# Anti Abortion supporters, is this OK with you?



## Irish Pixie

This is a MO state bill, and even the Rep knows it won't go through, but it's an interesting read. 

"You can read the full text of House Bill 1397 here; it sweetly proposes that gun buyers have a 72-hour waiting period imposed upon them, and have to âconfer and discuss with a licensed physicianâ and risk factors that might arise âfrom the proposed firearm purchase:â"


http://theslot.jezebel.com/missouri-state-rep-files-bill-to-put-gun-sales-under-ex-1746030454


----------



## Darren

I think the kid on the Art Linkletter show had the correct response when he turned, faced the camera and said to his brother, along with an arm motion, "Right here, Harve."


----------



## MO_cows

I don't even have to look it up. One of the uber liberals from the St. Louis side of the state sponsored this, right?

I am not at all happy that some of my tax dollars were wasted on this nonsense. They know it won't pass, only proposed it to grab attention and make some kind of twisted point as if having an abortion and buying a gun were somehow remotely comparable. They should have spent their time looking for waste in the budget and finding more money to use on the actual needs of their constituents. I don't appreciate political gamesmanship at my expense, not even a little bit!


----------



## Farmerga

As the purchase of a particular gun only has a miniscule chance of ending in injury, or, death and the very point of Abortion is to end in death, I would say I do not agree with this bill.


----------



## TripleD

On a lighter note my doctor asked me last year what brand AR-15 should he get. My advice was the Colt 6920.....


----------



## cfuhrer

I could totally support that IF buying a gun were a medical procedure.

I have never had a medical procedure where I didn't sit down with the doctor and discuss outcomes and risks.


----------



## no really

Maybe they should add driving cars too, lots of deaths there.


----------



## Irish Pixie

You only want _someone else's_ right infringed on. 

Exactly what I thought. Thanks for being so perfectly predictable.


----------



## cfuhrer

Irish Pixie said:


> You only want _someone else's_ right infringed on.


So then all medical procedures should proceed without a discussion of risks and outcomes?


----------



## Irish Pixie

cfuhrer said:


> So then all medical procedures should proceed without a discussion of risks and outcomes?


Do you know the state of MO's abortion procedure?

Restrictions on Abortion
In Missouri, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of July 1, 2015:
A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.
Abortion is covered in private insurance policies only in cases of life endangerment, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost.
Health plans that will be offered in the stateâs health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion when the womanâs life is endangered.
Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.
The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/missouri.html

How many medical procedures that you know of that have a 72 hour waiting period? Have state mandated in person counseling that must be complete prior to the waiting period? 

Please, enlighten me.


----------



## MO_cows

Maybe you like your elected reps to spend your tax dollars playing games, and that is your right. But I don't, and to me that is the core issue - wasting taxpayer resources playing games.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You only want _someone else's_ right infringed on.
> 
> Exactly what I thought. Thanks for being so perfectly predictable.


 No, we simply do not believe we have the right to commit homicide, unless in defense of another life, and do not believe it should be legal. 

Now, I would support a bill that treats someone who performs or has an abortion, that is not in defense of another life, the same as someone who shoots a person who was no threat to their life or the life of another.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> No, we simply do not believe we have the right to commit homicide, unless in defense of another life, and do not believe it should be legal.
> 
> Now, I would support a bill that treats someone who performs or has an abortion, that is not in defense of another life, the same as someone who shoots a person who was no threat to their life or the life of another.


Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> Maybe you like your elected reps to spend your tax dollars playing games, and that is your right. But I don't, and to me that is the core issue - wasting taxpayer resources playing games.


Were you OK with your reps spending a bunch of money to get one of the strictest abortion laws in the country enacted? Just curious...


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


Just how many on here knew you were going to make that statement AGAIN ?????


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> Just how many on here knew you were going to make that statement AGAIN ?????


I made a shortcut for it. I'm absolutely sick of the "merry go round" argument.


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> I made a shortcut for it. I'm absolutely sick of the "merry go round" argument.


You started the merry go round argument in your OP..... might be why you are sick of it. Get off the merry go round before you throw up.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


 Which is why I stated "We don't think is should be legal" 

We can fight and make that particular act of barbarism a thing of the past like so many other acts of barbarism that were once legal and are no more.


----------



## arabian knight

TripleD said:


> Just how many on here knew you were going to make that statement AGAIN ?????


Ya and just because it is doesn't make it Right OR Correct. Things can and DO get over turned and THIS is one thing that in time WILL be overturned and the left just sit and spin for some time after that happens who cares.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you know the state of MO's abortion procedure?
> 
> Restrictions on Abortion
> In Missouri, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of July 1, 2015:
> A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.
> Abortion is covered in private insurance policies only in cases of life endangerment, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost.
> Health plans that will be offered in the stateâs health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion when the womanâs life is endangered.
> Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
> The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.
> The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
> Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
> 
> https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/missouri.html
> 
> How many medical procedures that you know of that have a 72 hour waiting period? Have state mandated in person counseling that must be complete prior to the waiting period?
> 
> Please, enlighten me.



Every medical procedure I have ever had, except in the ER, was more than a 72 hour wait. It took me 3 appointments and weeks just to get a cyst removed, a little 3-stitch procedure. 

There is a 72 hour "cooling off" period on major purchases in MO, too. I think it applies to cars, home improvements and such. A brief time to make sure there aren't second thoughts is not unique to the decision to have an abortion. And not automatically a bad idea, either. 

Tell ya what - just don't come to MO to get an abortion. Then you won't be inconvenienced. If you want to have an abortion drive thru-lane there in New York, knock yourself out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> You started the merry go round argument in your OP..... might be why you are sick of it. Get off the merry go round before you throw up.


The "abortion has been legal for over 40 years" thing stops the merry go round in it's tracks. It's like a magic merry go round brake. 

Did I explain it so you could understand?


----------



## Woolieface

It's a gun bill. It has nada to do with abortion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> Every medical procedure I have ever had, except in the ER, was more than a 72 hour wait. It took me 3 appointments and weeks just to get a cyst removed, a little 3-stitch procedure.
> 
> There is a 72 hour "cooling off" period on major purchases in MO, too. I think it applies to cars, home improvements and such. A brief time to make sure there aren't second thoughts is not unique to the decision to have an abortion. And not automatically a bad idea, either.
> 
> Tell ya what - just don't come to MO to get an abortion. Then you won't be inconvenienced. If you want to have an abortion drive thru-lane there in New York, knock yourself out.


There is no statute in any state (that I know of) that requires a *mandatory* 72 hour waiting period for any other procedure except for abortion. You couldn't get in to see your doctor is not a mandatory 72 hour waiting period, is it? Is the "cooling off period" mandatory? Do you get your car, home improvement, etc. before hand? Then if you're not happy with your purchase you can negate the contract? NY (and many other states) have the same thing.


----------



## cfuhrer

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you know the state of MO's abortion procedure?
> 
> Restrictions on Abortion
> In Missouri, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of July 1, 2015:
> A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.
> Abortion is covered in private insurance policies only in cases of life endangerment, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost.
> Health plans that will be offered in the stateâs health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion when the womanâs life is endangered.
> Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
> The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.
> The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
> Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
> 
> https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/missouri.html
> 
> How many medical procedures that you know of that have a 72 hour waiting period? Have state mandated in person counseling that must be complete prior to the waiting period?
> 
> Please, enlighten me.


And you answer to my question would be.....?


----------



## cfuhrer

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


Firearms have been legal in this country for over two hundred years and protected by the highest law in the land. Nothing you can do will stop that.

Have an awesome day!


----------



## Irish Pixie

cfuhrer said:


> And you answer to my question would be.....?





cfuhrer said:


> So then all medical procedures should proceed without a discussion of risks and outcomes?


All medical procedures have to be discussed for risk and outcome. It's one of the forms you sign. Not all require a mandatory 72 hour hold, after counseling, which was my point.


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> The "abortion has been legal for over 40 years" thing stops the merry go round in it's tracks. It's like a magic merry go round brake.
> 
> Did I explain it so you could understand?


No need to make it simple for me to understand. I have 3 Phd-s. Post hole diggers.


----------



## Irish Pixie

cfuhrer said:


> Firearms have been legal in this country for over two hundred years and protected by the highest law in the land. Nothing you can do will stop that.
> 
> Have an awesome day!


Then why all the whining about gun control? And the wailing about infringing on gun rights? It's a Constitutional right to own guns. Can you explain?


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> There is no statute in any state (that I know of) that requires a *mandatory* 72 hour waiting period for any other procedure except for abortion. You couldn't get in to see your doctor is not a mandatory 72 hour waiting period, is it? Is the "cooling off period" mandatory? Do you get your car, home improvement, etc. before hand? Then if you're not happy with your purchase you can negate the contract? NY (and many other states) have the same thing.


Again, work with your elected reps in New York if your laws pertaining to abortion aren't to your liking. Missouri is nunya, it doesn't affect you. 

Some of the laws out of New York, I think, you couldn't pay me enough to live there. You must think the same thing about Missouri. So be it, that's why states rights are such a beautiful thing.


----------



## cfuhrer

Irish Pixie said:


> Then why all the whining about gun control? And the wailing about infringing on gun rights? It's a Constitutional right to own guns. Can you explain?


You second question is a restatement of your first question and your third sentence answers both of them.

Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help clear that up.


----------



## painterswife

I get it. It is all right to restrict the rights you don't agree with but not the ones you do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

cfuhrer said:


> You second question is a restatement of your first question and your third sentence answers both of them.
> 
> Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help clear that up.


You didn't answer the question. I'll ask again, "Then why all the whining about gun control? And the wailing about infringing on gun rights? It's a Constitutional right to own guns. Can you explain?"

Can you clear that up, please?


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> Again, work with your elected reps in New York if your laws pertaining to abortion aren't to your liking. Missouri is nunya, it doesn't affect you.
> 
> Some of the laws out of New York, I think, you couldn't pay me enough to live there. You must think the same thing about Missouri. So be it, that's why states rights are such a beautiful thing.


You can't refute what I said so you tell me to mind my own business. Got it.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I get it. It is all right to restrict the rights you don't agree with but not the ones you do.


 I just don't think that homicide should be legal except in cases of defense of another life. 

Do you think people should be allowed to shoot other people at will? If not, is that not a case of "restricting rights you don't agree with"?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I just don't think that homicide should be legal except in cases of defense of another life.
> 
> Do you think people should be allowed to shoot other people at will? If not, is that not a case of "restricting rights you don't agree with"?


That is not really the discussion is it. It is about the rights you already have and how they can be restricted. If the government can restrict my right to an abortion the they can restrict your right to gun ownership. It is pretty simple.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> That is not really the discussion is it. It is about the rights you already have and how they can be restricted. If the government can restrict my right to an abortion the they can restrict your right to gun ownership. It is pretty simple.


 The government can do anything we let them get away with. But, the glairing difference is that the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The "right" to commit homicide against the unborn is not.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> You can't refute what I said so you tell me to mind my own business. Got it.


There is nothing to "refute". Laws can be different in different states. The people who actually have to live under those laws get to decide. Is this a great country or what.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> The government can do anything we let them get away with. But, the glairing difference is that the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The "right" to commit homicide against the unborn is not.


The ninth amendment.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> The ninth amendment.


Yup. Roe v. Wade was decided on "Right to Privacy" (Fourth Amendment) and abortion also falls under the Ninth Amendment.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> You only want _someone else's_ right infringed on.
> 
> Exactly what I thought. Thanks for being so perfectly predictable.


So you admit you were trolling and that your democrat wasted tax payer money with a stupid bill?
Good job you must be proud 
By the way, abortion is death, remember that


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> The ninth amendment.


 Does the ninth amendment give us the right to kill our neighbor and take his stuff? If not, why not?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Does the ninth amendment give us the right to kill our neighbor and take his stuff? If not, why not?


Nothing to do with this conversation. Staying on track would be helpful.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. Roe v. Wade was decided on "Right to Privacy" (Fourth Amendment) and abortion also falls under the Ninth Amendment.


 So, can I lure my neighbor into my home, kill him, and eat his flesh? As long as it is behind closed doors, why not? My right to privacy should protect me correct? Plus, the 9th would also protect me because anything, I can think of, can be covered by the ninth? Right?


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Nothing to do with this conversation. Staying on track would be helpful.


Spin, dodge, and divert.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Nothing to do with this conversation. Staying on track would be helpful.


 You brought up the ninth amendment, which doesn't speak to abortion, so, if abortion is covered, so is anything else, right?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> So, can I lure my neighbor into my home, kill him, and eat his flesh? As long as it is behind closed doors, why not? My right to privacy should protect me correct? Plus, the 9th would also protect me because anything, I can think of, can be covered by the ninth? Right?


Reaching just weakens your argument.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

cfuhrer said:


> So then all medical procedures should proceed *without a discussion* of risks and outcomes?


None do that now


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Reaching just weakens your argument.


 Like I said, you opened this can of worms, I just pulled a big ole juicy one out.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> You brought up the ninth amendment, which doesn't speak to abortion, so, if abortion is covered, so is anything else, right?


It does speak to right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The supreme court has decided that abortion is one of those rights.


----------



## Farmerga

If the right to privacy and the 9th amendment can be used to justify and defend one form of barbarism, it can by used to justify and defend ANY form of barbarism.


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> That is not really the discussion is it. It is about the rights you already have and how they can be restricted. If the government can restrict my right to an abortion the they can restrict your right to gun ownership. It is pretty simple.


Now back the truck up. This thread started out about STATE laws, not the federal. The feds decreed that abortion is legal and cannot be denied, and the states have some latitude in how they regulate it. Which is as it should be. There are a lot of differences between state laws on any number of things. Any connection to gun ownership is only in the whack-a-doodle state rep's mind.


----------



## Woolieface




----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Like I said, you opened this can of worms, I just pulled a big ole juicy one out.


Please speak to the actual topic of restriction of rights with a logical situation. The fetus has no rights. The lured neighbor does.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Like I said, you opened this can of worms, I just pulled a big ole juicy one out.





