agree. The problem is that Roe got overturned and some States have taken things to the extreme because of a small percentage of the population's beliefs. They have taken away a woman's rights and these instances need to be highlighted to show the problems.
> 
> You would want the same if the government was able to take away all of your gun rights, correct?


O'Biden and crew are working furiously to take away our Constitutional rights, including gun rights.
If they can't ban them they'll tax them out of existence.
I'm surprised you can support the democrats who are working so hard to destroy our culture.


----------



## campbellmr99 (11 mo ago)

Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

My position, as worthless as it is on this subject, is this:

Abortions should be safe and rare. A doctor and patient should make the decision and if the decision to is to have an abortion, it must be performed within 15 weeks of conception, without interference from state or federal law.

That should tee off all sides equally.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


Do you believe murder is wrong? Theft? Killing puppies?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


For me it’s a matter of decency. I don’t condone any form of murder.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Do you believe murder is wrong? Theft? Killing puppies?


Let us discuss the killing puppies thing. Is killing puppies different than killing piglets or chickens?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> For me it’s a matter of decency. I don’t condone any form of murder.


Do you believe in the death penalty?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe in the death penalty?


Of course. It’s great for punishing those who commit murder.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Let us discuss the killing puppies thing. Is killing puppies different than killing piglets or chickens?


Valid question but the answer is easy and just as valid... the short version is... we don't eat puppies, but we do eat chickens and pigs. In countries where they eat dog, killing puppies is absolutely no different.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Let us discuss the killing puppies thing. Is killing puppies different than killing piglets or chickens?


Not if you eat the puppies


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Valid question but the answer is easy and just as valid... the short version is... we don't eat puppies, but we do eat chickens and pigs. In countries where they eat dog, killing puppies is absolutely no different.





HDRider said:


> Not if you eat the puppies


Is it just the eating of what you kill that makes it different and all right or is it all right to kill if you do it a humane way?

What about killing rats?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Is it just the eating of what you kill that makes it different and all right or is it all right to kill if you do it a humane way?


In the case of livestock and game, killing something to eat it makes it very different from wanton killing.

Also, in the case of livestock and game, humane death is required by any emotionally adjusted person. I mean we wouldn't want to attack it while it is defenseless... hack it to bits... and throw it in an incinerator... would we???



> What about killing rats?


Rats are destructive, disease carrying vermin that must be controlled to avoid pestilence and rampant human disease and death. Even at that, I make efforts to kill them humanely... not so much when the barn cats or dogs get hold of them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> In the case of livestock and game, killing something to eat it makes it very different from wanton killing.
> 
> Also, in the case of livestock and game, humane death is required by any emotionally adjusted person. I mean we wouldn't want to attack it while it is defenseless... hack it to bits... and throw it in an incinerator... would we???
> 
> ...


I agree and would take it one step further. Killing things is a necessary part of life. Killing puppies is sometimes also necessary. Also wolves, coyotes, rats, cats etc. It is about how we do it and when and why that is important to our humanity. That is why I asked about the killing puppies thing. Sometimes it is the humane choice even if it is not what we want to do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I agree and would take it one step further. Killing things is a necessary part of life. Killing puppies is sometimes also necessary. Also wolves, coyotes, rats, cats etc. It is about how we do it and when and why that is important to our humanity. That is why I asked about the killing puppies thing. Sometimes it is the humane choice even if it is not what we want to do.


When and why is the killing of an innocent human being part of our humanity?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> When and why is the killing of an innocent human being part of our humanity?


It is done in war. It is done when the human body is too damaged. It is done when we don't pay for someone's heat in winter or air conditioning in summer. It is done when we don't take in those from war-ravaged countries. It is done when we ignore someone's medical needs. It is done when we overlook those that need our help. It is done when someone gets caught in the crossfire of police.

It is done all the time, sometimes from neglect, sometimes from not caring. Sometimes from lack of oversight.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

GTX63 said:


> _"I am not for abortions at any stage of development. I have been very clear on that. I also believe that the majority of people in this country are not either."_
> 
> I haven't given an opinion on this specific case, but maybe you can clarify this statement, that you made earlier, with your post above.





Evons hubby said:


> I can understand how it could be considered a religious statement, but I assure you in my case it is not. It’s a simple statement of fact. consciousness is not the determining factor as to what is or is not a human life. a human being can be unconscious and still be considered alive.


I don't really believe you. Regardless, if you force the abortion debate to center on a spiritual belief in the sanctity of life, then you are ignoring most of the philosophy involved in this debate. YOUR view of the balance of life versus consciousness should be a personal one, and it should not involve the government. When that human life is conscious and able to experience life, pain, suffering, and death, that is when the government can get involved. Until then, your personal spiritual view of the meaning of life....that's all for you.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Evons hubby said:


> When and why is the killing of an innocent human being part of our humanity?


I personally am not far from you on this. However, in terms of government and legal terminology like murder........that should only be applied to conscious human beings who CAN want to live and be free of suffering.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


Because they are silly nuisances and busy-bodies.

They can't help themselves and can't mind their own business because they think that all human life is sacred. They're misguided and terrified of death. Everybody has fear and control issues of some kind or another that compels them to try to influence or control what other people believe or do with their lives. 

Whether it's trying to stop others from walking across their lawns to interfering with what people do with their bodies to attempting to make people believe in and worship certain imaginary deity and the human life they believe that deity gave to them. Some of them place so much reverence and importance on their own human life as being such a holy and sacrosanct thing that they believe that same reverence absolutely must extend to all human life ..... even if it only has half a head and is going to snuff itself out shortly after entering the world. They believe that the life of no other species except the spark of human life is sacrosanct. Nothing else is important to them.

They are a silly nuisance with mental blocks.

.


----------



## Joshevious (Aug 17, 2021)

I think it is obvious that exceptions will have to be made in rare instances. My issue is with abortion as a contraceptive. If you don't want to be a parent then you shouldn't do things that lead to being a parent. I find it ludicrous that a baby is only a baby if the woman wants the pregnancy and is a fetus if she does not... I guess it is because BELIEF matters. If a woman wants the child then that pregnancy holds a value that we deem as a sacred life and is worthy of protection to the degree that we have Public Law 108–212 equating intentional or unintentional killing of the in-utero being with murder. But in the same law if the woman wants an abortion (no limitations specified) then neither she nor any medical personnel involved can be convicted of committing a crime. Or, if the family agrees to take a patient who is brain dead off life support that is a sad medical decision. If a stranger came into the hospital and pulled that plug first do you think they would be tried for murder? Consequently, this explains why the puppy would be defended and the piglets wouldn't. A pet is perceived = believed to hold a more sacred and valuable life than livestock. The value of the unborn depends entirely on belief. If those who believe that they are fighting for the protection of valuable life were to be silent, then the only voices heard would be those who do not find value in said life. 
Funny enough in Arkansas you can have up to six pet deer and if someone shoots them it is the same misdemeanor as if they shot your dog. If they get off your property and do not have a collar however they are just deer and anyone shooting one gets some pretty well-fattened venison!


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


There are many laws imposing one's beliefs on the rest of society.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


That's what I tell the anti-2A idiots about guns.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> Of course. It’s great for punishing those who commit murder.


Unfortunately, there have been a few that were punished for murders they didn't commit.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Unfortunately, there have been a few that were punished for murders they didn't commit.


True, but how does that compare to the half million or so who are sentenced to death every year without ever having their day in court?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> Actually, you are incorrect and unfortunately, you draw your own conclusions based on your opinion of anyone who doesn’t fully support your position.
> 
> She has always been very clear on her parameters fully and I don’t believe anyone who is pro choice is eager to see any woman be faced with that decision, she simply feel you don’t have the right to control someone else’s bodily autonomy.


I agree with 'my body my choice', but also with the right of all living people (including unborn children) to live. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer only about her own body, but also the unborn child inside of her body.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I agree with 'my body my choice', but also with the right of all living people (including unborn children) to live. Once a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer only about her own body, but also the unborn child inside of her body.