Woolieface said:


>



I'm glad you see it too.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> It does speak to right not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The supreme court has decided that abortion is one of those rights.


 Rights are not given by government, they are enumerated and protected by government. Any decision can be overturned.


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> Now back the truck up. This thread started out about STATE laws, not the federal. The feds decreed that abortion is legal and cannot be denied, and the states have some latitude in how they regulate it. Which is as it should be. There are a lot of differences between state laws on any number of things. Any connection to gun ownership is only in the whack-a-doodle state rep's mind.


Exactly. So the states then have some rights on restricting your access to guns. Therefore that law could be passed.


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm glad you see it too.


Yep, that came out of the can you opened.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Rights are not given by government, they are enumerated and protected by government. Any decision can be overturned.


But we are talking about rights that exist right now. So overturning has nothing to do with right now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> Every medical procedure I have ever had, except in the ER, was more than a 72 hour wait. *It took me 3 appointments and weeks just to get a cyst removed, a little 3-stitch procedure. *
> 
> *There is a 72 hour "cooling off" period on major purchases in MO, too*. I think it applies to cars, home improvements and such. A brief time to make sure there aren't second thoughts is not unique to the decision to have an abortion. And not automatically a bad idea, either.
> 
> Tell ya what - just don't come to MO to get an abortion. Then you won't be inconvenienced. If you want to have an abortion drive thru-lane there in New York, knock yourself out.


Neither of those are *mandatory* waiting periods during which you're *required* to consult someone who will try and talk you out of it.

If you use analogies they should at least be somewhat similar to the original scenario


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> Yep, that came out of the can you opened.


I posted an article I thought interesting. How did I force anyone to respond?


----------



## Shine

Woolieface said:


>


Not biting. This is becoming a regular feature here, I wonder why some are so infatuated about this, it ain't healty I'm tellin' ya...


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Please speak to the actual topic of restriction of rights with a logical situation. The fetus has no rights. The lured neighbor does.


 OK, how about one from history. Say it is 1830 and a slave master lures his slave to his house and kills him, should that have been protected by the 4th and 9th amendments?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> OK, how about one from history. Say it is 1830 and a slave master lures his slave to his house and kills him, should that have been protected by the 4th and 9th amendments?


All you are doing is repeating that you think abortion is wrong. You obfusticate instead of dealing with the topic on hand. Rights we have now and the government's ability to restrict them.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I posted an article I thought interesting. How did I force anyone to respond?



You have appointed yourself the President of Posting Articles To Bash those who are Anti-Abortion and Articles To Bash Christians. 

Please, continue as you see fit, we see these efforts for what they are...


:soap:


----------



## MO_cows

painterswife said:


> Exactly. So the states then have some rights on restricting your access to guns. Therefore that law could be passed.


Theoretically, yes. But it won't pass, which that rep knows full well, and so has wasted resources with the "attention grab". And again, there is no legitimate link between gun control and abortion unless they start performing abortions with guns. The only thing they have in common is that they are "hot button" issues. Gee if only they could have worked in the Syrian refugees somehow it would have been a tri-fecta.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> All you are doing is repeating that you think abortion is wrong. You obfusticate instead of dealing with the topic on hand. Rights we have now and the government's ability to restrict them.


It is a crime against nature that the government doesn't protect the rights of the unborn. We should no more have the right to kill an innocent unborn child than our forefathers should have had the right to hold the innocent in bondage. My buying a gun has nothing to do with the wholesale homicide of millions of the unborn and the two are incomparable. We used to have the right to hold others in the bonds of slavery, the government, correctly now restricts that right.


----------



## painterswife

MO_cows said:


> Theoretically, yes. But it won't pass, which that rep knows full well, and so has wasted resources with the "attention grab". And again, there is no legitimate link between gun control and abortion unless they start performing abortions with guns. The only thing they have in common is that they are "hot button" issues. Gee if only they could have worked in the Syrian refugees somehow it would have been a tri-fecta.


I get it and agree with you. It is however a good discussion.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> It is a crime against nature that the government doesn't protect the rights of the unborn. We should no more have the right to kill an innocent unborn child than our forefathers should have had the right to hold the innocent in bondage. My buying a gun has nothing to do with the wholesale homicide of millions of the unborn and the two are incomparable.


Again obfuscation instead of discussing the actual topic. The topic is restriction of rights. You are lost in the rights you don't like.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

I'm suffering from Deja Moo

I've seen all this BS before


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm suffering from Deja Moo
> 
> I've seen all this BS before


:drum:


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Again obfuscation instead of discussing the actual topic. The topic is restriction of rights. You are lost in the rights you don't like.


 Again the government has, correctly, restricted the rights of the slave owners to hold the innocent in bondage.


----------



## MO_cows

Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither of those are *mandatory* waiting periods during which you're *required* to consult someone who will try and talk you out of it.
> 
> If you use analogies they should at least be somewhat similar to the original scenario


If you can't get in any sooner, waiting is mandatory.

I would hope consultations where risk and ramifications are brought to your attention are SOP in the practice of medicine. Everything I ever had done, the risks as acknowledged in the permission form were fully explained to me, discussed with me. And yes I have had a Dr. try to "talk me out of" something too, but I was firm in my decision. 

Pixie's prior post had indicated that the 72 hours was unreasonable, and I gave my example that it has taken me at least 72 hours to get ANY procedure done except an emergency. It wasn't an analogy, it was an example of the 72 hours not being unusual, therefore not unreasonable.


----------



## Miss Kay

The title of this tread is about abortion. How on earth did you get from there to guns. Talk about a bait and switch!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> If you can't get in any sooner, *waiting is mandatory.*
> 
> I would hope consultations where risk and ramifications are brought to your attention are SOP in the practice of medicine. Everything I ever had done, the risks as acknowledged in the permission form were fully explained to me, discussed with me. And yes I have had a Dr. try to "talk me out of" something too, but I was firm in my decision.
> 
> Pixie's prior post had indicated that the 72 hours was unreasonable, and I gave my example that it has taken me at least 72 hours to get ANY procedure done except an emergency. It wasn't an analogy, it was an example of the 72 hours not being unusual, therefore not unreasonable.


No, it's not because there are no *statutes* that force you to wait.
"Waiting *your turn*" is not the same as being forced to wait to have a procedure. You know that already.



> It wasn't an analogy


I agree on that, since it wasn't even remotely similar


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Deleted double post


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Miss Kay said:


> The title of this tread is about abortion. How on earth did you get from there to guns. Talk about a bait and switch!


The title asks a question of a particular group
The OP article is about guns being used in an analogy that actually resembles the abortion laws.
http://theslot.jezebel.com/missouri-state-rep-files-bill-to-put-gun-sales-under-ex-1746030454


----------



## painterswife

Miss Kay said:


> The title of this tread is about abortion. How on earth did you get from there to guns. Talk about a bait and switch!


Did you read the link that this thread is about?


----------



## MO_cows

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's not because there are no *statutes* that force you to wait.
> "*Waiting your turn" is not the same as being forced to wait t*o have a procedure. You know that already.
> 
> 
> I agree on that, since it wasn't even remotely similar



The net effect is the same. If the "cyst-ectomy" can't be done any sooner than the abortion, there is no grand injustice as was implied. 

But go ahead and split the hair even finer, I know you can!

Isn't it ironic you want to take me to task about something not "even remotely similar", when this thread was founded on exactly that - trying to align abortion and gun control!


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> The net effect is the same. If the "cyst-ectomy" can't be done any sooner than the abortion, there is no grand injustice as was implied.
> 
> But go ahead and split the hair even finer, I know you can!
> 
> Isn't it ironic you want to take me to task about something not "even remotely similar", when this thread was founded on exactly that - trying to align abortion and gun control!


Do you really think the wait time for a surgical suite/surgeon date is the same as a mandatory waiting period?


----------



## Txsteader




----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> *The net effect is the same.* If the "cyst-ectomy" can't be done any sooner than the abortion, there is no grand injustice as was implied.
> 
> But go ahead and split the hair even finer, I know you can!
> 
> Isn't it ironic you want to take me to task about something not "even remotely similar", when this thread was founded on exactly that - trying to align abortion and gun control!


It's not about "net effect"
It's about faulty logic, hypocrisy, and some wanting to *force* their views on others rather than minding their own business.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> All you are doing is repeating that you think abortion is wrong. You obfusticate instead of dealing with the topic on hand. Rights we have now and the government's ability to restrict them.


All you are doing is repeating you like to see babies killed.
Your "president" isn't trying to take away your privilege to have an abortion, I'm not sure what you two are griping about now.


----------



## MO_cows

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not about "net effect"
> It's about faulty logic, hypocrisy, and some wanting to *force their views on others rather than minding their own business.*



Well those are issues you should take up with Pixie. After all she started the thread about the "faulty logic" of changing gun laws to match abortion laws as if they had anything in common other than getting people riled up. And she's the one objecting to MO laws, all the way from NY where they don't affect her. So good luck with that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> Well those are issues you should take up with Pixie. After all she started the thread about the "faulty logic" of changing gun laws to match abortion laws as if they had anything in common other than getting people riled up. And she's the one objecting to MO laws, all the way from NY where they don't affect her. So good luck with that.


And you responded with fallacy, how am I to blame for that?


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> All you are doing is repeating you like to see babies killed.
> Your "president" isn't trying to take away your privilege to have an abortion, I'm not sure what you two are griping about now.


You are doing a poor job of trying to turn my words on me but keep trying if that is all you have.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> You are doing a poor job of trying to turn my words on me but keep trying if that is all you have.


Face it, you two are trolling
The abortion thread was dying out so another one got started so you could feel good about belittling people who don't agree.
We got the picture, you want are ok with abortion, but not guns
You don't have to keep beating your bloodthirsty drum, we got it, we know where you stand.
Do we have to agree with you?
Your (collective your) killing spree is in no danger of being stopped, your "president" agrees with you, so there's no need to keep trolling about it.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Face it, you two are trolling
> The abortion thread was dying out so another one got started so you could feel good about belittling people who don't agree.
> We got the picture, you want are ok with abortion, but not guns
> You don't have to keep beating your bloodthirsty drum, we got it, we know where you stand.
> Do we have to agree with you?
> Your (collective your) killing spree is in no danger of being stopped, your "president" agrees with you, so there's no need to keep trolling about it.


We are discussing government restrictions on your rights. This need to make it about a certain right is getting old. It could be about restrictions on same sex marriage or religion. Why is it all right to restrict one right but not another.

The news article just highlighted two rights.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you know the state of MO's abortion procedure?
> 
> Restrictions on Abortion
> In Missouri, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of July 1, 2015:
> A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.
> Abortion is covered in private insurance policies only in cases of life endangerment, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost.
> Health plans that will be offered in the stateâs health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion when the womanâs life is endangered.
> Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
> The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.
> The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
> Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
> 
> https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/missouri.html
> 
> How many medical procedures that you know of that have a 72 hour waiting period? Have state mandated in person counseling that must be complete prior to the waiting period?
> 
> Please, enlighten me.


 We have the same feelings on most of the requirements listed. Where I agree with the law is "The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided" As a parent I believe I should be informed before any medical procedure is performed on my child.The exception being an emergency situation.

Jim


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> And you responded with fallacy, how am I to blame for that?


Well the thread was started with fallacy, what did you expect?


----------



## keenataz

MO_cows said:


> Maybe you like your elected reps to spend your tax dollars playing games, and that is your right. But I don't, and to me that is the core issue - wasting taxpayer resources playing games.


Kind of like passing motions banning Obama Care?


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> We are discussing government restrictions on your rights. This need to make it about a certain right is getting old. It could be about restrictions on same sex marriage or religion. Why is it all right to restrict one right but not another.
> 
> The news article just highlighted two rights.


The "news" article highlighted a moron democrat who thinks killing babies is funny and is trying to make her point by taking it out on innocent gun owners
Like all democrats under Obama, they treat middle class America as the enemy
Sorry, I'm not falling for the absolute stupidity of her "point", but I'm glad you think it's funny
Meanwhile, Obamaco is actually plotting to take our gun rights and you are helping him by mocking normal people
Good job


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I posted an article I thought interesting. How did I force anyone to respond?


You didn't force anyone...you just had hopes and dreams...lol


----------



## Irish Pixie

keenataz said:


> Kind of like passing motions banning Obama Care?


The same one where they are banning funding to Planned Parenthood? That money waster? 

"But first, let's make it very clear â nothing that happens on the Senate floor this week will ever actually become law, because any bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act and defunds Planned Parenthood is going to get vetoed by the president."

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/45830...o-defund-planned-parenthood-repeal-health-law


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> You didn't force anyone...you just had hopes and dreams...lol


I'm omnipotent. I can make others post on my threads even when they don't want to... first HT, then the world! MUAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> The same one where they are banning funding to Planned Parenthood? That money waster?
> 
> "But first, let's make it very clear â nothing that happens on the Senate floor this week will ever actually become law, because any bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act and defunds Planned Parenthood is going to get vetoed by the president."
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/45830...o-defund-planned-parenthood-repeal-health-law


No wonder nothing gets done with Obama blocking everything


----------



## Patchouli

MO_cows said:


> Maybe you like your elected reps to spend your tax dollars playing games, and that is your right. But I don't, and to me that is the core issue - wasting taxpayer resources playing games.


Because Republicans never waste money.  We have like 10 pending lawsuits here over stuff the idiot rightwing religious nuts passed here in the last few years like putting up the 10 Commandments on the State Capital grounds and unconstitutional abortion restrictions. 

Hers technically isn't even wasting money unless it gets passed and goes to court. I can guarantee plenty of point making bills get put forward in your state legislature. This one is highly entertaining and informative at least. 

Here's a few fun ones from your 2012 session: http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/05/21/stupid-legislative-tricks-missouri-edition/


----------



## MO_cows

Patchouli said:


> Because Republicans never waste money.  We have like 10 pending lawsuits here over stuff the idiot rightwing religious nuts passed here in the last few years like putting up the 10 Commandments on the State Capital grounds and unconstitutional abortion restrictions.
> 
> Hers technically isn't even wasting money unless it gets passed and goes to court. I can guarantee plenty of point making bills get put forward in your state legislature. This one is highly entertaining and informative at least.
> 
> Here's a few fun ones from your 2012 session: http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/05/21/stupid-legislative-tricks-missouri-edition/


Can't you keep us all straight? I'm the one who bashes both Ds and Rs and wishes desperately for a better 3rd party. Write it down this time so you'll remember!