It is not a living person for much of the pregnancy. You have no science to back up your beliefs.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


We have, make, and vote for or against laws, to protect and defend the lives of all people (including unborn children), which is why we have laws for example, that regulate the killing of people (whether or not such killings are legally classified as murder, manslaughter, abortion, etc.).


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wiscto said:


> I personally am not far from you on this. However, in terms of government and legal terminology like murder........that should only be applied to conscious human beings who CAN want to live and be free of suffering.


All living human people (including unborn children) can be killed, but instinctively want to live. We have, make, and vote for / against laws about killings (such as murder, manslaughter, self-defense, abortions, etc.) to protect and defend the lives of all people, including unborn children.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is not a living person for much of the pregnancy. You have no science to back up your beliefs.


He or she is a living human person from conception to death. You have no science to prove that your beliefs are correct, or that mine are incorrect.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> He or she is a living human person from conception to death. You have no science to prove that your beliefs are correct, or that mine are incorrect.


Plenty of science. No human brain capable of higher brain activity, no human person.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Plenty of science. No human brain capable of higher brain activity, no human person.


Science and your personal opinions are not the same, but you are certainly free to have such personal opinions.


----------



## Joshevious (Aug 17, 2021)

Science is mankind attempting to explain nature not creating reality. Science cannot quantify what it is to be alive, only a general listing of the functions a living thing performs. Give the best scientist all the parts of a dog and tell them to make it alive and see what you get. A mockery possibly, where the stimulate organs to somewhat function, but not the self-sustaining chemical and electrical ballet that is life. As for consciousness we barely grasp that concept at all. Is a jellyfish aware? It meets every single definition of life but without a brain. It hunts, breeds, moves away from danger, and has shown to favor certain specific spots. I know people that show the same level of awareness. As for judging the exact moment of a developing child's consciousness that is like the experiment of Schrodinger's cat as it is impossible to know. I have a doctor friend who said there must be some form of electrical/neurological system in place for the heart to beat and so they felt like the heartbeat was the best identifier of life in a fetus. That isn't perfect for anyone on either side of the debate but I agree with them that it is a solid place to stand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Joshevious said:


> Science is mankind attempting to explain nature not creating reality. Science cannot quantify what it is to be alive, only a general listing of the functions a living thing performs. Give the best scientist all the parts of a dog and tell them to make it alive and see what you get. A mockery possibly, where the stimulate organs to somewhat function, but not the self-sustaining chemical and electrical ballet that is life. As for consciousness we barely grasp that concept at all. Is a jellyfish aware? It meets every single definition of life but without a brain. It hunts, breeds, moves away from danger, and has shown to favor certain specific spots. I know people that show the same level of awareness. As for judging the exact moment of a developing child's consciousness that is like the experiment of Schrodinger's cat as it is impossible to know. I have a doctor friend who said there must be some form of electrical/neurological system in place for the heart to beat and so they felt like the heartbeat was the best identifier of life in a fetus. That isn't perfect for anyone on either side of the debate but I agree with them that it is a solid place to stand.


The higher functioning of our human brains is what makes us a person. A heart may be alive in a fetus but it does not make it a person.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> The higher functioning of our human brains is what makes us a person. A heart may be alive in a fetus but it does not make it a person.


What makes anyone a person, or qualifies as a 'higher functioning' brain, is but a matter of opinion, although I do agree that a person is much more than just a living biological heart or brain. 

If unborn children were not alive, they could not grow from conception to birth, to become babies, children, or adults. If unborn human children didn't grow beyond conception, all pregnancies (and therefore the lives of all unborn human children) would end shortly after conception, without intentionally aborting anyone ... resulting in the extinction of the human species.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> What makes anyone a person, or qualifies as a 'higher functioning' brain, is but a matter of opinion, although I do agree that a person is much more than just a living biological heart or brain.
> 
> If unborn children were not alive, they could not grow from conception to birth, to become babies, children, or adults. If unborn human children didn't grow beyond conception, all pregnancies (and therefore the lives of all unborn human children) would end shortly after conception, without intentionally aborting anyone ... resulting in the extinction of the human species.


No not opinion, science. No human brain , no person. Otherwise any animal could be a human person. I never said fetuses are not alive, just not a person for much of the gestation. No person flies in from space to inhabit a brain. We need a brain for a fet to become a human person.


----------



## Joshevious (Aug 17, 2021)

My point being science does not know definitely at what point some form of consciousness begins. How much of the brain is required for some level of consciousness? People have been born with less than a whole brain. People have had to have parts of their brain removed. The brain continues to develop until early twenties… I am not saying a fetus while just beginning to develop a brain is conscious I am merely saying there is no definite point of brain development that you can point to and say oh now it is a person. If neurological signals are used as a base line then the heartbeat would be an indication of that system beginning development. You repeatedly stated they are not a person until a certain point of the gestation so what do you look for to indicate personhood?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Joshevious said:


> My point being science does not know definitely at what point some form of consciousness begins. How much of the brain is required for some level of consciousness? People have been born with less than a whole brain. People have had to have parts of their brain removed. The brain continues to develop until early twenties… I am not saying a fetus while just beginning to develop a brain is conscious I am merely saying there is no definite point of brain development that you can point to and say oh now it is a person. If neurological signals are used as a base line then the heartbeat would be an indication of that system beginning development. You repeatedly stated they are not a person until a certain point of the gestation so what do you look for to indicate personhood?


I agree. Science knows approximately when the fetus brain is capable of that higher brain activity. Aprox, 24 weeks based on brain development. It is not possible before that because of how the brain develops.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Plenty of science. No human brain capable of higher brain activity, no human person.


Your ignoring the fact that it is still a form of life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Your ignoring the fact that it is still a form of life.


Nah. An ear grown in a petri dish is life as well. I know the difference between life and a person.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Nah. An ear grown in a petri dish is life as well. I know the difference between life and a person.


If so, why do you support the killing of innocent people? The ear will not grow and develop into an adult human being, a fetus does. (Assuming it’s not murdered prior to getting the chance)


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> If so, why do you support the killing of innocent people? The ear will not grow and develop into an adult human being, a fetus does. (Assuming it’s not murdered prior to getting the chance)


No killing of a person takes place if an abortion takes place by 15 weeks. More than 97 percent of abortions are done by that time in a pregnancy.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

painterswife said:


> The higher functioning of our human brains is what makes us a person. A heart may be alive in a fetus but it does not make it a person.


Says you!!


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No killing of a person takes place if an abortion takes place by 15 weeks. More than 97 percent of abortions are done by that time in a pregnancy.


Again, that 15 weeks is your opinion...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

tripletmom said:


> Again, that 15 weeks is your opinion...


Backed by science. What is your opinion backed up by? What is your opinion?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Wow...

South Park - YouTube

or

record - YouTube 

might fit several of you all...

just sayin.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No killing of a person takes place if an abortion takes place by 15 weeks. More than 97 percent of abortions are done by that time in a pregnancy.


Says you. The fetus is a live human being. Your attempts to claim other wise are simply wrong.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

homesteadforty said:


> Wow...
> 
> South Park - YouTube
> 
> ...


Naw, I don’t beat dead horses, nor murder innocent babies.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Evons hubby said:


> Naw, I don’t beat dead horses, nor murder innocent babies.


Yet hundreds of posts on the subject... saying the same thing over... and over... and over... and over... and over... ad nauseum... and not a single mind swayed. It seems though most of you (both sides) would realize (see posts #103 above).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Yet hundreds of posts on the subject... saying the same thing over... and over... and over... and over... and over... ad nauseum... and not a single mind swayed. It seems though most of you (both sides) would realize (see posts #103 above).


How do you know that no one's mind has been changed or informed? Just because they don't choose to post and tell you that does not mean the silent majority is not taking in the information.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> How do you know that no one's mind has been changed or informed? Just because they don't choose to post and tell you that does not mean the silent majority is not taking in the information.


I can read minds over the internet waves... jeez... don't you know nothin'.


Foolish questions get... aw, never mind.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Nah. An ear grown in a petri dish is life as well. I know the difference between life and a person.


No, you don't. You think you do, but you really don't. 
Answer this question:
If scientists found a single cell on another planet, what would they call it?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> No, you don't. You think you do, but you really don't.
> Answer this question:
> If scientists found a single cell on another planet, what would they call it?


“Charlie” and then smash it most likely.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> No, you don't. You think you do, but you really don't.
> Answer this question:
> If scientists found a single cell on another planet, what would they call it?


A cell of course.  Definitely not an ear, that is many cells.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> A cell of course.  Definitely not an ear, that is many cells.


No chance they’d use the word….. “life”?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> No chance they’d use the word….. “life”?


What don't you get about living human tissue is not always a living human person? The ear in the petri dish can be human and alive but not a person.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> What don't you get about living human tissue is not always a living human person? The ear in the petri dish can be human and alive but not a person.


What don’t you get that an ear is never going to be more than an ear while an embrio is a developing human being?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> What don’t you get that an ear is never going to be more than an ear while an embrio is a developing human being?


Just because science has yet to grow a full human body in a petri dish does not mean it won't happen. Both the ear in the petri dish and a fetus will possibly become a human person but they are not that yet. That is the difference.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Just because science has yet to grow a full human body in a petri dish does not mean it won't happen. Both the ear in the petri dish and a fetus will possibly become a human person but they are not that yet. That is the difference.


You miss the real difference, the fetus is human life…. Even before conception! An ear is not.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> You miss the real difference, the fetus is human life…. Even before conception! An ear is not.


Nah, it is human life, just not a human person.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> You miss the real difference, the fetus is human life…. Even before conception! An ear is not.



scientifically speaking, there is no fetus prior to conception.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> scientifically speaking, there is no fetus prior to conception.


True but the life exists, just as it has through the many thousands of generations preceding this particular individual.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> True but the life exists, just as it has through the many thousands of generations preceding this particular individual.


Does this mean you advocate for no forms of birth control?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No not opinion, science. No human brain , no person. Otherwise any animal could be a human person. I never said fetuses are not alive, just not a person for much of the gestation. No person flies in from space to inhabit a brain. We need a brain for a fet to become a human person.


A statement such as, 'no human brain, no person', is a personal opinion, not a scientifically proven fact. Any animal could be a person, but only a human animal could be a human person. Whether or not all animals or only humans qualify as being endowed with personhood may also be a matter of personal opinion. How would you define 'person'? What do you believe qualifies as a person? If a living human is a human person, then such an individual is a living human person (not any other species of animal or anything else), for their entire lifetime, from conception to death. I think you may be confusing 'person' with 'consciousness' ...? It takes about 26 years for a brain to be completely developed, so do you believe that a human person doesn't qualify as a human person until he or she is at least 26 years old? Do you believe that a 27+ year old adult human person with brain damage qualifies as a human person?


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I don't like abortion, if you don't want a baby don't make one, it is the absolute definition or premeditated murder. Except when it isn't. Anyone who thinks that forcing a woman to carry a baby that has no head, and won't live, is worse than a rapist and a murderer combined. Holding unpopular opinions isn't something that is new for me. I can't be bullied, bluffed, or intimidated. If I lived near this woman, I would offer to drive her to wherever she needed to go, to get a legal abortion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No killing of a person takes place if an abortion takes place by 15 weeks. More than 97 percent of abortions are done by that time in a pregnancy.


The killing of a person takes place every time an abortion takes place.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> What don't you get about living human tissue is not always a living human person? The ear in the petri dish can be human and alive but not a person.


An ear in a petri dish is a living, growing, human body part. Unborn children OTOH, are living, growing, human people, who are still developing things like hearts, brains, and ears.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Just because science has yet to grow a full human body in a petri dish does not mean it won't happen. Both the ear in the petri dish and a fetus will possibly become a human person but they are not that yet. That is the difference.


If an entire human body was grown in a petri dish, such a body would be a human person, from the beginning to the end of their lifetime in a human body. If you cut off a finger, that finger was part of the body of a human person, who could leave that finger behind, and still be a human person. Unborn children are not just ears, fingers, hearts, brains, or tissue.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Nah, it is human life, just not a human person.


More personal opinions, which each of us is free to have.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

muleskinner2 said:


> I don't like abortion, if you don't want a baby don't make one, it is the absolute definition or premeditated murder. Except when it isn't. Anyone who thinks that forcing a woman to carry a baby that has no head, and won't live, is worse than a rapist and a murderer combined. Holding unpopular opinions isn't something that is new for me. I can't be bullied, bluffed, or intimidated. If I lived near this woman, I would offer to drive her to wherever she needed to go, to get a legal abortion.


I agree that there should be exceptions for abortions, if there is a legitimate medical reason for it. An unborn child that has no head, no brain, and will die during pregnancy or shortly after birth, is extremely rare but obviously possible. I agree that such a case does seem to be one that should allow an abortion -- but thoughts and opinions do not in any way make anyone worse than a rapist or murderer.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Backed by science. What is your opinion backed up by? What is your opinion?


You know what my opinion is and it is just that, my opinion!! And when the rubber hits the road, my opinion don't account for nothing.
15 weeks is your opinion. And when the rubber hits the road, your opinion don't account for nothing either!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

tripletmom said:


> You know what my opinion is and it is just that, my opinion!! And when the rubber hits the road, my opinion don't account for nothing.
> 15 weeks is your opinion. And when the rubber hits the road, your opinion don't account for nothing either!


Actually opinions do matter, especially now that state votes can make a difference.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

This might sound really callous, but if she did carry it to term think of all the other babies she could help. 









Tennessee mother carries dying baby to term to donate organs


A Tennesee mother made the brave decision to carry a dying baby to term in order to donate her organs, a report said Thursday.




www.foxnews.com


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ziptie said:


> This might sound really callous, but if she did carry it to term think of all the other babies she could help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't believe it is callous. Just a selfless act that most might not be able to handle emotionally.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Does this mean you advocate for no forms of birth control?


Pretty much, but let’s get abortion behind us first.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> Pretty much, but let’s get abortion behind us first.


That seems like bait and switch but that’s what a lot of women are afraid of. 

This may come as a bit of a shock to you but not many women want to give their health and lives to raising a baseball team.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> That seems like bait and switch but that’s what a lot of women are afraid of.
> 
> This may come as a bit of a shock to you but not many women want to give their health and lives to raising a baseball team.


You make it sound like they have Something better to do.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> You make it sound like they have Something better to do.



I found it necessary to feed the three I had kept me fairly busy. 

You sound pretty negative about women if you see them as nothing more than broodstock.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> A cell of course.  Definitely not an ear, that is many cells.


"Life" is the correct answer....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> "Life" is the correct answer....


Are you aware that not all life is cellular based?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Are you aware that not all life is cellular based?


Yes, just pointing out what my scientist friends at NASA and JPL would call them/it. They would scream it out loud at the top of their lungs.
"We found life" (kinda like liberals scream at the sky)


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, just pointing out what my scientist friends at NASA and JPL would call them/it. They would scream it out loud at the top of their lungs.
> "We found life" (kinda like liberals scream at the sky)


You still don't seem to grasp that I don't deny that a fetus is life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You still don't seem to grasp that I don't deny that a fetus is life.


Will you also admit it is a human life if it’s growing in a human?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I found it necessary to feed the three I had kept me fairly busy.
> 
> You sound pretty negative about women if you see them as nothing more than broodstock.


Don’t be silly, of course women are more than broodstock! There’s meals to be cooked, laundry to be done, dishes to be washed and a myriad of other things to do to fill those otherwise idle hours!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You still don't seem to grasp that I don't deny that a fetus is life.