My tax dollars paid for her time and the staff time to draft it and then record the silly thing into the official records, so yes she was wasting my money.

So you find Missouri bashing to be entertaining? Just something to do on a slow day?


----------



## Woolieface

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm omnipotent. I can make others post on my threads even when they don't want to... first HT, then the world! MUAHAHAHAHAHA


I said hopes and dreams. We all got 'em...


----------



## Patchouli

MO_cows said:


> Can't you keep us all straight? I'm the one who bashes both Ds and Rs and wishes desperately for a better 3rd party. Write it down this time so you'll remember!
> 
> My tax dollars paid for her time and the staff time to draft it and then record the silly thing into the official records, so yes she was wasting my money.
> 
> So you find Missouri bashing to be entertaining? Just something to do on a slow day?


There's too many of you I can't! :runforhills:

Missouri and Georgia actually give me hope for Arkansas because y'all frequently do even crazier stuff than we do.  But honestly every state legislature has the people who put forward crazy bills. We actually beat you here this year for flabbergasting stuff like no cameras taking pictures in public and banning wine from California. Thankfully neither became law. 

I don't have so much of a problem with people who put forward something like this when they are trying to make a serious point. She knows it will die and never get passed. It's just her way to make a statement.


----------



## FarmerKat

At first I just read the OP and did not open the link ... my reaction was "What does this have to do with abortion?" Then I opened the link. Clearly the lawmaker is pulling a publicity stunt. 

I am assuming that supporters of this bill believe that everyone wishing to purchase a gun is doing so with the intent to murder a human being. Do they know that people use guns for hunting? How about slaughtering live stock? Or maybe they are just training for Olympic Biathlon? 

Maybe they should amend the bill that the restrictions only apply if the they plan to use the gun for murder. Then it would be on the same footing with abortion.


----------



## MO_cows

keenataz said:


> Kind of like passing motions banning Obama Care?


I'd like to have my money back from passing Obamacare in the first place, and then all the wasted efforts to kill it, both. And I'd especially like to have all my money back that I have paid in ever higher and higher premiums since it was passed.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm omnipotent. I can make others post on my threads even when they don't want to... first HT, then the world! MUAHAHAHAHAHA



I wanna see your passport young lady - you've been stirring the pot in the middle east, haven't you!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> Well those are issues you should take up with Pixie. After all she started the thread about the "faulty logic" of changing gun laws to match abortion laws as if they had anything in common other than getting people riled up. And she's the one objecting to MO laws, all the way from NY where they don't affect her. So good luck with that.


Getting people "riled up" over the *hypocrisy* and *stupidity* was the entire point of the bill.

That has *nothing* to do with you comparing a normal wait to a mandatory waiting period


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Woolieface said:


> You didn't force anyone...you just had hopes and dreams...lol


And you fulfilled them


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> Getting people "riled up" over the *hypocrisy* and *stupidity* was the entire point of the bill.
> 
> That has *nothing* to do with you comparing a normal wait to a mandatory waiting period


Exactly.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you know the state of MO's abortion procedure?
> 
> Restrictions on Abortion
> In Missouri, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of July 1, 2015:
> A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 72 hours before the procedure is provided. Counseling must be provided in person and must take place before the waiting period begins, thereby necessitating two separate trips to the facility.
> Abortion is covered in private insurance policies only in cases of life endangerment, unless an optional rider is purchased at an additional cost.
> Health plans that will be offered in the state&#8217;s health exchange under the Affordable Care Act can only cover abortion when the woman&#8217;s life is endangered.
> Abortion is covered in insurance policies for public employees only in cases of life endangerment.
> The use of telemedicine for the performance of medication abortion is prohibited.
> The parent of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
> Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.
> 
> https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/missouri.html
> 
> How many medical procedures that you know of that have a 72 hour waiting period? Have state mandated in person counseling that must be complete prior to the waiting period?
> 
> Please, enlighten me.






Irish Pixie said:


> There is no statute in any state (that I know of) that requires a *mandatory* 72 hour waiting period for any other procedure except for abortion. You couldn't get in to see your doctor is not a mandatory 72 hour waiting period, is it? Is the "cooling off period" mandatory? Do you get your car, home improvement, etc. before hand? Then if you're not happy with your purchase you can negate the contract? NY (and many other states) have the same thing.




Request granted, with a *15* day waiting period.
http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000132


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I do agree with death with dignity but that's not what is being discussed.
> 
> In MO, euthanasia is voluntary manslaughter, which is a class B felony. Abortion is legal.





Irish Pixie said:


> Nationally? MO? NY?


I assumed you wanted the question you asked, answered.
So I did.
Did I miss something?
:shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nope.


----------



## M5farm

Some times I wander if we should abort some -------s , its the same thing. Just 40 yrs or so late.


----------



## Tricky Grama

cfuhrer said:


> So then all medical procedures should proceed without a discussion of risks and outcomes?


Of course. B/c who wants anyone to be informed? Who wants anyone to have a medical procedure in a sterile environment? Who wants a doctor doing a procedure to be able to get that person admitted to the hosp it they decide to hemorrage? Nah. No restrictions.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I made a shortcut for it. I'm absolutely sick of the "merry go round" argument.


Really? Coulda fooled a bunch of us. Seems the OP was designed to bait & troll. 
For yet another time.


----------



## Shine

I can't wait until tomorrow to see what the next "Slam those that don't Goosestep like you do" thread is...


----------



## farmrbrown

I have found some more state laws that should be considered more appropriate to the topic, such as mandatory waiting periods for vasectomies.
Virginia:
http://law.justia.com/codes/virginia/2006/toc5401000/54.1-2974.html
*54.1-2974. Sterilization operations for persons eighteen years or oldercapable of informed consent.

It shall be lawful for any physician licensed by the Board of Medicine toperform a vasectomy, salpingectomy, or other surgical sexual sterilizationprocedure on any person eighteen years of age or older, who has the capacityto give informed consent, when so requested in writing by such person. Priorto or at the time of such request, a full, reasonable, and comprehensiblemedical explanation as to the meaning and consequences of such an operationand as to alternative methods of contraception shall be given by thephysician to the person requesting the operation. No such operation shall beperformed prior to thirty days from the date of the written request thereforupon a person who has not previously become the natural or adoptive parent ofa child.

(1981, c. 454, 54-325.9; 1988, c. 765.)
*


And from Planned Parenthood:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/vasectomy

*How Do I Get a Vasectomy? How Much Does a Vasectomy Cost?
If you are interested in getting a vasectomy, talk with a health care provider. Contact your local Planned Parenthood health center, your family doctor, a local hospital, a local public health department, or a urologist. A vasectomy can be performed in a medical office, hospital, or clinic.
Nationwide, the cost of a vasectomy ranges from $0&#8211;$1,000, including the follow-up sperm count. (Sterilization for women can cost up to six times as much.) Some clinics and doctors use a sliding scale according to income.


There may be state or federal requirements for sterilization, such as age restrictions or waiting periods. Ask if there are any restrictions when you make an appointment.


Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs. *
- See more at: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/vasectomy#sthash.1DVYHgI5.dpuf


California has a waiting period if vasectomy is done under MedCal.
It's a doc.file so you'll have to download it to see the consent form.


----------



## BlackFeather

I just had a karma moment, all these baby boomers who are for abortion, there won't be enough people to fund their social security in their old age and will have to have their benefits cut to poverty levels. 

As far as the argument goes, there are two sides, the first believes in a higher power and that they will be accountable for their actions. Therefore they in general are against the murder of unborn children. The second doesn't in general believe in a higher power, and that they are the only power that should decide things. They are only accountable to themselves. Therefore they can do what is right in their own eyes and the death of an unborn is acceptable to them. These hold a certain pride in there rejection of a higher power and consider themselves "enlightened." This debate cannot be resolved at this current time . You can argue back and forth but the difference is irreconcilable for the time being.


----------



## Patchouli

Shine said:


> I can't wait until tomorrow to see what the next "Slam those that don't Goosestep like you do" thread is...


It will be right next a Muslims, BLM or immigrants are evil thread.  What we really need is some originality in these threads.


----------



## Patchouli

BlackFeather said:


> I just had a karma moment, all these baby boomers who are for abortion, there won't be enough people to fund their social security in their old age and will have to have their benefits cut to poverty levels.
> 
> As far as the argument goes, there are two sides, the first believes in a higher power and that they will be accountable for their actions. Therefore they in general are against the murder of unborn children. The second doesn't in general believe in a higher power, and that they are the only power that should decide things. They are only accountable to themselves. Therefore they can do what is right in their own eyes and the death of an unborn is acceptable to them. These hold a certain pride in there rejection of a higher power and consider themselves "enlightened." This debate cannot be resolved at this current time . You can argue back and forth but the difference is irreconcilable for the time being.



Hate to burst your bubble there but there are actually plenty of people who believe in God who are also pro-choice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by keenataz View Post
> Kind of like passing motions banning Obama Care?


Many Republicans ran on the promise to repeal the law, so they are both fulfilling that promise, and demonstrating that repeal is possible with the right President


----------



## Bearfootfarm

M5farm said:


> Some times I wander if we should abort some *-------s *, its the same thing. Just 40 yrs or so late.


Substituting spaces for profanity is still against the rules on many forums


----------



## Tricky Grama

Farmerga said:


> The government can do anything we let them get away with. But, the glairing difference is that the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The "right" to commit homicide against the unborn is not.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I get it. It is all right to restrict the rights you don't agree with but not the ones you do.


I'm.sorry but could you quote the part in the Constitution where it says we have the right to kill the unborn? Would it be right after it says something like, we have inalienable rights bestowed on us by our Creator...?


----------



## BlackFeather

Patchouli said:


> Hate to burst your bubble there but there are actually plenty of people who believe in God who are also pro-choice.


Then these people do no understand the love of God, "thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart mind, body and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." No neighbor closer than the one you carry inside your body. If you want your life preserved, then you should want your neighbor's life preserved. Especially an innocent neighbor. Pretty simple.


----------



## Patchouli

Bearfootfarm said:


> Many Republicans ran on the promise to repeal the law, so they are both fulfilling that promise, and demonstrating that repeal is possible with the right President


That was what they were trying to prove. Reality says otherwise. Plenty of them will vote for it so they can say they did knowing the repeal will get vetoed. If it came down to passing it when they have a President who won't veto some of those Senators voting to repeal will drop out. The backlash to taking away healthcare in their states from people who currently have it will far outweigh any Tea Party brownie points they would get. Now it costs them nothing, then it could cost their seat.


----------



## Patchouli

BlackFeather said:


> Then these people do no understand the love of God, "thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart mind, body and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself." No neighbor closer than the one you carry inside your body. If you want your life preserved, then you should want your neighbor's life preserved. Especially an innocent neighbor. Pretty simple.


Nope it really isn't that simple. It's actually rather complex to most of us. When life/consciousness begins is actually not terribly black and white even in the bible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm.sorry but *could you quote the part in the Constitution where it says *we have the right to kill the unborn? Would it be right after it says something like, we have inalienable rights bestowed on us by our Creator...?


Rights not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the people

Can you quote the part in the Constitution with the phrase "inalienable rights"?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Patchouli said:


> That was what they were trying to prove. Reality says otherwise. Plenty of them will vote for it so they can say they did knowing the repeal will get vetoed. If it came down to passing it when they have a President who won't veto some of those Senators voting to repeal will drop out. The backlash to taking away healthcare in their states from people who currently have it will far outweigh any Tea Party brownie points they would get. Now it costs them nothing, then it could cost their seat.


No Republicans voted for Obamacare the first time around
The Demos own it all


----------



## Patchouli

Bearfootfarm said:


> No Republicans voted for Obamacare the first time around
> The Demos own it all


Well I am sure the Democrats are happy to take the credit with all of their constituents who now have healthcare because of them. I think you missed my point though. 2 Republican Senators voted against this bill to repeal Obamacare. More will most likely vote against the repeal when they have actual skin in the game and their constituents could actually lose their healthcare.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu

Back to the original portion of the topic, I believe California still has their 10 day waiting period and they go right down to the minute. I also believe Minnesota you are required to get a permit to purchase and that takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-10 days. So yes my gun rights have already been infringed upon. killing an unborn child is not a right. If you read missouris law it say at the end that no public funds will be used for an abortion unless it endangers the life of the mother, involves rape or incest. Yes I am anti abortion but I can halfway understand that reasoning. Aborting a child because you do not want it is murder. There are people who want to have children and can't that would take that child in a heartbeat if given the chance but your obsession to kill unwanted babies goes beyond that. You truely think it is a control issue over women, no one really cares that women are often hurt mentally and usually physically after an abortion, you never mention that!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> There are people who want to have children and can't that would take that child in a heartbeat if given the chance


There are orphanages overflowing right now.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Patchouli said:


> Nope it really isn't that simple. It's actually rather complex to most of us. When life/consciousness begins is actually not terribly black and white even in the bible.


I choose to believe that any pregnancy that has a very high likelihood of succeeding is a viable person. Also, abortions are acceptable to me under severe circumstances such as extenuating and rape instances. Convenience abortions, especially when the child is otherwise viable, I find quite wrong. 
The other part of me says the heck with whatever anyone wants to do - it's their body, their kid, their life. And we have an overpopulation problem anyways.:bored:


----------



## MO_cows

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are orphanages overflowing right now.


The overflow is older kids. Newborns are what everyone wants.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> The overflow is older kids. Newborns are what everyone wants.


Beggars can't be choosers.
There are lots of infants and toddlers.
The adoption argument is often used, but isn't a reality


----------



## mreynolds

I don't see a problem with waiting 72 hours. Abortion doesn't just affect the fetus it effects the mother too. Sometimes for decades even. Its not a decision to take lightly. I have known women that cry decades later when they talk about it. They make the decision sometimes based on the only way out that they know.