Sure I do! You've made it very clear that you don't care about life. Just pointing out that life is precious and shouldn't be taken for granted, like you do, and that your good with killing that life. Carry on...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Will you also admit it is a human life if it’s growing in a human?


Of course. I just don't believe that because it might make it to birth that a woman must be forced to continue the pregnancy if it is not what she wants. Just as I don't believe you should be forced to donate tissue, blood or organs if you don't wish to to keep someone else alive.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Of course. I just don't believe that because it might make it to birth that a woman must be forced to continue the pregnancy if it is not what she wants. Just as I don't believe you should be forced to donate tissue, blood or organs if you don't wish to to keep someone else alive.


She is not being forced to donate any organs, tissue or blood. She’s actually not being asked to “do” anything. quite the opposite! Just continue on her merry way through life. She is only being asked not to kill an innocent human being.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> She is not being forced to donate any organs, tissue or blood. She’s actually not being asked to “do” anything. quite the opposite! Just continue on her merry way through life. She is only being asked not to kill an innocent human being.


She is being forced if she if she does not want to remain pregnant. You can pretend otherwise but it is reality that she is being forced to do something she does not want.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> She is being forced if she if she does not want to remain pregnant. You can pretend otherwise but it is reality that she is being forced to do something she does not want.


Being forced to “do” what exactly?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Somewhere, I read that it wasn't a headless fetus, but in fact was a red herring, somehow connected to a strawman argument.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Being forced to “do” what exactly?


??? Forced to remain pregnant.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

A temporary condition requiring her to do nothing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> A temporary condition requiring her to do nothing.


A condition she chooses to continue or not. To take away her choice is to force her to remain pregnant.

Rape is also a temporary condition. Should anyone be forced to do nothing during that?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

This conversation makes me wonder if certain male members would be so cavalier about pregnancy and childbirth if they had to go through it.

I had a very difficult time with both my pregnancies. The second had to be induced and my doctor was incompetent to say the least. Having a c-section with no anesthetic would have been less painful.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> A condition she chooses to continue or not. To take away her choice is to force her to remain pregnant.
> 
> Rape is also a temporary condition. Should anyone be forced to do nothing during that?


Unless rape is involved, no force is involved. People can choose to prevent unwanted pregnancies (which results in the death of no one), or not. When unwanted pregnancies occur, parents can choose to allow their unborn children to live and be born (and to keep or allow someone else to adopt their children), or parents can kill their unborn children (in any state where abortions are legal). Most states allow abortion for legitimate medical reasons, and some states also allow abortions for rape, incest, any reason, or no reason. None of that involves force, except rape.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Pregnancy and childbirth is not typically an easy task, even if all goes as expected. The first time I gave birth at a place called 'eagle's nest', with a midwife -- no drugs, no surgery, it took 4 days, and I found out after the fact, that I was actually pregnant with twins, and one of them had died before birth. The second time I gave birth at home, with a midwife -- no drugs, no surgery, and it took 2 days. Not saying that's the way to go, it's just ... that's how it went for me. I have learned from these and other experiences in my life (such as raising my children to adulthood, being a grandmother, NDEs, etc.), just how difficult it can be for some people to bring life into this world, and just how precious all life is ... human or not.

When a woman becomes pregnant, 'my body my choice' no longer applies, because the body of an unborn child also lives within the pregnant woman's body, and the unborn child was conceived by both the pregnant woman and the man who impregnated her. Women do not get pregnant by or with themselves, women who get abortions do not perform the abortions themselves, and in many cases, women do not pay for their abortions. For all of these reasons, as well as to protect and defend the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children, we have and continue to regulate and make laws about abortions.

There are still a lot of wrinkles to be ironed out, but so far since the overturning of Roe vs Wade, I think Americans are finally but slowly headed in the right direction.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Unless rape is involved, no force is involved. People can choose to prevent unwanted pregnancies (which results in the death of no one), or not. When unwanted pregnancies occur, parents can choose to allow their unborn children to live and be born (and to keep or allow someone else to adopt their children), or parents can kill their unborn children (in any state where abortions are legal). Most states allow abortion for legitimate medical reasons, and some states also allow abortions for rape, incest, any reason, or no reason. None of that involves force, except rape.


You really don't seem to want to accept what the word force means. Not everyone can travel and if small portion of the population get their way there might be no legal way to even do that.

So making someone remain pregnant against their will is force under any real definition of the word.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You really don't seem to want to accept what the word force means. Not everyone can travel and if small portion of the population get their way there might be no legal way to even do that.
> 
> So making someone remain pregnant against their will is force under any real definition of the word.


Perhaps, but you seem unable to accept the fact that having an abortion is wrong. On many levels. Its also murder under any real definition of the word.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Pregnancy and childbirth is not typically an easy task, even if all goes as expected. The first time I gave birth at a place called 'eagle's nest', with a midwife -- no drugs, no surgery, it took 4 days, and I found out after the fact, that I was actually pregnant with twins, and one of them had died before birth. The second time I gave birth at home, with a midwife -- no drugs, no surgery, and it took 2 days. Not saying that's the way to go, it's just ... that's how it went for me. I have learned from these and other experiences in my life (such as raising my children to adulthood, being a grandmother, NDEs, etc.), just how difficult it can be for some people to bring life into this world, and just how precious all life is ... human or not.
> 
> When a woman becomes pregnant, 'my body my choice' no longer applies, because the body of an unborn child also lives within the pregnant woman's body, and the unborn child was conceived by both the pregnant woman and the man who impregnated her. Women do not get pregnant by or with themselves, women who get abortions do not perform the abortions themselves, and in many cases, women do not pay for their abortions. For all of these reasons, as well as to protect and defend the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children, we have and continue to regulate and make laws about abortions.
> 
> There are still a lot of wrinkles to be ironed out, but so far since the overturning of Roe vs Wade, I think Americans are finally but slowly headed in the right direction.


My body, my choice will always apply. Just as you can't force someone to give you life-saving blood or organs, you can't force a woman to give that to a fetus.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

You also can't force others to accept your pov.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> My body, my choice will always apply. Just as you can't force someone to give you life-saving blood or organs, you can't force a woman to give that to a fetus.


No one is asking a woman to donate any organs.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> No one is asking a woman to donate any organs.


Just her entire body and all her organs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Just her entire body and all her organs.


Lol!! Nope…. She gets to keep all of her parts! Even her toenails!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Lol!! Nope…. She gets to keep all of her parts! Even her toenails!


A woman with no body. no organs means there could be no fetus. She would be forced to allow the use of them all.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> A woman with no body. no organs means there could be no fetus. She would be forced to allow the use of them all.


A woman with no body, no organs gets a free pass to the abortion clinic of her choice! Lol


----------



## cjennmom (Sep 4, 2010)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


That sounds about as useful as “Don’t believe in domestic violence? Just don’t abuse or kill your ___!”


----------



## dr doright (Sep 15, 2011)

campbellmr99 said:


> Why do people insist on imposing their beliefs on other people? Don't believe abortion is right? Don't get one.


Society has a responsibility to protect the weakest. Who is weaker than an unborn child? Our declaration of independence, the founding document of our country proclaims that the right to life is God-given. If you do not want a child take precautions BEFORE one is conceived!


----------



## dr doright (Sep 15, 2011)

painterswife said:


> https://jezebel.com/louisiana-woman-is-forced-carry-headless-fetus-to-term-1849418243
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

cjennmom said:


> That sounds about as useful as “Don’t believe in domestic violence? Just don’t abuse or kill your ___!”


Not much discussion is going to be useful or constructive when much of it involves forcing religious opinions and beliefs on others. 

There are others within this discussion that access to birth control should be revoked as well, which only serves to further muddy the water.


----------



## dr doright (Sep 15, 2011)

The pro-abortion media will highlight every possible "example" no matter how preposterous. First, we heard about the pregnant ten-year-old. the "inhumanity" of the state's abortion law was loudly proclaimed while the fact she had been raped by an illegal alien was totally ignored! Now, the headless fetus. Next, we will hear about the two-headed fetus! We can allow these EXTREME, rare, and sensational examples to push towards the murder of countless helpless perfect babies, or we can simply announce to our representatives that there need to be exceptions LIKE MOST PRO-LIFE STATES ALREADY HAVE!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> Not much discussion is going to be useful or constructive when much of it involves forcing religious opinions and beliefs on others.


How can one "force" their own opinions and beliefs upon others without any authority that it is the final word? I am unaware of anyone forced to even view this thread, let alone be forced to accept what someone else is posting.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

dr doright said:


> The pro-abortion media will highlight every possible "example" no matter how preposterous. First, we heard about the pregnant ten-year-old. the "inhumanity" of the state's abortion law was loudly proclaimed while the fact she had been raped by an illegal alien was totally ignored! Now, the headless fetus. Next, we will hear about the two-headed fetus! We can allow these EXTREME, rare, and sensational examples to push towards the murder of countless helpless perfect babies, or we can simply announce to our representatives that there need to be exceptions LIKE MOST PRO-LIFE STATES ALREADY HAVE!


It seems that the argument by some for the abortion of necessity is being used for the justification of abortion for convenience. One isn't like the other.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

dr doright said:


> If you do not want a child take precautions BEFORE one is conceived!


How do you propose that victims of sexual assault or incest take those precautions and why should they be victimized again because of insensitive comments like yours?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> How can one "force" their own opinions and beliefs upon others without any authority that it is the final word? I am unaware of anyone forced to even view this thread, let alone be forced to accept what someone else is posting.


Do you think that insulting anyone who believes differently is an attempt at forcing an opinion? I do.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Calling someone ie a climate change denier, flat earther, homophobe, etc may be insulting, but moreso an attempt to silence rather than convince. I have yet to have found anyone convinced of an opposing viewpoint thru force.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

dr doright said:


> The pro-abortion media will highlight every possible "example" no matter how preposterous.


When you are discussing exceptions the more preposterous the example the more valid the need for those exceptions.



> First, we heard about the pregnant ten-year-old. the "inhumanity" of the state's abortion law was loudly proclaimed while the fact she had been raped by an illegal alien was totally ignored!


Who she was raped by, or their immigration status is totally irrelevant. The fact that she was raped and that she was only 10 years old should be the only important considerations.



> Now, the headless fetus. Next, we will hear about the two-headed fetus! We can allow these EXTREME, rare, and sensational examples...


When you are discussing medical exceptions, you are by default speaking of rare, extreme or sensational information.



> ...or we can simply announce to our representatives that there need to be exceptions LIKE MOST PRO-LIFE STATES ALREADY HAVE!


Apparently, even if "LIKE MOST PRO-LIFE STATES ALREADY HAVE!" is true, it is not enough... 10 y.o. rape victims and headless fetuses shouldn't even be a question.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> Calling someone ie a climate change denier, flat earther, homophobe, etc may be insulting, but moreso an attempt to silence rather than convince. I have yet to have found anyone convinced of an opposing viewpoint thru force.


Attempting to silence opinions feels like just another way to claim a win but we are so deep in this that nobody even cares to hear anyone else's opinion and then add to that, gems like YH clearly stating that as soon as the abortion issue is resolved, it's time to work on taking away birth control.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

YH is not the only poster here that wants that. The others won't post that now because they see it as a possibility and don't want others to know they will fight for it. That alone is the best reason that the right to have control over your own reproductive choices needs to be talked about again and again and again here in the US until it is enshrined in Federal law or the Constitution.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> Attempting to silence opinions feels like just another way to claim a win but we are so deep in this that nobody even cares to hear anyone else's opinion and then add to that, gems like YH clearly stating that as soon as the abortion issue is resolved, it's time to work on taking away birth control.


Personally, any opinion, no matter how outrageous or offensive, should be heard. If you truly believe in what you believe, you are not intimidated by someone else's comments, nor should you fear them being out in the open. I prefer honesty above most everything when discussing an issue. Many times, the quotes from someone offering a differing viewpoint make my point better than I can.
There will be no win, not here nor anywhere else when it comes to abortion. The discussion almost always devolves almost from the get go. It is a multi fingered topic that most people tend to blur, sometimes purposely, using the rare examples to justify the common ones.
I still don't see anyone trying to silence anyone's opinion, unless you are getting pms from members filing complaints.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Attempting to silence opinions feels like just another way to claim a win but we are so deep in this that nobody even cares to hear anyone else's opinion and then add to that, gems like YH clearly stating that as soon as the abortion issue is resolved, it's time to work on taking away birth control.


Naw, not “as soon as”…… it can wait a week or two.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> Not much discussion is going to be useful or constructive when much of it involves forcing religious opinions and beliefs on others.


Just to clarify, say a member posts ie "The New York Times/CNN/The EPA or the President/Prime Minister has determined that *__* is good/bad for you." There is little difference between that and someone stating what the Bible or their church has stated regarding the same. Neither is forcing anyone to accept an opinion unless one considers the recents acutal threats of social media suspension, loss of employment, ostracization and shaming, as forcing one's viewpoint.
Both secular and spiritual opinions can have a religious dogma attached to them; the January 6th event seems in itself to have released a religious edict among its followers.
If I object to two men open mouth kissing on prime time tv, am I being forced to conform and accept that behavior or am I risking the consequences of putting my remote down too soon?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> YH is not the only poster here that wants that. The others won't post that now because they see it as a possibility and don't want others to know they will fight for it. That alone is the best reason that the right to have control over your own reproductive choices needs to be talked about again and again and again here in the US until it is enshrined in Federal law or the Constitution.


Or entirely done away with By federal law, backed by the constitution.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> The others won't post that now because they see it as a possibility and don't want others to know they will fight for it.


That is called projecting and just what you have been observed doing in the past on quite a few different topics. 
Oh, and that isn't a personal attack or an insult, it is an observation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> That is called projecting and just what you have been observed doing in the past on quite a few different topics.
> Oh, and that isn't a personal attack or an insult, it is an observation.


It happens to be the truth. Others here want even birth control outlawed. They have posted so in the past.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> It happens to be the truth. Others here want even birth control outlawed. They have posted so in the past.


But it’d be so fun to watch the left start ranting about life beginning at conception and not before!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> But it’d be so fun to watch the left start ranting about life beginning at conception and not before!


First of all, it is not about left and right. I know many who are on the right that believe just as I do and some on the left that believes as you do.

They also both understand that even the eggs and sperm are life but a fetus is not a person for much of the gestation.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It happens to be the truth. Others here want even birth control outlawed. *They have posted so in the past.*





painterswife said:


> ..*.The others won't post that* now because they see it as a possibility and don't want others to know they will fight for it...


Which version do you want is to believe... they have posted or........ they won't post. Just want to be clear (as mud).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Which version do you want is to believe... they have posted or........ they won't post. Just want to be clear (as mud).


They did post in the past but they have not posted about since Roe versus Wade was overturned or looked like it would be. Except for YH Past and present. Very simple to understand.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> They did post in the past but they have not posted about since Roe versus Wade was overturned or looked like it would be. Except for YH Past and present. Very simple to understand.


So then... they're not afraid to post it as you claimed... they just haven't posted it when you demanded.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> It happens to be the truth. Others here want even birth control outlawed. They have posted so in the past.


So you are saying that there are others beyond just you that fear expressing their true beliefs, even though their history of posting reveals them anyway? I would say you are correct.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> So then... they're not afraid to post it as you claimed... they just haven't posted it when you demanded.