Abortion should not be like a Micky D's drive through. It is a life choice that cant be taken back. I'm sure someone may want to bash my opinion but that is where I stand. I wish every state did what MO has done. Not just for the fetus but for the mother too.


----------



## MO_cows

Bearfootfarm said:


> Beggars can't be choosers.
> There are lots of infants and toddlers.
> The adoption argument is often used, but isn't a reality


In my experience it has been. Woman I used to work with got pregnant and decided to give it up for adoption. Every day at lunch she had folder after folder, dossiers on prospective adoptive parents who couldn't wait to get a baby and their letters would break your heart. Also they would pay her medical expenses plus extra for the time she was off work. 

Cousins fostered a baby right out of the hospital, later adopted him and he's the joy of their life. 

Grandmother used to donate to a Christian program for unwed mothers, I think it was called Hope House and their newsletter was full of followup letters from the young women who were thrilled that their baby had a good home and especially that they got some education and counseling to help them in their lives. Recurring theme was, if I would have just gotten an abortion I would have went back to my same old ways. 

The cousins who were foster parents also had some kids that even as young toddlers you could tell they were, for lack of a better term, damaged goods and were going to have more issues than they were prepared to deal with.


----------



## mustangglp

Buying gun does not kill anyone! If it did there would no one left in the US! One of my sister in laws has killed seven and dose not own a gun how does it compare to me that has never killed anyone in over 43 years of gun owner ship? And millions of other gun owner's
I do believe anyone thinking of taking a life needs help be it murder or suicide needs help I could really careless about you having an abortion but don't compare it to owning a gun there is none!


----------



## Tiempo

> ..Sometimes for decades even. Its not a decision to take lightly. I have known women that cry decades later when they talk about it. They make the decision sometimes based on the only way out that they know.


The same can very often be said for adoption too


----------



## mustangglp

Patchouli said:


> Well I am sure the Democrats are happy to take the credit with all of their constituents who now have healthcare because of them. I think you missed my point though. 2 Republican Senators voted against this bill to repeal Obamacare. More will most likely vote against the repeal when they have actual skin in the game and their constituents could actually lose their healthcare.


Your welcome mine and the wife's went up 700 hundred a month To 2300 $:hair with higher copays
Obama care is going up big time next year!


----------



## Lisa in WA

mreynolds said:


> I don't see a problem with waiting 72 hours. Abortion doesn't just affect the fetus it effects the mother too. Sometimes for decades even. Its not a decision to take lightly. I have known women that cry decades later when they talk about it. They make the decision sometimes based on the only way out that they know.
> 
> Abortion should not be like a Micky D's drive through. It is a life choice that cant be taken back. I'm sure someone may want to bash my opinion but that is where I stand. I wish every state did what MO has done. Not just for the fetus but for the mother too.


interesting how all of you anti-choice types "know" women who cry years later about their abortions. I flat don't believe you.

In any case, they are grown women who can make big decisions about their bodies and their emotional well being without you interfering "for their own good". 

Mind your own business. It doesn't matter what you think or don't think about it. It's not your body and most definitely not your choice.


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> interesting how all of you anti-choice types "know" women who cry years later about their abortions. I flat don't believe you.
> 
> In any case, they are grown women who can make big decisions about their bodies and their emotional well being without you interfering "for their own good".
> 
> Mind your own business. It doesn't matter what you think or don't think about it. It's not your body and most definitely not your choice.


Biologically they might be "grown women" but it seems to be young women who end up seeking abortion, immature. Not making good decisions was probably how they ended up with an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. 

I have known women who had guilt about having an abortion. The common denominator seems to be once they are raising children and have more maturity and perspective.

This whole thread was based on not minding your own business, wasn't it?

I am not, repeat not, advocating that we ban abortion again. But let's not pretend it doesn't come with a cost.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> interesting how all of you anti-choice types "know" women who cry years later about their abortions. I flat don't believe you.
> 
> In any case, they are grown women who can make big decisions about their bodies and their emotional well being without you interfering "for their own good".
> 
> Mind your own business. It doesn't matter what you think or don't think about it. It's not your body and most definitely not your choice.


Real World Award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

MO_cows said:


> In my experience it has been. Woman I used to work with got pregnant and decided to give it up for adoption. Every day at lunch she had folder after folder, dossiers on prospective adoptive parents who couldn't wait to get a baby and their letters would break your heart. Also they would pay her medical expenses plus extra for the time she was off work.
> 
> Cousins fostered a baby right out of the hospital, later adopted him and he's the joy of their life.
> 
> Grandmother used to donate to a Christian program for unwed mothers, I think it was called Hope House and their newsletter was full of followup letters from the young women who were thrilled that their baby had a good home and especially that they got some education and counseling to help them in their lives. Recurring theme was, if I would have just gotten an abortion I would have went back to my same old ways.
> 
> The cousins who were foster parents also had some kids that even as young toddlers you could tell they were, for lack of a better term, damaged goods and were going to have more issues than they were prepared to deal with.


Wait! Wait, don't tell me these are conservative folks? We've been told here on HT that conservatives DO NOTHING about after the baby is born...I bet you're fibbin'.

See, someone already came along to tell us we lie. W/o a link or documentation, too.


----------



## Txsteader

Patchouli said:


> *Well I am sure the Democrats are happy to take the credit with all of their constituents who now have healthcare because of them.* I think you missed my point though. 2 Republican Senators voted against this bill to repeal Obamacare. More will most likely vote against the repeal when they have actual skin in the game and their constituents could actually lose their healthcare.


Reckon they'll take credit when they get dumped from their insurance? Or can't pay the premiums due to rate hikes? 

Speaking of rate hikes, I recall a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the cost of insurance pre-Obamacare. How come no wailing and gnashing of teeth since the rate hikes and news that UnitedHealth is about to dump their exchange due to losing money?

:whistlin:


----------



## roadless

basketti said:


> interesting how all of you anti-choice types "know" women who cry years later about their abortions. I flat don't believe you.
> 
> In any case, they are grown women who can make big decisions about their bodies and their emotional well being without you interfering "for their own good".
> 
> Mind your own business. It doesn't matter what you think or don't think about it. It's not your body and most definitely not your choice.



I am of the belief that a fetus growing inside me is not my body either. It is a separate creation that would not exist without the actions of myself and another. 

I do have a very dear friend who regrets her decision to have an abortion........and yes she does still mourn.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Wait! Wait, don't tell me these are conservative folks? We've been told here on HT that conservatives DO NOTHING about after the baby is born...I bet you're fibbin'.
> 
> See, someone already came along to tell us we lie. W/o a link or documentation, too.


From a catholic nun:

"I do not believe that just because youâre opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you donât? Because you donât want any tax money to go there.

Thatâs not pro-life. Thatâs pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." Sister Joan Chittister

http://deadstate.org/catholic-nun-exposes-the-hypocrisy-of-pro-life-republicans-in-one-simple-quote/

The proof is the unending fight to make abortion illegal but the absolute willingness to cut food and other programs for kids.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> From a catholic nun:
> 
> "I do not believe that just because youâre opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you donât? Because you donât want any tax money to go there.
> 
> Thatâs not pro-life. Thatâs pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." Sister Joan Chittister
> 
> http://deadstate.org/catholic-nun-exposes-the-hypocrisy-of-pro-life-republicans-in-one-simple-quote/
> 
> The proof is the unending fight to make abortion illegal but the absolute willingness to cut food and other programs for kids.


Thanks for your study of one.

We've provided info over & over showing conservatives provide more for pregnant moms as well as services/support/adoption. Libs just like to whine.


----------



## Heritagefarm

That's absurd. Liberals are historically the ones who support food stamps, housing, education help, all things that can help young mothers escape poverty if they're inclined. Conservatives historically so not support these programs because they believe e them to be too expensive and ineffective.


----------



## Farmerga

Heritagefarm said:


> That's absurd. Liberals are historically the ones who support food stamps, housing, education help, all things that can help young mothers escape poverty if they're inclined. Conservatives historically so not support these programs because they believe e them to be too expensive and ineffective.


 The difference is that the Progressive wants to use force of government and the Conservative does not, when it comes to helping the poor and others in need. Conservatives want them helped, they just don't want to force others to do it.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Thanks for your study of one.
> 
> We've provided info over & over showing conservatives provide more for pregnant moms as well as services/support/adoption. Libs just like to whine.


Actually, you've provided the same decade old, biased, disproven proof over and over. More recent, scientifically accurate studies show a different result along with showing that a lot of that charitable giving to religous organizations never reaches the needy.


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> The difference is that the Progressive wants to use force of government and the Conservative does not, when it comes to helping the poor and others in need. Conservatives want them helped, they just don't want to force others to do it.


I understand your point but would voluntary assistance ensure that those that need get what they need?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Thanks for your study of one.
> 
> We've provided info over & over showing conservatives provide more for pregnant moms as well as services/support/adoption. Libs just like to whine.


Here's an entire thread of people (including yourself) that that not only want programs for kids cut, many deny that there are hungry kids in the US. 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...t/539024-summer-hungriest-time-some-kids.html


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> The difference is that the Progressive wants to use force of government and the Conservative does not, when it comes to helping the poor and others in need. Conservatives want them helped, they just don't want to force others to do it.


Valid points. However, do you think the level of help would be adequate without a small measure of involuntary funding? In some cases, other problems occur. For example, in very poor areas, there is limited total capital to go around. So, even if people want to help, and they will, there is limited funding. Thus, redistribution of income can transfer funds from richer areas to poor areas.


----------



## Irish Pixie

wr said:


> I understand your point but would voluntary assistance ensure that those that need get what they need?


No, in my opinion, no completely voluntary program would provide support for those in need. Even casual reading on threads about "entitlement" programs here proves it. The consensus is "buck up" "get a job" "hunger is a great motivator" and "it's not my fault the parents are irresponsible" among other simply wonderful sentiment toward the less fortunate.


----------



## TripleD

Heritagefarm said:


> That's absurd. Liberals are historically the ones who support food stamps, housing, education help, all things that can help young mothers escape poverty if they're inclined. Conservatives historically so not support these programs because they believe e them to be too expensive and ineffective.


I've only seen 2 get off Section 8 Housing in over 30 years. They are not ''inclined'' to do anything if most everything is provided at no cost to them.....


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> I understand your point but would voluntary assistance ensure that those that need get what they need?


 
I believe it would, on a case by case basis. By that, I mean local people being helped by local people. I can see that Miss X with her child needs help, so, I will help Miss X. I see where Miss Y eats better than I do with her EBT card, (as do her dogs, in many cases) so, I tend to be against such waste.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> No, in my opinion, no completely voluntary program would provide support for those in need. Even casual reading on threads about "entitlement" programs here proves it. The consensus is "buck up" "get a job" "hunger is a great motivator" and "it's not my fault the parents are irresponsible" among other simply wonderful sentiment toward the less fortunate.


 The mindset is different when the money, in question, hasn't been stolen by the government and given to anyone who knows how to work the system. 

I will, most certainly, not watch anyone starve. I will and have purchased food and given money for the poor. That is a different animal than using force of government to compel me to give to those who may, or, may not be deserving of the money.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> The mindset is different when the money, in question, hasn't been stolen by the government and given to anyone who knows how to work the system.
> 
> I will, most certainly, not watch anyone starve. I will and have purchased food and given money for the poor. That is a different animal than using force of government to compel me to give to those who may, or, may not be deserving of the money.


I'm glad to hear it. There are many, many more that would never give a dime to help those less fortunate.


----------



## wr

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm glad to hear it. There are many, many more that would never give a dime to help those less fortunate.


I didn't intend to open a can of worms or point fingers. My comment was simply based on my experiences with various volunteer programs. 

I haven't had any kids play football for 8 years but I still pay out of pocket to keep my advanced first aid and still help out as a volunteer trainer because a lot of other people are busy and others likely assume I like football and want to stay involved so nobody current gets involved. 

Human nature being what it is, people often assume that somebody better able will or should step up first.


----------



## Shine

Farmerga said:


> I believe it would, on a case by case basis. By that, I mean local people being helped by local people. I can see that Miss X with her child needs help, so, I will help Miss X. I see where Miss Y eats better than I do with her EBT card, (as do her dogs, in many cases) so, I tend to be against such waste.


Herein is the answer, when people have to go before someone to indicate that they are in need of help and dependent upon others for the basics of life then, I would like to think that they're less likely to lay at home on the couch popping out kids as a profession. There are those however, that would do so no matter how humiliating being an out and out beggar it is. Those are the ones that I turn away from.

I guess that it was really bad before the socialists rolled out the entitlement programs, I guess people were starving all over the place. 

As you have, I have helped others often and almost routinely so I know that some can indeed count on help without being dependent upon the government theft of other people's money.


----------



## Farmerga

Shine said:


> Herein is the answer, when people have to go before someone to indicate that they are in need of help and dependent upon others for the basics of life then, I would like to think that they're less likely to lay at home on the couch popping out kids as a profession. There are those however, that would do so no matter how humiliating being an out and out beggar it is. Those are the ones that I turn away from.
> 
> I guess that it was really bad before the socialists rolled out the entitlement programs, I guess people were starving all over the place.
> 
> As you have, I have helped others often and almost routinely so I know that some can indeed count on help without being dependent upon the government theft of other people's money.


 
The problem with government welfare is that the single mother with hungry children is treated the same as the lay about, professional baby factory. Under private charity, or, at least, local government funding and administration of programs, this would be less of an issue. (Notice I said "funding and administration", it doesn't work if the money, you dole out, doesn't belong to you and your close neighbors.)


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Herein is the answer, when people have to go before someone to indicate that they are in need of help and dependent upon others for the basics of life then, I would like to think that they're less likely to lay at home on the couch popping out kids as a profession. There are those however, that would do so no matter how humiliating being an out and out beggar it is. Those are the ones that I turn away from.
> 
> I guess that it was really bad before the socialists rolled out the entitlement programs, I guess people were starving all over the place.
> 
> As you have, I have helped others often and almost routinely so I know that some can indeed count on help without being dependent upon the government theft of other people's money.