Did you read my post? I explained why I believe they have not posted about it now. It is more of a possibility now and they don't want those that want women to have a choice to organize and fight it. I believe they prefer that others don't believe there are really people out there that will fight to take away women's right to birth control.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> They also both understand that even the eggs and sperm are life but a fetus is not a person for much of the gestation.


But it’s always an innocent human being, and abortion kills it.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Did you read my post? I explained why *I believe* they have not posted about it now. It is more of a possibility now and they don't want those that want women to have a choice to organize and fight it.* I believe* they prefer that others don't believe there are really people out there that will fight to take away women's right to birth control.


So... you believe that no one except you can have the power of their own convictions... you believe they're somehow afraid to express their convictions??? You believe you are the only one who is brave enough to speak their beliefs aloud??? How superior you must feel among all the cowards surrounding you... that must be a mighty high horse you're riding.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> So... you believe that no one except you can have the power of their own convictions... you believe they're somehow afraid to express their convictions??? You believe you are the only one who is brave enough to speak their beliefs aloud??? How superior you must feel among all the cowards surrounding you... that must be a mighty high horse you're riding.


I did not say that. Being nasty because you don't like what I posted only gets threads booted. Is that the purpose of that post? Are you trying to get the discussion about abortion stopped?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I did not say that.





painterswife said:


> The others *won't post that now* because they see it as a possibility and don't want others to know they will fight for it.





painterswife said:


> ...*they don't want those that want* women to have a choice to organize and fight it. I believe *they prefer that others don't believe* there are really people out there that will fight to take away women's right to birth control.


You believe that "they" don't want others to know what "they" believe??? It's quoted right before your eyes.



> Being nasty because you don't like what I posted only gets threads booted.


Why is it that anytime I directly disagree with you... you come back with me being "nasty"???

I don't know that I've gotten any threads booted... if I have, I would think I'd have been informed. Just out of curiosity have you caused any threads to be booted???

As I've said directly to you before... I don't get threads booted... I don't report posters... I don't report posts. I'm a little too old to tattle and mature enough to ignore subjects/posts/posters I don't like... without even using the Igno button.



> Is that the purpose of that post?


Not at all... the point of my post was to disagree with your posts... vehemently. I'm pretty open, direct and blunt. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I have little patience for beating around the bush.



> Are you trying to get the discussion about abortion stopped?


See above.

You seem to be assuming that you know my stance on abortion. I've said very little about my overall view on the subject... except to say that there should be exceptions for instances of rape, for medical reasons and I'll add now, for incest. The 10-year-old rape victim and the Louisiana baby are perfect examples of why.

As for birth control I've said nothing, but I'll say here and now, given my history, thank goodness it is/was available.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> You believe that "they" don't want others to know what "they" believe??? It's quoted right before your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You respond with personal insults instead of discussing the topic at hand. That gets threads booted. They are ag the rules.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You respond with personal insults instead of discussing the topic at hand. That gets threads booted. They are ag the rules.


You do it all the time. Lead by example.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You respond with personal insults instead of discussing the topic at hand. That gets threads booted. They are ag the rules.


How is posting my understanding of what you say an insult???

The topic at hand was my understanding of your stance on what you "believe" other people are thinking. I'm not discussing the general abortion issue with you because I'm tired of hearing "it's proven science" over, and over, and over, and over again.

As I questioned before, I still don't think you made moderator... please stop trying to give me your interpretation of the rules and where/when/how they apply... the real moderators are perfectly capable of that... they don't need (and I suspect don't want) your "help".

Again... direct and blunt but still no insult  (though the tongue sticking out emoji may be getting close).


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You respond with personal insults instead of discussing the topic at hand. That gets threads booted. They are ag the rules.


BTW... *IF* I were to try to insult you, I'd call you a mental midget or idiot or dip or something similar...but since I'm not trying to insult you, I will refrain.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Believing that birth control will be outlawed, and there is a whisper campaign with no public comment sounds like, well, a conspiracy theory.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> So... you believe that no one except you can have the power of their own convictions... you believe they're somehow afraid to express their convictions??? You believe you are the only one who is brave enough to speak their beliefs aloud??? How superior you must feel among all the cowards surrounding you... that must be a mighty high horse you're riding.


Can anyone point out the parts of this post that will close the thread? As if it weren't a bloated fly bitten corpse already.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

GTX63 said:


> Can anyone point out the parts of this post that will close the thread? As it it were a bloated fly bitten corpse already.


I'm still trying to figure out where the "personal insults" are.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

painterswife said:


> YH is not the only poster here that wants that. The others won't post that now because they see it as a possibility and don't want others to know they will fight for it. That alone is the best reason that the right to have control over your own reproductive choices needs to be talked about again and again and again here in the US until it is enshrined in Federal law or the Constitution.


I remember some of those posts. I don't remember who it was but there was one person that stated every human egg that isn't fertilized is a life wasted. It wasn't stated in those exact words but that was the gist of the statement.

And there was another poster who said all female human babies should be given hysterectomies shortly after birth to prevent unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> I remember some of those posts. I don't remember who it was but there was one person that stated every human egg that isn't fertilized is a life wasted. It wasn't stated in those exact words but that was the gist of the statement.
> 
> And there was another poster who said all female human babies should be given hysterectomies shortly after birth to prevent unwanted pregnancies.


I don’t know who may have made those posts but I have to agree with both of them. Not so much the second one to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but to prevent all pregnancies for about fifty years. That would cut the overpopulation problem to zilch without need for killing off anyone. Might want to exempt about 50 each year in order to keep the species from going extinct. Those few, if all of the same race would also cure any racial problems…. Wouldn’t matter which race were selected, just pick one and go.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

In order to avoid wasting human eggs you would like to see all human ovaries removed? Why not just give those baby girls a sex change operation shortly after birth? The results would be pretty similar.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> In order to avoid wasting human eggs you would like to see all human ovaries removed? Why not just give those baby girls a sex change operation shortly after birth? The results would be pretty similar.


Seems more efficient to just spay them. That way they and the boys can enjoy normal sex lives without over populating the planet. Not something I’d like to see just a simple solution to overpopulation. No genocide involved, no mass killings, none of that sorta thing. Just let the vast majority live out their lives and the very few could continue on the species.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> Seems more efficient to just spay them. That way they and the boys can enjoy normal sex lives without over populating the planet. Not something I’d like to see just a simple solution to overpopulation. No genocide involved, no mass killings, none of that sorta thing. Just let the vast majority live out their lives and the very few could continue on the species.


Wouldn't castrating male babies accomplish the same? Why are you only targeting girl babies? Oh yeah, it's the eggs in their ovaries you object to. 
You realize girls are born with all the eggs they'll ever produce in those ovaries, to remove at birth would truly waste every, single, one!!!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

tripletmom said:


> Wouldn't castrating male babies accomplish the same? Why are you only targeting girl babies? Oh yeah, it's the eggs in their ovaries you object to.
> You realize girls are born with all the eggs they'll ever produce in those ovaries, to remove at birth would truly waste every, single, one!!!


I would suggest you're wasting your breath discussing with anyone who believes women should be spayed so they can be consequence free entertainment for men. Anyone who places such a high value on women certainly isn't interested in their intellect or value.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

By removing the ovaries at an early age you remove most of the hormones that make them into women. Females without ovaries never develop breasts or big butts. They would not be able to accumulate calcium in their bones as easily which can result in fragile bones in later years. They also would have little sex drive. Basically you would be removing women from society.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> By removing the ovaries at an early age you remove most of the hormones that make them into women. Females without ovaries never develop breasts or big butts. They would not be able to accumulate calcium in their bones as easily which can result in fragile bones in later years. They also would have little sex drive. Basically you would be removing women from society.


Sorry I brought it up...


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

tripletmom said:


> Sorry I brought it up...