You want _servitude_ for providing someone with the basic needs of life. Ungrateful wretches should beg...


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You want _servitude_ for providing someone with the basic needs of life. Ungrateful wretches should beg...


 
As Benjamin Franklin said, we shouldn't make poverty easy for them, or else they are likely to stay there. (paraphrased of course)


----------



## MO_cows

I think there are very few people on here who would want to see the "social safety net" programs completely abolished. 

There are people who are physically and/or mentally too weak to provide for themselves, I get it. Some of them have no family, or family is poor, I get that too. 

However I am extremely frustrated and fed up with what I believe are excessive benefits, and especially with fraud and abuse of the benefits. And that there is no good "exit strategy" built into those programs. It is many times harder to get off them than to get on. 

So to complain about entitlement programs doesn't mean one is cold-hearted, uncaring. It just acknowledges the reality that our programs have gotten out of control and are in need of reform.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> You want _servitude_ for providing someone with the basic needs of life. Ungrateful wretches should beg...


Somehow, I knew you would attempt to twist my meaning. Be the person you are...

I said what I meant, you do not get change its meaning.


----------



## Heritagefarm

TripleD said:


> I've only seen 2 get off Section 8 Housing in over 30 years. They are not ''inclined'' to do anything if most everything is provided at no cost to them.....


True, some throttling might do the trick. However, I can't imagine section 8 housing being that great. Anyone with any motivation at all will try to get off the gravy train and improve their lot - unless getting off means excepting a substantial income deduction.


----------



## Lisa in WA

What do you all think of mandatory birth control like Norplant or Depo Provera implanted in people on social programs/ benefits for more than a certain period of time?


----------



## Heritagefarm

MO_cows said:


> I think there are very few people on here who would want to see the "social safety net" programs completely abolished.
> 
> There are people who are physically and/or mentally too weak to provide for themselves, I get it. Some of them have no family, or family is poor, I get that too.
> 
> However I am extremely frustrated and fed up with what I believe are excessive benefits, and especially with fraud and abuse of the benefits. And that there is no good "exit strategy" built into those programs. It is many times harder to get off them than to get on.
> 
> So to complain about entitlement programs doesn't mean one is cold-hearted, uncaring. It just acknowledges the reality that our programs have gotten out of control and are in need of reform.


This makes sense. Do you think Bernie Sanders would increase people's dependence on the government, or do you think it would help by channeling funds to where they're needed?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

basketti said:


> What do you all think of mandatory birth control like Norplant or Depo Provera implanted in people on social programs/ benefits for more than a certain period of time?


I'd be in favor of it.

It makes a lot of sense to control their procreation if they can't provide for themselves


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> What do you all think of mandatory birth control like Norplant or Depo Provera implanted in people on social programs/ benefits for more than a certain period of time?


I would wish that there is a better answer than that, but I will submit that something needs to be done. Forced medication is a scary solution. I realistically cannot think of a silver bullet for this problem


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> What do you all think of mandatory birth control like Norplant or Depo Provera implanted in people on social programs/ benefits for more than a certain period of time?


It's practical and saves the taxpayers money by preventing more dependent children, but would have to be careful how it was approached to preserve the person's rights. 

That is another one of my beefs with the entitlements. Woman has a baby, daddy abandons, young, no education, skills, etc. Family can't or won't help her. So she signs on for benefits. Section 8 apartment, welfare check, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, utility assistance and a phone. Next thing you know, there's another baby from a no good daddy. So she gets more money and more benefits. lather, rinse repeat. Rewarding the wrong behavior. And creating a lifestyle.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> As Benjamin Franklin said, we shouldn't make poverty easy for them, or else they are likely to stay there. (paraphrased of course)


Didn't he also say beer is proof God loves us?


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> The problem with government welfare is that the single mother with hungry children is treated the same as the lay about, professional baby factory. Under private charity, or, at least, local government funding and administration of programs, this would be less of an issue. (Notice I said "funding and administration", it doesn't work if the money, you dole out, doesn't belong to you and your close neighbors.)


My concern with your statement is only that there will be some who's lifestyles you will disagree with that will need funding to prevent abortions.

A real life example that comes to my mind is a friend who's raising 4 kids that were born crack addicted. 

I think we can all agree that we should not have to fund the crack habit but without funding or safety net, that same woman will continue to sell herself as the only means of support and she's then faced with the option of carrying to term or heading to a clinic. 

We don't have to take it to such extremes but if a young woman finds herself suddenly single because baby daddy checked out, will she be able to rely on kindly neighbors to recognize her situation until she can give that child up for adoption? How does she feed herself and her existing child while she waits for someone to recognize that she needs help and because she can't support herself, will we have the right to take that baby away from her because she was unable to support herself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I would wish that there is a better answer than that, but I will submit that something needs to be done. *Forced medication is a scary solution*. I realistically cannot think of a silver bullet for this problem


But forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term isn't?

You'd have no hesitation over that


----------



## MO_cows

Shine said:


> I would wish that there is a better answer than that, but I will submit that something needs to be done. Forced medication is a scary solution. I realistically cannot think of a silver bullet for this problem


It's not forced, it would be a condition of being supported by the taxpayers. There are already conditions, this would be another. You couldn't do it against a person's will or without their knowledge. 

If you want to ride the benefit train, you agree to this so no more babies come along to be supported by the taxpayers. If you don't agree, decline the benefits.


----------



## MO_cows

Heritagefarm said:


> This makes sense. Do you think Bernie Sanders would increase people's dependence on the government, or do you think it would help by channeling funds to where they're needed?


Increase dependence. He wants to throw a college education in the pot, too. There just isn't enough other people's money to create the utopia he envisions.


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> It's not forced, it would be a condition of being supported by the taxpayers. There are already conditions, this would be another. You couldn't do it against a person's will or without their knowledge.
> 
> If you want to ride the benefit train, you agree to this so no more babies come along to be supported by the taxpayers. If you don't agree, decline the benefits.


i agree.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> You want _servitude_ for providing someone with the basic needs of life. Ungrateful wretches should beg...


I'm thinking most people would rather feel they earn the basic needs of life
Well, anybody with a sense of self worth that is


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> But forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term isn't?
> 
> You'd have no hesitation over that


not even in the same galaxy... please pay attention.


----------



## wr

Cornhusker said:


> I'm thinking most people would rather feel they earn the basic needs of life
> 
> Well, anybody with a sense of self worth that is



Most do but it doesn't always work as people would hope. 

My youngest has had 2 occupational injuries and if I hadn't been able to cover his bills until his comp claim was processed, his only option would have been welfare.


----------



## mreynolds

basketti said:


> interesting how all of you anti-choice types "know" women who cry years later about their abortions. I flat don't believe you.
> 
> In any case, they are grown women who can make big decisions about their bodies and their emotional well being without you interfering "for their own good".
> 
> Mind your own business. It doesn't matter what you think or don't think about it. It's not your body and most definitely not your choice.


So in your eyes I am anti choice and a liar......Seems like you as a woman just made a from the hip snap judgement and I guess you are the only one that has ever done that? 

I have always been pro choice. Its not my decision to make for her but a 72 hour wait period is not a lot to ask for. 

_*Are you afraid that some of them may change their mind?*_


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Real World Award.


Whoops that makes two now. Grown women too.


----------



## Lisa in WA

mreynolds said:


> So in your eyes I am anti choice and a liar......Seems like you as a woman just made a from the hip snap judgement and I guess you are the only one that has ever done that?
> 
> I have always been pro choice. Its not my decision to make for her but a 72 hour wait period is not a lot to ask for.
> 
> _*Are you afraid that some of them may change their mind?*_


No snap judgement....been reading your blather for a while now. In any case, all people get to make snap judgements, and you don't get to stop them.

What makes you think you get to ask for anything?


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> Didn't he also say beer is proof God loves us?


Well, was he wrong on either account? :grin:


----------



## mreynolds

basketti said:


> No snap judgement....been reading your blather for a while now. In any case, all people get to make snap judgements, and you don't get to stop them.
> 
> What makes you think you get to ask for anything?


Well, 1. if you had been reading my blather you would have known I was pro choice. Always have been. People should be free to make their own way in this world. and 
2. I haven't asked you for anything. Not likely to either. 

You really shouldn't just go around pointing the finger at a person when you don't really know someone at all. But I guess its your right to do so.


----------



## mreynolds

basketti said:


> No snap judgement....been reading your blather for a while now. In any case, all people get to make snap judgements, and you don't get to stop them.
> 
> What makes you think you get to ask for anything?


And yes, calling me a liar is most assuredly a snap judgement. Just because you don't know someone who regrets it decades later doesn't mean I don't or that they don't exist.


----------



## SLFarmMI

mreynolds said:


> So in your eyes I am anti choice and a liar......Seems like you as a woman just made a from the hip snap judgement and I guess you are the only one that has ever done that?
> 
> I have always been pro choice. Its not my decision to make for her but a 72 hour wait period is not a lot to ask for.
> 
> _*Are you afraid that some of them may change their mind?*_


A 72 hour waiting period is a hardship for many women. The waiting period necessitates 2 clinic visits. Many women, especially in more rural areas, live a fair distance from an available clinic and for many women two clinic visits would entail the expense of not only transportation but a hotel stay as well. Many women, due to the punitive regulations regarding abortions in their home state, have to travel to another state. Plus the additional time off work, the extra child care for any children she may already have, etc. 

And for what purpose? Do you really think that, prior to going for an abortion, that a woman hasn't thought long and hard about that decision? Do you really think that she says to herself, "Well, there's nothing good on TV today. Think I'll go get an abortion"? It's just another way to attempt to bully and punish women who are seeking an abortion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> not even in the same galaxy... please pay attention.


I agree.
A full term pregnancy carries far more risk than birth control medication


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Well, was he wrong on either account? :grin:


He was probably impaired when he uttered them both


----------



## MO_cows

SLFarmMI said:


> A 72 hour waiting period is a hardship for many women. The waiting period necessitates 2 clinic visits. Many women, especially in more rural areas, live a fair distance from an available clinic and for many women two clinic visits would entail the expense of not only transportation but a hotel stay as well. Many women, due to the punitive regulations regarding abortions in their home state, have to travel to another state. Plus the additional time off work, the extra child care for any children she may already have, etc.
> 
> And for what purpose? Do you really think that, prior to going for an abortion, that a woman hasn't thought long and hard about that decision? Do you really think that she says to herself, "Well, there's nothing good on TV today. Think I'll go get an abortion"? It's just another way to attempt to bully and punish women who are seeking an abortion.


And just like the OP was advised, if you want to put in drive thru lanes for abortions up there in MI, knock yourself out. Get 'er done. 

Those "hardships" you described are less hassle than I have gone thru a time or two just getting my car fixed, or some other kind of health care. My experience has been, for a good 20 years now, the chances of getting ANY procedure done on the first appointment are slim to none.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was probably impaired when he uttered them both


Yeah, fair enough lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> And just like the OP was advised, if you want to put in drive thru lanes for abortions up there in MI, knock yourself out. Get 'er done.
> 
> Those "hardships" you described are less hassle than I have gone thru a time or two just *getting my car fixed*, or some other kind of health care. My experience has been, for a good 20 years now, the chances of getting ANY procedure done on the first appointment are slim to none.


"Drive through" is a stretch.
No one just walks in and gets an abortion in one visit
The procedure itself typically requires a couple of visits after the initial evaluations

Adding three more days serves no purpose other than to create expense and hardship

Don't confuse normal wait times for a mandatory waiting period.

You've never taken your car in and been refused immediate service if no one was ahead of you.

They aren't going to tell you to first go see a specialist who will tell you not to buy new tires, and then come back in 3 days if you haven't changed your mind.


----------



## mreynolds

SLFarmMI said:


> A 72 hour waiting period is a hardship for many women. The waiting period necessitates 2 clinic visits. Many women, especially in more rural areas, live a fair distance from an available clinic and for many women two clinic visits would entail the expense of not only transportation but a hotel stay as well. Many women, due to the punitive regulations regarding abortions in their home state, have to travel to another state. Plus the additional time off work, the extra child care for any children she may already have, etc.
> 
> And for what purpose? Do you really think that, prior to going for an abortion, that a woman hasn't thought long and hard about that decision? Do you really think that she says to herself, "Well, there's nothing good on TV today. Think I'll go get an abortion"? It's just another way to attempt to bully and punish women who are seeking an abortion.



I have already explained to what purpose. And yes I think they have thought long and hard about it. Many cases in a young adult they hear their mothers and sisters and aunts tell them what they should do. sometimes abortion is done because the family wants it done and not the woman. Sometimes it helps to talk to someone not emotionally attached to that woman to make an informed decision that is right for the expectant mother. I have seen this in people close to me and I know it isn't isolated cases. 

Not sure if that last remark is at me or women is general. If its at me that's ok I can take it but if its about women in general then that's on you. Where did that come from anyway?


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Drive through" is a stretch.
> No one just walks in and gets an abortion in one visit
> The procedure itself typically requires a couple of visits after the initial evaluations
> 
> Adding three more days serves no purpose other than to create expense and hardship
> 
> Don't confuse normal wait times for a mandatory waiting period.
> 
> You've never taken your car in and been refused immediate service if no one was ahead of you.
> 
> They aren't going to tell you to first go see a specialist who will tell you not to buy new tires, and then come back in 3 days if you haven't changed your mind.


We will just have to agree to disagree on that one. And tires are not a _potential_ life changing event. Not saying that everyone has regrets but some do. 

Although I have regretted buying certain tires before.


----------



## Heritagefarm

SLFarmMI said:


> A 72 hour waiting period is a hardship for many women. The waiting period necessitates 2 clinic visits. Many women, especially in more rural areas, live a fair distance from an available clinic and for many women two clinic visits would entail the expense of not only transportation but a hotel stay as well. Many women, due to the punitive regulations regarding abortions in their home state, have to travel to another state. Plus the additional time off work, the extra child care for any children she may already have, etc.
> 
> And for what purpose? Do you really think that, prior to going for an abortion, that a woman hasn't thought long and hard about that decision? Do you really think that she says to herself, "Well, there's nothing good on TV today. Think I'll go get an abortion"? It's just another way to attempt to bully and punish women who are seeking an abortion.