Sorry I continued. I was trying to show how ridiculous the concept is. You have a valid insight. This whole conversation makes me think differently of a couple people. You aren't one of them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

tripletmom said:


> Wouldn't castrating male babies accomplish the same? Why are you only targeting girl babies? Oh yeah, it's the eggs in their ovaries you object to.
> You realize girls are born with all the eggs they'll ever produce in those ovaries, to remove at birth would truly waste every, single, one!!!


Nope. Nope and yes. Castrating all but a few males would not accomplish the same thing. Assume you have a thousand females in a given area and. You castrate all but fifty males….. each male would imppregnate dozens if not hundreds of females each year Times 50, giving you thousands of pregnancies per year.By spaying all but 50 females the number drops to close to 50 pregnancies. Twins happen.
im not “targeting” anyone, nor objecting to eggs. Just presenting facts. 
yes, losing all those eggs would be a terrible waste. Again I’m not promoting any such thing. Just pointing out how overpopulation could be solved without killing anyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I would suggest you're wasting your breath discussing with anyone who believes women should be spayed so they can be consequence free entertainment for men. Anyone who places such a high value on women certainly isn't interested in their intellect or value.


Nobody said women “should be” spayed. I only said they “could be”. And then only to solve the overpopulation problem, not to provide consequence free entertain for men.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> By removing the ovaries at an early age you remove most of the hormones that make them into women. Females without ovaries never develop breasts or big butts. They would not be able to accumulate calcium in their bones as easily which can result in fragile bones in later years. They also would have little sex drive. Basically you would be removing women from society.


that method would be removing both men and women, without killing anyone.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> Nobody said women “should be” spayed. I only said they “could be”. And then only to solve the overpopulation problem, not to provide consequence free entertain for men.


Sorry, you lost credibility when you suggested men could still have all the 'fun' without the consequences.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Sorry, you lost credibility when you suggested men could still have all the 'fun' without the consequences.


I’m not the one suggesting such. Glance back up to post 205, you’ll find the culprit.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> I’m not the one suggesting such. Glance back up to post 205, you’ll find the culprit.


Check post 203 a lot closer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Check post 203 a lot closer.


are you referring to this post? Note I include both genders enjoying normal sex lives. I also pointed out it’s not something I’d like to see.

“Seems more efficient to just spay them. That way they and the boys can enjoy normal sex lives without over populating the planet. Not something I’d like to see just a simple solution to overpopulation. No genocide involved, no mass killings, none of that sorta thing. Just let the vast majority live out their lives and the very few could continue on the species.”

now, compare my comment with this,,, “I would suggest you're wasting your breath discussing with anyone who believes women should be spayed so they can be consequence free entertainment for men. Anyone who places such a high value on women certainly isn't interested in their intellect or value.”
who is suggesting consequence free entertainment for men?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Those few, if all of the same race would also cure any racial problems…. Wouldn’t matter which race were selected, just pick one and go.


Just when I thought the thread couldn't get any more ridiculous, you delivered! I'll skip the main absurd argument to address this even more absurd one...no it wouldn't.

Say all 50 of the female babymakers are sub-Saharan African, for instance. The males contributing their DNA would likely be different races, so you'd still have variations in the babies.

Gotta fix both sexes to make that scenario work. And it still wouldn't. Race is a social construct of various phenotypic traits, with skin tone being the most prominent. Make everyone the same skin tone, and people would simply divide on less obvious traits, some of which are not genetic.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Just when I thought the thread couldn't get any more ridiculous, you delivered! I'll skip the main absurd argument to address this even more absurd one...no it wouldn't.
> 
> Say all 50 of the female babymakers are sub-Saharan African, for instance. The males contributing their DNA would likely be different races, so you'd still have variations in the babies.
> 
> Gotta fix both sexes to make that scenario work. And it still wouldn't. Race is a social construct of various phenotypic traits, with skin tone being the most prominent. Make everyone the same skin tone, and people would simply divide on less obvious traits, some of which are not genetic.


You musta missed, “all being the same race”


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> You musta missed, “all being the same race”


Nope, didn't miss it. You agreed with all female babies getting hysterectomies, except for maybe 50 of the same race each year. You didn't say anything about males.

But say the 50 females chosen were only allowed to mate with males of the same race. It still wouldn't work, because humans divide themselves on the tiniest differences when there are no big differences. Even if you cloned a person 1000 times, the clones would have tiny phenotypic differences among them and probably create divisions based on those differences.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

homesteadforty said:


> BTW... *IF* I were to try to insult you, I'd call you a mental midget or idiot or dip or something similar...but since I'm not trying to insult you, I will refrain.


That’s a clever tactic. 
if someone were trying to insult you they’d likely just say what everyone thinks. You’re a no account man who thinks he's far cleverer than he actually is, with nothing better to do than lob thinly disguised insults at others. To try and prove the unprovable. That you’re anything more than average. Sadly, a common situation.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Blackberry Jam said:


> That’s a clever tactic.
> if someone were trying to insult you they’d likely just say what everyone thinks. You’re a no account man who thinks he's far cleverer than he actually is, with nothing better to do than lob thinly disguised insults at others. To try and prove the unprovable. That you’re anything more than average. Sadly, a common situation.


See... that's where you're wrong. In order for me to be insulted, I'd have to care what you think. Since I don't care what you... or much of anyone else thinks, I'm effectively uninsultable.

BTW... my apologies... I would have answered more quickly but it took my unclever, average brain a little extra time to decipher your nonstandard sentence structure and grammar.

As flame wars are frowned upon by the management I'll say no more on the matter.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

homesteadforty said:


> See... that's where you're wrong. In order for me to be insulted, I'd have to care what you think. Since I don't care what you... or much of anyone else thinks, I'm effectively uninsultable.
> 
> BTW... my apologies... I would have answered more quickly but it took my unclever, average brain a little extra time to decipher your nonstandard sentence structure and grammar.
> 
> As flame wars are frowned upon by the management I'll say no more on the matter.


You did care enough to answer though.❤


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You really don't seem to want to accept what the word force means. Not everyone can travel and if small portion of the population get their way there might be no legal way to even do that.
> 
> So making someone remain pregnant against their will is force under any real definition of the word.


No one forces unprotected sex to result in pregnancy, or for pregnancy to result in birth ... those are just the well-known natural consequences of having sex without preventing unwanted pregnancies. Unless rape is involved, no one is being forced to do anything ... to get pregnant, be pregnant, remain pregnant, go anywhere, get an abortion or not ... those are all choices that are not forced by anyone.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> My body, my choice will always apply. Just as you can't force someone to give you life-saving blood or organs, you can't force a woman to give that to a fetus.


My body my choice applies to each individual, including each unborn child. When a woman becomes pregnant, it is no longer just her body, but also the body of an unborn child. Laws and regulations regarding the killing of unborn children is and will continue to be made, just as we have laws and regulations regarding the killing of all other human people.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> How do you propose that victims of sexual assault or incest take those precautions and why should they be victimized again because of insensitive comments like yours?


No woman deserves to be raped, and no unborn child deserves to be killed. Thankfully, there are some well-known ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies, even if raped (such as contraception, plan B / morning after pill, Queen Anne's Lace, etc.). If not raped, there are also additional options, like abstinence, or condoms.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Please tell, how does eating carrots prevent pregnancy? I'm sure those who want babies will want to know so they can avoid eating carrots.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

homesteadforty said:


> Who she was raped by, or their immigration status is totally irrelevant. The fact that she was raped and that she was only 10 years old should be the only important considerations.


Actually it does matter that she was raped by an illegal alien, because the crime of rape and the death of an unborn child could have been prevented, if the crime of crossing the border illegally would have been prevented.



homesteadforty said:


> Apparently, even if "LIKE MOST PRO-LIFE STATES ALREADY HAVE!" is true, it is not enough... 10 y.o. rape victims and headless fetuses shouldn't even be a question.


Abortions for legitimate medical reasons are allowed in almost every state. Each case would be different, so each abortion that is allowed for legitimate medical reasons would necessarily be a question for healthcare providers to answer.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> Attempting to silence opinions feels like just another way to claim a win but we are so deep in this that nobody even cares to hear anyone else's opinion and then add to that, gems like YH clearly stating that as soon as the abortion issue is resolved, it's time to work on taking away birth control.


The number of pro-abortionists vs pro-lifers is pretty balanced so far. This seems to be reflected in the fact that about half of the states in the U.S. allow abortions for any reason or none, while the rest only allow abortions for legitimate medical reasons, rape, and incest. It seems very likely to me, that a much smaller number of people would try to outlaw contraception.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> YH is not the only poster here that wants that. The others won't post that now because they see it as a possibility and don't want others to know they will fight for it. That alone is the best reason that the right to have control over your own reproductive choices needs to be talked about again and again and again here in the US until it is enshrined in Federal law or the Constitution.


Abortion isn't only about pregnant women and their reproductive rights. It is also about unborn children, and their right to live.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> ... a fetus is not a person for much of the gestation.


All living humans are living human people, from conception to death. A fetus is a living human person, at the beginning of his or her life as a human person. To say otherwise is to dehumanize.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

CC Pereira said:


> Abortions for legitimate medical reasons are allowed in almost every state. Each case would be different, so each abortion that is allowed for legitimate medical reasons would necessarily be a question for healthcare providers to answer.


We saw what happened to doctors who went against the "science" regarding the covid vax. I can't help but wonder if that will spill over into other areas and make doctors afraid to go beyond the allowed time for any reason.

For the record, I am against abortion in most cases. But I know there are those rare medical exceptions where it should be allowed beyond the state time limits.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Danaus29 said:


> Please tell, how does eating carrots prevent pregnancy? I'm sure those who want babies will want to know so they can avoid eating carrots.


Queen Anne's Lace (wild carrot umbels, flowers, or seeds) can be used as a contraceptive, to prevent unwanted pregnancies. 1-3 tsp per day (before and even up to 72 hrs after sex), for a woman on a 2000 calorie / day diet (less for smaller women, more for larger women). No short term or long-term side effects (unless allergic to Queen Anne's Lace), and no abnormal delay in wanted pregnancies if discontinued.

I am unsure if the same applies to garden carrot (umbles, flowers, or seeds), but would very much like to know.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

CC Pereira said:


> I am unsure if the same applies to garden carrot (umbles, flowers, or seeds), but would very much like to know.


Both QAL and our table carrots are _Daucus carota_ and are very similar genetically so they would likely have the same medicinal properties.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

'This never should have happened,': Doctor alleges pharmacy denied woman medication for miscarriage


An Omaha doctor said a pharmacy denied a patient medication during the course of her miscarriage.




www.ketv.com





"*OMAHA, Neb. —*
An Omaha doctor said a pharmacy denied a patient medication during the course of her miscarriage.

The doctor said the pharmacist was in the wrong.

Nebraska doctors said this is a common medication for women who have experienced a miscarriage, but not all fetal tissue has yet passed from their body"


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Queen Anne's Lace (wild carrot umbels, flowers, or seeds) can be used as a contraceptive, to prevent unwanted pregnancies.


It works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. You're just recommending a natural abortifacient.

Not a very reliable contraceptive, though. It's also used to boost fertility when taken before ovulation. Hope you get the timing right!


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> It works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. You're just recommending a natural abortifacient.
> 
> Not a very reliable contraceptive, though. It's also used to boost fertility when taken before ovulation. Hope you get the timing right!


QAL seeds are emmenagogue, contraceptive, aphrodisiac, and yes, abortifacient. If used before conception, and / or within 72 hrs after sex, it works as a reliable contraceptive.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

CC Pereira said:


> QAL seeds are emmenagogue, contraceptive, aphrodisiac, and yes, abortifacient. If used before conception, and / or within 72 hrs after sex, it works as a reliable contraceptive.


So you’re pro-abortion after all. You just want to be able to dictate the terms.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Thing is, anything you use after sex, you have no idea if it's preventing conception or terminating it. Even taken before sex it can terminate rather than prevent conception, but it's easier to visualize when you take it afterward.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> "*OMAHA, Neb. —*
> An Omaha doctor said a pharmacy denied a patient medication during the course of her miscarriage.


Pharmacists have gotten too big for their britches since they started needing doctorate degrees. They need to quit playing physician and dispense the medication prescribed, unless there's a mistake or contraindication. Obviously no mistake in that case since they spoke to the physician.

But it's also not entirely the pharmacist's fault. With all the moronic legislators also wanting to play physician and micromanage medicine, nobody seems to know what's legal lately. You'd think Walmart pharmacy would have a decent legal department they could consult rather than the pharmacist just guessing about the law.

But have no fear...there are some herbal remedies that can induce contractions....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

ryanthomas said:


> Pharmacists have gotten too big for their britches since they started needing doctorate degrees. They need to quit playing physician and dispense the medication prescribed, unless there's a mistake or contraindication. Obviously no mistake in that case since they spoke to the physician.
> 
> But it's also not entirely the pharmacist's fault. With all the moronic legislators also wanting to play physician and micromanage medicine, nobody seems to know what's legal lately. You'd think Walmart pharmacy would have a decent legal department they could consult rather than the pharmacist just guessing about the law.
> 
> But have no fear...there are some herbal remedies that can induce contractions....


I agree. I however can understand the problem. A certain group wants to punish anyone that helps with an abortion and some providers are caught in the middle.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am wondering how these states will deal with Teledoctors from other states prescribing and mailing or FedExing abortion drugs to people in states that have outlawed abortions. There will be a black market for pregnancy tests as well. Can't get caught putting on on your credit card.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nearly all of these problems would be resolved if women simply quit trying to get away with murder.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

s such.


Evons hubby said:


> Nearly all of these problems would be resolved if women simply quit trying to get away with murder.


I don't take much heed of you calling it murder. You also believe that a husband is allowed to rape his wife.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I don't take much heed of you calling it murder. You also believe that a husband is allowed to rape his wife.


You’re mistaken on this, but there is nothing new about that. I’ve never said a man is allowed to rape his wife. Impossible yes, allowed no!


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> You’re mistaken on this, but there is nothing new about that. I’ve never said a man is allowed to rape his wife. Impossible yes, allowed no!


Wait. You really think that if a man forcibly has sex with his wife that it isn’t rape? People actually think this?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Wait. You really think that if a man forcibly has sex with his wife that it isn’t rape? People actually think this?


Technically no. Rape is sex without consent, marriage grants consent,


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> Technically no. Rape is sex without consent, marriage grants consent,


Legally and factually, you are incorrect.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Wait. You really think that if a man forcibly has sex with his wife that it isn’t rape? People actually think this?


You can understand why I am reluctant to take heed of what he believes in other circumstances, I expect.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Legally and factually, you are incorrect.


That is opinion. I might add that having sex with an unwilling wife is very unwise. Considering many of them have no qualms about killing their own totally innocent offspring….. well, he’s gotta sleep some time!


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> Technically no. Rape is sex without consent, marriage grants consent,


Well it’s no wonder you are anti-choice. You don’t recognize a woman’s right to her own body. 
I’m glad I saw this. Firstly, I had no idea anyone alive today thought so primitively, and secondly, now I can safely disregard your idiotic posts. 
I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume you’re also a racist and anti-semite.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> Technically no. Rape is sex without consent, marriage grants consent,


Just to save time: does anyone else here believe this claptrap?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> That is opinion. I might add that having sex with an unwilling wife is very unwise. Considering many of them have no qualms about killing their own totally innocent offspring….. well, he’s gotta sleep some time!


That's based on legal fact and sexually assaulting anyone has nothing to do with abortion discussion. It's also worth mentioning that trolling is also unwise.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Blackberry Jam said:


> I’m gonna go out on a limb and assume you’re also a racist and anti-semite.


Oh boy...so you are one of those people...


----------