For what reasons would you say women are generally getting abortions?


----------



## SLFarmMI

Heritagefarm said:


> For what reasons would you say women are generally getting abortions?


The reasons women are getting abortions are as varied as the women themselves and are personal to each woman. They are also nobody's business but hers. The decisions a woman makes about her reproductive life are nobody's business but hers.


----------



## mmoetc

MO_cows said:


> And just like the OP was advised, if you want to put in drive thru lanes for abortions up there in MI, knock yourself out. Get 'er done.
> 
> Those "hardships" you described are less hassle than I have gone thru a time or two just getting my car fixed, or some other kind of health care. My experience has been, for a good 20 years now, the chances of getting ANY procedure done on the first appointment are slim to none.


I have a brother in law who went in for tests one morning and was on the operating table that afternoon. No mandatory wait or government initiative insisting he be given "alternatives." Funny how no conservative wants the government to come between them and their doctor yet many are wiling to force government between others and their doctors.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> So in your eyes I am anti choice and a liar......Seems like you as a woman just made a from the hip snap judgement and I guess you are the only one that has ever done that?
> 
> I have always been pro choice. Its not my decision to make for her but a 72 hour wait period is not a lot to ask for.
> 
> _*Are you afraid that some of them may change their mind?*_


What part of pro _choice_ don't you understand?  I don't care if a woman aborts or carries to term, I only care that she has the choice of doing either. So she can change her mind all she likes. 

Any type of waiting period is simply a way to try to prevent a woman's choice. That I do care about.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Didn't he also say beer is proof God loves us?


 Two statements that prove he was much smarter than most alive today!!!


----------



## Farmerga

Shine said:


> I would wish that there is a better answer than that, but I will submit that something needs to be done. Forced medication is a scary solution. I realistically cannot think of a silver bullet for this problem


 
But, it wouldn't be forced medication, just a price for playing the game. If you can't handle the conditions, don't accept payment.


----------



## Farmerga

wr said:


> Most do but it doesn't always work as people would hope.
> 
> My youngest has had 2 occupational injuries and if I hadn't been able to cover his bills until his comp claim was processed, his only option would have been welfare.


 When we have people with such injuries and needs, we collect money to help them out. If the need is real, people show up to help. I have seen it time and time again. There are a number of options between family helping and welfare.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I have a brother in law who went in for tests one morning and was on the operating table that afternoon. No mandatory wait or government initiative insisting he be given "alternatives." Funny how no conservative wants the government to come between them and their doctor yet many are wiling to force government between others and their doctors.


 Do y'all just not get it or what? The difference is that there is another LIFE involved. I am certain that your brother in law's surgery did not directly result in the death of another. Say what you want about "choice" and such, but, it cannot be denied that a successful abortion results in the death of another living entity, complete with unique human DNA.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *Do y'all just not get it *or what? The difference is that there is another LIFE involved. I am certain that your brother in law's surgery did not directly result in the death of another. Say what you want about "choice" and such, but, it cannot be denied that a successful abortion results in the death of another living entity, complete with unique human DNA.


Do you not get it's none of *your* business what others do?

(And no, I don't want to hear about illegal acts and slavery again)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Two statements that prove he was much smarter than most alive today!!!


That's not a high bar to clear


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Do y'all just not get it or what? The difference is that there is another LIFE involved. I am certain that your brother in law's surgery did not directly result in the death of another. Say what you want about "choice" and such, but, it cannot be denied that a successful abortion results in the death of another living entity, complete with unique human DNA.


But is it human? Some say the moment egg and sperm unite defines humanness. Historically its been defined much later, even by religions. You can argue for your choice of definitions. I have mine. We'll likely never agree. I don't want to change your beliefs or how you act on them. The government shouldn't be in business of trying to change mine and impose another's beliefs on me. Mandatory waiting periods and information (largely based on belief) forced upon women seeking a medical procedure are just such an attempt. Why shouldn't all those who have a distrust or disbelief in modern medicine have the same right to demand that doctors share those beliefs with patients and give them 72 hours to contemplate the decision? Getting a life saving transfusion could become much more complicated.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you not get it's none of *your* business what others do?
> 
> (And no, I don't want to hear about illegal acts and slavery again)



When what they do is kill an innocent human life, it is my business.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> When what they do is kill an innocent human life, it is my business.


No, it's not. Abortion is a legal and very personal act, it's absolutely none of your business.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But is it human? Some say the moment egg and sperm unite defines humanness. Historically its been defined much later, even by religions. You can argue for your choice of definitions. I have mine. We'll likely never agree. I don't want to change your beliefs or how you act on them. The government shouldn't be in business of trying to change mine and impose another's beliefs on me. Mandatory waiting periods and information (largely based on belief) forced upon women seeking a medical procedure are just such an attempt. Why shouldn't all those who have a distrust or disbelief in modern medicine have the same right to demand that doctors share those beliefs with patients and give them 72 hours to contemplate the decision? Getting a life saving transfusion could become much more complicated.


 I see a difference between being human and being viable. Of course, the instant the egg is fertilized a new and unique human entity comes into being. It is no longer part of her body, as it was prior to the egg (100% her DNA) being fertilized. 

The short definition of government is imposing ones beliefs on another. 
If we all had the same beliefs, and acted on those beliefs in the same way, there would be little need for laws. 

Your example of those with a distrust of modern medicine forcing doctors to share those beliefs lacks the most important aspect of the discussion, another human life. That is the difference. That is why a large percentage of the population isn't trying to outlaw tattoos, piercings, and other things that people do to their bodies because it is actually THEIR body and doesn't affect another, separate, unique, human life.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> No, it's not. Abortion is a legal and very personal act, it's absolutely none of your business.


 If theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc. were legal, I would be fighting to change those laws as well. Abortion results in the death of a unique human life that cannot protect itself. It is up to people of good conscience to stand up for those who have no voice.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> If theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc. were legal, I would be fighting to change those laws as well. Abortion results in the death of a unique human life that cannot protect itself. It is up to people of good conscience to stand up for those who have no voice.


Good for you?  You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with _her_ body. 

I have a conscience, I am moral, ethical, and honorable. I also have no right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their own body.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I see a difference between being human and being viable. Of course, the instant the egg is fertilized a new and unique human entity comes into being. It is no longer part of her body, as it was prior to the egg (100% her DNA) being fertilized.
> 
> The short definition of government is imposing ones beliefs on another.
> If we all had the same beliefs, and acted on those beliefs in the same way, there would be little need for laws.
> 
> Your example of those with a distrust of modern medicine forcing doctors to share those beliefs lacks the most important aspect of the discussion, another human life. That is the difference. That is why a large percentage of the population isn't trying to outlaw tattoos, piercings, and other things that people do to their bodies because it is actually THEIR body and doesn't affect another, separate, unique, human life.


But all those arguments rest on the premise that the conjoined egg and sperm are a "human life". What makes us human? Cancer cells are genetically human. Are we killing another human life when we bombard them with radiation? Prove without a doubt and without disagreement by anyone exactly when being human happens and we can rationally argue. Without such proof we're just debating beliefs and I have no desire to do so or to try to change yours. I also don't want the government to try to change anyone else's. That is what waiting periods and mandated "information" are designed to do. Should OB/gyn's be required to give abortion information to every pregnant woman and wait three days before providing any treatment because others feel life begins later?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> If theft, murder, rape, fraud, etc. were legal, I would be fighting to change those laws as well. Abortion results in the death of a unique human life that cannot protect itself. It is up to people of good conscience to stand up for those who have no voice.


Fight as hard as you wish. I'll fight back. Laws are compromises. None are absolutes.


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> Good for you?  You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with _her_ body.
> 
> I have a conscience, I am moral, ethical, and honorable. I also have no right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their own body.


If you saw a jumper fixing to commit suicide would your'' ethical ''self call on you to try to talk them out of it ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> If you saw a jumper fixing to commit suicide would your'' ethical ''self call on you to try to talk them out of it ?


Of course I would. What does that have to do with abortion?

Would you try to talk someone out of suicide?


----------



## TripleD

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course I would. What does that have to do with abortion?


You stated you had no right to tell another what they can do with their body.....


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Of course I would. What does that have to do with abortion?


But it's none of your business what someone chooses to do with their own body


----------



## Irish Pixie

TripleD said:


> You stated you had no right to tell another what they can do with their body.....


What is your point? I can't stop someone from committing suicide, can I? Ultimately it is their decision. Which is my entire point, and has been all along, choice.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Heritagefarm said:


> That's absurd. Liberals are historically the ones who support food stamps, housing, education help, all things that can help young mothers escape poverty if they're inclined. Conservatives historically so not support these programs because they believe e them to be too expensive and ineffective.


Studies have shown that conservatives GIVE more to charities, donate more time, give more blood than do liberals. FACTS. Conservatives still pay their taxes even tho they may be against welfare leeches who could work but don't. They don['t-not do the libs-dole out the food stamps, etc.
You'll need links if you wanna say more libs adopt or care for pregnant women.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Actually, you've provided the same decade old, biased, disproven proof over and over. More recent, scientifically accurate studies show a different result along with showing that a lot of that charitable giving to religous organizations never reaches the needy.


Links? We've provided links over&over&over that show conservatives are more giving. Wanna show links as to who is helping w/adoptions? & adopting? Who says conserves just give to religious orgs.?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But all those arguments rest on the premise that the conjoined egg and sperm are a "human life". What makes us human? Cancer cells are genetically human. Are we killing another human life when we bombard them with radiation? *Prove without a doubt and without disagreement by anyone exactly when being human happens and we can rationally argue.* Without such proof we're just debating beliefs and I have no desire to do so or to try to change yours. I also don't want the government to try to change anyone else's. That is what waiting periods and mandated "information" are designed to do. Should OB/gyn's be required to give abortion information to every pregnant woman and wait three days before providing any treatment because others feel life begins later?


 By that standard, there can be no argument. Prove that you or I are human beyond disagreement by anyone. Current restrictions, on abortion, are simply a belief when the baby is human. Some believe that humanity doesn't begin until toddler age or later. 

Do you agree with prohibitions on murder? Rape? Etc.? Does everyone agree with your definitions of those crimes, or, the governments definitions?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Here's an entire thread of people (including yourself) that that not only want programs for kids cut, many deny that there are hungry kids in the US.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...t/539024-summer-hungriest-time-some-kids.html


There's MORE overweight children in the us than starving ones. I think that's been proven. "Food insecure" is a lib made-up, unverified, no way to track, phrase.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> What is your point? I can't stop someone from committing suicide, can I? Ultimately it is their decision. Which is my entire point, and has been all along, choice.


 To the original post. How is you trying to talk someone out of suicide any different than a doctor trying to talk a woman out of abortion. For that matter, you should be against all efforts, by the police, to stop someone from committing suicide.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm glad to hear it. There are many, many more that would never give a dime to help those less fortunate.


And most of those are liberals who do not give as much as conservatives do.
I guess you don't have links to back up your statement


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Links? We've provided links over&over&over that show conservatives are more giving. Wanna show links as to who is helping w/adoptions? & adopting? Who says conserves just give to religious orgs.?


There was an entire thread about it. I'm sure you can find all the information you need there. No one said conservatives only give to religous organizations, just that a large portion of the giving they take credit for is to them. And that only 15-25% of that type of giving actually goes to helping people. . I'll make an effort to find it for you but I'll not guarantee that my effort will be any more diligent and fruitful than all your past efforts when asked for links to things you've heard and read.


----------



## Heritagefarm

SLFarmMI said:


> The reasons women are getting abortions are as varied as the women themselves and are personal to each woman. They are also nobody's business but hers. The decisions a woman makes about her reproductive life are nobody's business but hers.


Thanks for your response. I had to look up this question as well, as per what other women's reasons were, for I had no clue.



mmoetc said:


> But is it human? Some say the moment egg and sperm unite defines humanness. Historically its been defined much later, even by religions.


Some religions do go by the "life at conception" theory. However, that one is possibly the least likely, as per the fact the uterus frequently reabsorbs fertilized eggs without the person's knowledge. The issue becomes much stickier after that, when it's clear there may be a viable birth.



Tricky Grama said:


> Studies have shown that conservatives GIVE more to charities, donate more time, give more blood than do liberals. FACTS. Conservatives still pay their taxes even tho they may be against welfare leeches who could work but don't. They don['t-not do the libs-dole out the food stamps, etc.
> You'll need links if you wanna say more libs adopt or care for pregnant women.


I believe you should cite your claim first.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> To the original post. How is you trying to talk someone out of suicide any different than a doctor trying to talk a woman out of abortion. For that matter, you should be against all efforts, by the police, to stop someone from committing suicide.


Because the government doesn't say I have to try to talk them out of it or mandate what words I must use. A doctor should offer alternatives and counseling. The government shouldn't tell that doctor what to say based on a set of religous beliefs.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> By that standard, there can be no argument. Prove that you or I are human beyond disagreement by anyone. Current restrictions, on abortion, are simply a belief when the baby is human. Some believe that humanity doesn't begin until toddler age or later.
> 
> Do you agree with prohibitions on murder? Rape? Etc.? Does everyone agree with your definitions of those crimes, or, the governments definitions?


I can't prove you are human. You may be a very sophisticated computer program or a little green man from another galaxy. But I'm not arguing that your beliefs aren't valid to you. I'm not saying you have to do anything that goes against your beliefs. It is you trying to stop others from acting on theirs. I don't even have a problem with you acting personally. I do have a problem with government forcing others to act on and promulgate your beliefs.

Almost always. Sometimes I've disagreed with laws and worked to change them. Some I've won, some I've lost. All I live by and if I dont I'm willing to face the consequences.


----------



## Lisa in WA

mreynolds said:


> Well, 1. if you had been reading my blather you would have known I was pro choice. Always have been. People should be free to make their own way in this world. and
> 2. I haven't asked you for anything. Not likely to either.
> 
> You really shouldn't just go around pointing the finger at a person when you don't really know someone at all. But I guess its your right to do so.


Bat puckey. If you advocate forcing women to wait 72 hours, you aren't pro choice. Adults can make their own decisions without a paternalistic government forcing them them to wait. And living with the results of those decisions is part of being a grownup.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I can't prove you are human. You may be a very sophisticated computer program or a little green man from another galaxy. But I'm not arguing that your beliefs aren't valid to you. I'm not saying you have to do anything that goes against your beliefs. It is you trying to stop others from acting on theirs. I don't even have a problem with you acting personally. I do have a problem with government forcing others to act on and promulgate your beliefs.
> 
> Almost always. Sometimes I've disagreed with laws and worked to change them. Some I've won, some I've lost. All I live by and if I dont I'm willing to face the consequences.


 What if my beliefs included killing and eating random homeless people? Would you be in favor of laws meant to prevent me from acting on them?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Because the government doesn't say I have to try to talk them out of it or mandate what words I must use. A doctor should offer alternatives and counseling. The government shouldn't tell that doctor what to say based on a set of religous beliefs.


 See, that is the other red herring that the pro-abortion forces use. They dismiss the other side as adhering to a set of "religious beliefs". While many, on the anti abortion side, use their faith to guide them, the abhorrence of abortion is not just from religious teachings. I know many agnostics and Atheists who are against abortion, many who are openly hostile to organized religion.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> What part of pro _choice_ don't you understand?  I don't care if a woman aborts or carries to term, I only care that she has the choice of doing either. So she can change her mind all she likes.
> 
> Any type of waiting period is simply a way to try to prevent a woman's choice. That I do care about.


No it doesn't prevent choice. It makes sure she is committed to her choice. I had to have "counseling" and there was waiting involved when I had tubal ligation. It took multiple appointments and visits to get rid of a cyst and a mole different times. 72 hours in the grand scheme of things is so insignificant I find it hard to believe how some of you are fixated on it and making it out to be a much bigger deal than it is. Come to think of it, I had to wait 72 hours for my last hair appointment. 

Again, this is regulated is state by state. Work to make things how you want it in YOUR state and let other states do the same.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> What if my beliefs included killing and eating random homeless people? Would you be in favor of laws meant to prevent me from acting on them?


While I'm sure that some see the homeless as less than human we, as a society, see them as human. When society reaches a consensus that sees that conjoined egg and sperm as fully human then abortion can be banned. I'm not arguing beliefs. I'm arguing governments role in forcing doctors to spread those beliefs. Government can legitimately ban abortion if they can prove when life begins. Government cannot tell others what to do about a pregnancy until they prove that, not just that some believe it. Until then you are free to act on your beliefs. Government shouldn't deny others that same right.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> See, that is the other red herring that the pro-abortion forces use. They dismiss the other side as adhering to a set of "religious beliefs". While many, on the anti abortion side, use their faith to guide them, the abhorrence of abortion is not just from religious teachings. I know many agnostics and Atheists who are against abortion, many who are openly hostile to organized religion.


And a red herring right back at ya. Just because there are those of no particular religous bent that oppose abortion doesn't mean that these laws aren't driven by religion, proposed and passed largely by those with a religous bias against abortion and contain language that echoes religous beliefs as to when life begins.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> While I'm sure that some see the homeless as less than human we, as a society, see them as human. When society reaches a consensus that sees that conjoined egg and sperm as fully human then abortion can be banned. I'm not arguing beliefs. I'm arguing governments role in forcing doctors to spread those beliefs. Government can legitimately ban abortion if they can prove when life begins. Government cannot tell others what to do about a pregnancy until they prove that, not just that some believe it. Until then you are free to act on your beliefs. Government shouldn't deny others that same right.


 So, popular opinion dictates who is and is not human. That should work out fine.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> So, popular opinion dictates who is and is not human. That should work out fine.


Actually that is what many of these laws seek to do.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Actually that is what many of these laws seek to do.


 Yes, but, they do not deny the humanity of the unborn.


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> No it doesn't prevent choice. It makes sure she is committed to her choice. I had to have "counseling" and there was waiting involved when I had tubal ligation. It took multiple appointments and visits to get rid of a cyst and a mole different times. 72 hours in the grand scheme of things is so insignificant I find it hard to believe how some of you are fixated on it and making it out to be a much bigger deal than it is. Come to think of it, I had to wait 72 hours for my last hair appointment.
> 
> Again, this is regulated is state by state. Work to make things how you want it in YOUR state and let other states do the same.


You shouldn't have had to have counseling for a tubal ligation. You are an adult and responsible for your choices. If you're dumb enough not to check out options, you shouldn't be having babies anyway.
Your other examples are waiting because other people had apts ahead of you or medical procedures had to be done in stages. 
Not remotely the same thing.
It doesn't matter if you think that 72 hours isn't much. Its deliberately throwing a roadblock up to try to get a woman to change her mind. It's more of the same tired idea that women can't be trusted to make big decisions on their own.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And a red herring right back at ya. Just because there are those of no particular religous bent that oppose abortion doesn't mean that these laws aren't driven by religion, proposed and passed largely by those with a religous bias against abortion and contain language that echoes religous beliefs as to when life begins.


 Lets look at the current definition of life and apply it to the unborn: 

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that *exhibits all or most* of the following traits:[51][54][55]


*Homeostasis*: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
 The embryo/zygote/fetus does hold itself together


*Organization*: Being structurally composed of one or more cells â the basic units of life.
 True of the unborn


*Metabolism*: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[51]
 True of the unborn


*Growth*: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
 True of the unborn


*Adaptation*: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
 True of the unborn


*Response to stimuli*: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
 Has been demonstrated in the unborn


*Reproduction*: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms,[56][57] "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[57]
 As the unborn are not mature organisms, this is not true of them. 


As you can see it can't be denied that the embryo/zygote/fetus is a living organism. It has its own, unique, DNA that, if tested, the results would come back as human. 

So, by every scientific test, at our disposal, we learn that the unborn are alive and they are human.


----------



## wiscto

no really said:


> Maybe they should add driving cars too, lots of deaths there.


Oh you just wait. As soon as self driving cars are a thing, someone will try to make it illegal to own anything but a self driving car. "If is only saves one life!"

But yea, lot of good driver's ed and licensing does.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Yes, but, they do not deny the humanity of the unborn.


Something you believe, but have yet to prove when that humanity happens.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Something you believe, but have yet to prove when that humanity happens.


 Now you are speaking of metaphysics. The DNA, inside the cells of the unborn, is human. That is what science says. So, scientific proof is already there. Beyond that hard, scientific, fact is nothing but a philosophical argument. Are we to be guided by science or metaphysics?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Yes, but, they do not deny the humanity of the unborn.





Farmerga said:


> Lets look at the current definition of life and apply it to the unborn:
> 
> Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of something that *exhibits all or most* of the following traits:[51][54][55]
> 
> 
> *Homeostasis*: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
> The embryo/zygote/fetus does hold itself together
> 
> 
> *Organization*: Being structurally composed of one or more cells â the basic units of life.
> True of the unborn
> 
> 
> *Metabolism*: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[51]
> True of the unborn
> 
> 
> *Growth*: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
> True of the unborn
> 
> 
> *Adaptation*: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
> True of the unborn
> 
> 
> *Response to stimuli*: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
> Has been demonstrated in the unborn
> 
> 
> *Reproduction*: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms,[56][57] "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[57]
> As the unborn are not mature organisms, this is not true of them.
> 
> 
> As you can see it can't be denied that the embryo/zygote/fetus is a living organism. It has its own, unique, DNA that, if tested, the results would come back as human.
> 
> So, by every scientific test, at our disposal, we learn that the unborn are alive and they are human.


And all things that apply to cancer cells in the human body. Is that tumor human? Or are we defining being human as something a bit more specific.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And all things that apply to cancer cells in the human body. Is that tumor human? Or are we defining being human as something a bit more specific.


 That tumor is part of another organism. The Fetus is its own organism, albeit dependent on the mother for survival.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> That tumor is part of another organism. The Fetus is its own organism, albeit dependent on the mother for survival.


So if the fetus or embryo was left in place but there was a way to turn off all life support to the uterus, and the fetus could live or die on its own, then would you want that allowed? Sounds far fetched but just curious.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> So if the fetus or embryo was left in place but there was a way to turn off all life support to the uterus, and the fetus could live or die on its own, then would you want that allowed? Sounds far fetched but just curious.


 No more than I would advocate for throwing an infant into February cold, or refusing to feed her.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> That tumor is part of another organism. The Fetus is its own organism, albeit dependent on the mother for survival.


The tumor is life. It has its own unique, human DNA. It is by your definition human. Or is there something more to being human?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> The tumor is life. It has its own unique, human DNA. It is by your definition human. Or is there something more to being human?


 Like I have stated over and over, the fetus is a separate life form, not part of the original. A cancerous tumor, while being part of a human, is not a separate life form. If you want to compare a fetus to a tape worm that is fine. A tape worm is not part of the host, it is a separate life form, the difference is that the fetus is human.


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> You shouldn't have had to have counseling for a tubal ligation. You are an adult and responsible for your choices. If you're dumb enough not to check out options, you shouldn't be having babies anyway.
> Your other examples are waiting because other people had apts ahead of you or medical procedures had to be done in stages.
> Not remotely the same thing.
> It doesn't matter if you think that 72 hours isn't much. Its deliberately throwing a roadblock up to try to get a woman to change her mind. It's more of the same tired idea that women can't be trusted to make big decisions on their own.


If you want to take that 72 hours as an insult to all women everywhere, that is your issue. 

It was previously posted in this thread where counseling was required in some state for a vasectomy, too. 

It doesn't mean you aren't capable of making decisions, it means that every effort is made to have it be an informed decision, in some states more than others. 

Do what you can to make your state's laws to your liking. Drive thru lanes, order the procedure online, whatever works for your state.


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> If you want to take that 72 hours as an insult to all women everywhere, that is your issue.
> 
> It was previously posted in this thread where counseling was required in some state for a vasectomy, too.
> 
> It doesn't mean you aren't capable of making decisions, it means that every effort is made to have it be an informed decision, in some states more than others.
> 
> Do what you can to make your state's laws to your liking. Drive thru lanes, order the procedure online, whatever works for your state.


Don't be obtuse. 
Abortion is legal on a federal level which trumps state law and no states should be throwing up roadblocks because the legislators there don't believe in abortion.
If someone wants a vasectomy toot sweet and hasn't thought about it before hand...more power to him. Glad to have him out of the gene pool.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> No more than I would advocate for throwing an infant into February cold, or refusing to feed her.


Okay. What about women who drink and smoke while pregnant, or otherwise don't take care of themselves? oe engage in risky behavior like jumping horses, bull riding, etc.

How far are you willing to go to make sure that womb is a hospitable place for a fetus?


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Okay. What about women who drink and smoke while pregnant, or otherwise don't take care of themselves? oe engage in risky behavior like jumping horses, bull riding, etc.
> 
> How far are you willing to go to make sure that womb is a hospitable place for a fetus?


Current child endangerment laws should suffice.


----------



## wr

While I am pro choice, I firmly believe that any patient undergoing any medical procedure should be well informed about associated risks and no procedure should be as simple as walking in off the street and making a request but I would be surprised if it is. 

If the discussion on abortion also includes the morning after pill, I don't feel the 72 hour waiting period would be effective.


----------



## MO_cows

basketti said:


> Don't be obtuse.
> Abortion is legal on a federal level which trumps state law and no states should be throwing up roadblocks because the legislators there don't believe in abortion.
> If someone wants a vasectomy toot sweet and hasn't thought about it before hand...more power to him. Glad to have him out of the gene pool.


Aww, gee, your graciousness and goodwill towards your fellow man is just so heart warming........

Federal law usually does trump state law but we have state after state passing marijuana laws in direct violation of federal law. Didn't notice you complaining about that...maybe I just missed it since I'm so obtuse. 

For about the 10th time now, the states have leeway in how they manage abortion, and most other things. There will be differences between the states. I see that as a good thing, one of the best things about our country in fact. And I don't see the 72 hours as a legitimate obstacle to a woman who wants to have an abortion because so many things in our day to day lives take that long or longer to get done anyway. 

Was it the intention to make it an obstacle when the laws were passed? That's entirely possible. But, they failed. And it doesn't have any effect on you anyway, so don't be a buttinski.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> Don't be obtuse.
> Abortion is legal on a federal level which trumps state law and no states should be throwing up roadblocks because the legislators there don't believe in abortion.
> If someone wants a vasectomy toot sweet and hasn't thought about it before hand...more power to him. Glad to have him out of the gene pool.


The Feds cannot dictate to the States, deny them Federal money - Sure, impose their force of law on them, no...


----------



## Lisa in WA

MO_cows said:


> Aww, gee, your graciousness and goodwill towards your fellow man is just so heart warming........
> 
> Federal law usually does trump state law but we have state after state passing marijuana laws in direct violation of federal law. Didn't notice you complaining about that...maybe I just missed it since I'm so obtuse.
> 
> For about the 10th time now, the states have leeway in how they manage abortion, and most other things. There will be differences between the states. I see that as a good thing, one of the best things about our country in fact. And I don't see the 72 hours as a legitimate obstacle to a woman who wants to have an abortion because so many things in our day to day lives take that long or longer to get done anyway.
> 
> Was it the intention to make it an obstacle when the laws were passed? That's entirely possible. But, they failed. And it doesn't have any effect on you anyway, so don't be a buttinski.


I didnt find you particularly gracious either with your remarks about drive thru lane abortions. 
The 72 hour wait is an artificial construct designed to obstruct. If it legitimately takes 72 hours to advise a woman of the risks of the procedure and schedule it then, by all means,, take 72 hours. But if it could be done in 24 hours or in 48 hours because there are openings in the schedule and the woman is properly advised of all risks then 72 hours is bullhockey.

I think I'll abstain from the 7th grade name calling but you go on ahead. You appear to be good at it.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> The Feds cannot dictate to the States, deny them Federal money - Sure, impose their force of law on them, no...


never heard of The Supremacy Clause and Doctrine of Preemption?


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> never heard of The Supremacy Clause and Doctrine of Preemption?


Only when the Federal operates within the bounds of its constitutionally authorized duties. When I searched for Abortion, Waiting Periods and general medical procedures, I found nothing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> When what they do is kill an innocent human life, it is my business.


That's the same *incorrect* answer you always use.
Let's not run in those old circles again.

It's no more your business than it is ISIS's business what religion you follow, although both of you use the same logic (which is to say "because I said so")


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> Only when the Federal operates within the bounds of its constitutionally authorized duties. When I searched for Abortion, Waiting Periods and general medical procedures, I found nothing.


is this supposed to mean something? You said, "The Feds cannot dictate to the States, deny them Federal money - Sure, impose their force of law on them, no..." and you were wrong. You clearly had never heard of the Supremacy Clause and are now scrambling. 
And the feds HAVE stepped in. Here is one instance:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/federal-judge-oks-planned-parenthood-continuing-ab/nn4C2/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Now you are speaking of metaphysics. The DNA, inside the cells of the unborn, is human. That is what science says. So, scientific proof is already there. Beyond that hard, scientific, fact is nothing but a philosophical argument. * Are we to be guided by science or metaphysics*?


You use metaphysics to justify your involvement in someone else's life.
Science would say it's none of your business.

But you know that, and running in circles serves no purpose


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> is this supposed to mean something? You said, "The Feds cannot dictate to the States, deny them Federal money - Sure, impose their force of law on them, no..." and you were wrong. You clearly had never heard of the Supremacy Clause and are now scrambling.
> And the feds HAVE stepped in. Here is one instance:
> 
> http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/federal-judge-oks-planned-parenthood-continuing-ab/nn4C2/


OK... in this particular context, what are you aiming at? Texas, for example is preventing some Abortions from occurring without a ultrasound before the procedure. 

http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/default.shtm

What will happen to Texas if they ignore the Federal "guidelines"?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> To the original post. How is you trying to talk someone out of suicide any different than a doctor trying to talk a woman out of abortion. For that matter, you should be against all efforts, by the police, to stop someone from committing suicide.


A Dr shouldn't be trying to talk a patient into, or out of, any procedure. They are supposed to supply the facts, and their opinion of the outcome of the procedure. A layperson can talk to anyone they want, as long as that person _wants_ to listen to them. That's the key, if the person who's actual business it is wants to talk about their personal life to someone else. 

Why do you think I should be against anything? It's really none of your business, is it?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> There's MORE overweight children in the us than starving ones. I think that's been proven. "Food insecure" is a lib made-up, unverified, no way to track, phrase.


Are you really saying that because there are more overweight kids than "starving" (no one has said there are starving kids in the US) that there shouldn't be food programs? If not, what *are* you saying?


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> No it doesn't prevent choice. It makes sure she is committed to her choice. I had to have "counseling" and there was waiting involved when I had tubal ligation. It took multiple appointments and visits to get rid of a cyst and a mole different times. 72 hours in the grand scheme of things is so insignificant I find it hard to believe how some of you are fixated on it and making it out to be a much bigger deal than it is. Come to think of it, I had to wait 72 hours for my last hair appointment.
> 
> Again, this is regulated is state by state. Work to make things how you want it in YOUR state and let other states do the same.


You still don't understand the difference between a mandatory 72 hour waiting period and the time it takes to get into an appointment, do you?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> OK... in this particular context, what are you aiming at? Texas, for example is preventing some Abortions from occurring without a ultrasound before the procedure.
> 
> http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/default.shtm
> 
> What will happen to Texas if they ignore the Federal "guidelines"?


It seems odd htat you need this kind of thing explained to you. did you not have history in school?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jfk-faces-down-defiant-governor


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> You still don't understand the difference between a mandatory 72 hour waiting period and the time it takes to get into an appointment, do you?


You are not comprehending my take on it and after a dozen attempts to explain it now, I can only conclude you never will. Or is that you don't want to comprehend it, you would just prefer to argue? 

It's a shame when there is full agreement on the big, core issue but some people are so determined to have their way all the way they still have to spew on other people over irrelevant details. 

I don't know what your profession is or was, but it seems a safe bet it wasn't building bridges!


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> It seems odd htat you need this kind of thing explained to you. did you not have history in school?
> 
> http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/jfk-faces-down-defiant-governor


Nice try, Political Gamesmanship, Kennedy won that one as it was written in the 14th amendment thereby making it a Federal Issue.

2. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/tenth-amendment-talking-points/

The Supremacy Clause and Preemption issues are indeed valid but only where the limited scope of the government comes into play.

If it is something that the government is given authority over - sure. Something that the government has no authority over - nada.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If it is something that the government is given authority over - sure. Something that the government has *no authority* over - nada.


You have no authority over the action of others, but you still want that control


----------



## mreynolds

One part of _*Planned parenthood vs Casey*_


_Certain regulations that formerly were not allowed under Roe were deemed constitutional under Casey, including a waiting period and required information to be given to women_

So we all agree abortion is legal and it seems that a waiting period and required information are also legal in the eyes of the SC too as of 1992. Can we move along now?


----------



## Lisa in WA

mreynolds said:


> One part of _*Planned parenthood vs Casey*_
> 
> 
> _Certain regulations that formerly were not allowed under Roe were deemed constitutional under Casey, including a waiting period and required information to be given to women_
> 
> So we all agree abortion is legal and it seems that a waiting period and required information are also legal in the eyes of the SC too as of 1992. Can we move along now?


Can you find that from another source other than Right to Life? They aren't unbiased.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> I'm not saying you have to do anything that goes against your beliefs. It is you trying to stop others from acting on theirs. I don't even have a problem with you acting personally. I do have a problem with government forcing others to act on and promulgate your beliefs.





basketti said:


> Bat puckey. Adults can make their own decisions without a paternalistic government forcing them them to wait. And living with the results of those decisions is part of being a grownup.





mmoetc said:


> I'm not arguing beliefs. I'm arguing governments role in forcing doctors to spread those beliefs. Until then you are free to act on your beliefs. Government shouldn't deny others that same right.





Those were some interesting sentiments expressed within those posts. Pretty much the same sentiment that I have.
Although I have seen other threads involving other controversial topics where the exact opposite was wanted. Several people have been all in favor of the government forcing people to act AGAINST their beliefs.

Maybe it just depends on what "kind" of freedom that is ok to be "allowed"?

Or maybe it has to do with what kind of people it is that want to exercise their freedoms?


----------



## mreynolds

basketti said:


> Can you find that from another source other than Right to Life? They aren't unbiased.


Just look up the case dear. I got it from wiki and not whatever site you mentioned. I have actually been looking in prochoice sites and also in pro civil right sites. All say the same thing. 

Why do you always seem to peg me as this or that. You have got me all figured out huh? 


Its the law. It states that a state can require a waiting period _of at least_ 24 hours. There is the kicker. It doesn't say how long it has to be or can be.


----------



## Lisa in WA

mreynolds said:


> Just look up the case dear. I got it from wiki and not whatever site you mentioned. I have actually been looking in prochoice sites and also in pro civil right sites. All say the same thing.
> 
> Why do you always seem to peg me as this or that. You have got me all figured out huh?
> 
> 
> Its the law. It states that a state can require a waiting period _of at least_ 24 hours. There is the kicker. It doesn't say how long it has to be or can be.


you aren't supposed to take quotes from other sites without giving credit, dear.


----------



## mreynolds

Also don't see in the MO law where it states that a Dr has to try and convince the mother to not get an abortion. Not even seeing where they have to meet with anyone at all for a chat about the abortion. Maybe the OP was stretching the truth a bit on their reporting. 


http://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-abortion-laws.html

Could be wrong as I am just beginning to research it. Something that might be a good thing to a few others instead of jumping the gun. It might cause high blood pressure after all.


----------



## mreynolds

basketti said:


> you aren't supposed to take quotes from other sites without giving credit, dear.


That wasn't a quote dear. I italicized it for emphasis. 

Would you like me to find the case again and then post it? It would not be a bother but I have to go to town soon so it may be a bit later.


----------



## Lisa in WA

mreynolds said:


> That wasn't a quote dear. I italicized it for emphasis.
> 
> Would you like me to find the case again and then post it? It would not be a bother but I have to go to town soon so it may be a bit later.


It actually IS a quote and it comes from only one place: Missouri Right to Life.

Anyone who is curious can pop some quotation marks around it and find it right there. And only there, except now here too since you posted it.
I think my assessment of you last night was accurate. Have a good night, Sparky.


----------



## roadless

For some ,all this bickering and dear stuff would be considered foreplay,. :lookout: just saying....


----------



## mreynolds

basketti said:


> It actually IS a quote and it comes from only one place: Missouri Right to Life.
> 
> Anyone who is curious can pop some quotation marks around it and find it right there. And only there, except now here too since you posted it.
> I think my assessment of you last night was accurate. Have a good night, Sparky.


Hmm, I put it in there and get right to life too. As well as legal and medical sites. One from Harvard at University of Georgia. 


But anyway since we cant fight over the legality of it lets just attack me again. Sounds like your seventh grade name calling is intact too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Several people have been all in favor of the government forcing people to act AGAINST their beliefs.


*Context* matters.
Baking cakes and issuing marriage licenses is different from abortions
The first two entail people simply doing their jobs.
The latter only requires folks to mind their *own* business


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You have no authority over the action of others, but you still want that control


Sorry, My authority for the protection of the defenseless and innocent comes from the Bible and you have no power to trump that authority.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Context* matters.
> Baking cakes and issuing marriage licenses is different from abortions
> The first two entail people simply doing their jobs.
> The latter only requires folks to mind their *own* business


I agree context DOES matter.
If you are the one who OWNS the business, shouldn't you be the one who "minds" it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Sorry, *My authority* for the protection of the defenseless and innocent *comes from the Bible* and you have no power to trump that authority.


That's what I said.
You have *no* authority over others.

You just (incorrectly) *believe* you do


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Those were some interesting sentiments expressed within those posts. Pretty much the same sentiment that I have.
> Although I have seen other threads involving other controversial topics where the exact opposite was wanted. Several people have been all in favor of the government forcing people to act AGAINST their beliefs.
> 
> Maybe it just depends on what "kind" of freedom that is ok to be "allowed"?
> 
> Or maybe it has to do with what kind of people it is that want to exercise their freedoms?


I know what your trying to say but you miss. In this case there is no alternative given to practice one's beliefs except to follow the governments rules. A doctor cannot perform an abortion nor a woman have one legally without the imposition of the three day wait and the government mandated propoganda. In the other cases you allude to the people involved can practice their faith and engage in activities without government intervention or punishment.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I agree context DOES matter.
> If you are the one who OWNS the business, shouldn't you be the one who "minds" it?


And since you own your body shouldn't you be the one who minds it?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the same *incorrect* answer you always use.
> Let's not run in those old circles again.
> 
> It's no more your business than it is ISIS's business what religion you follow, although both of you use the same logic (which is to say "because I said so")


 Ok, I have posted proof that the unborn child is alive. I have also proven that the unborn child is human, by its DNA. The unborn child has committed no crimes, so, it is innocent. 

Is it time to expand Godwin's law to include references to Islamic Fascists as well as the Hitler type?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> And since you own your body shouldn't you be the one who minds it?


 As long as no innocent person dies in the process, of course.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Like I have stated over and over, the fetus is a separate life form, not part of the original. A cancerous tumor, while being part of a human, is not a separate life form. If you want to compare a fetus to a tape worm that is fine. A tape worm is not part of the host, it is a separate life form, the difference is that the fetus is human.


The fetus is only separate once it's removed. Until then just like the tumor it is a life with distinct human DNA getting everything it needs to grow and survive from the being it is attached to. By your definition, until you modified it, they are both human lives.

I really try not to get caught up in arguments about when "life" begins as they are generally as fruitless as this one. Neither of us will change our minds. My question really is why those who often advocate for smaller government and fewer regulations seek an expansion of the government's role here. You've adequately answered. I disagree.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> As long as no innocent person dies in the process, of course.


You might ask others how innocent that life is. I hear they're filled with evil. I'm done.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> The fetus is only separate once it's removed. Until then just like the tumor it is a life with distinct human DNA getting everything it needs to grow and survive from the being it is attached to. By your definition, until you modified it, they are both human lives.
> 
> I really try not to get caught up in arguments about when "life" begins as they are generally as fruitless as this one. Neither of us will change our minds. *My question really is why those who often advocate for smaller government and fewer regulations seek an expansion of the government's role here.* You've adequately answered. I disagree.


 The short answer is that one of the very few valid roles of government is to protect the lives of others. We simply understand that the unborn are living breathing humans and deserve the same rights as every other living breathing human. 

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people. I wouldn't think one so silly as to compare an unborn baby to a cancerous tumor. Perhaps I should revisit my beliefs in that area and be more precise with my definitions next time.

I will leave you with this. If you, or, your family member were having open heart surgery and were placed on a blood bypass machine, would the owner of said machine have the right to walk in, in the middle of the surgery, and insist that the patient be removed from his machine?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> The short answer is that one of the very few valid roles of government is to protect the lives of others. We simply understand that the unborn are living breathing humans and deserve the same rights as every other living breathing human.
> 
> I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people. I wouldn't think one so silly as to compare an unborn baby to a cancerous tumor. Perhaps I should revisit my beliefs in that area and be more precise with my definitions next time.
> 
> I will leave you with this. If you, or, your family member were having open heart surgery and were placed on a blood bypass machine, would the owner of said machine have the right to walk in, in the middle of the surgery, and insist that the patient be removed from his machine?


Thanks for the answer. To be clear, I don't equate a tumor with a fetus. But it does show how strictly biological answers don't provide a full picture of what to be "human" is. 

As for your final question. Under certain circumstance the owner of the machine would have every right to demand immediate possession of a machine he owns. Ask the local repo man.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Thanks for the answer. To be clear, I don't equate a tumor with a fetus. But it does show how strictly biological answers don't provide a full picture of what to be "human" is.
> 
> As for your final question. Under certain circumstance the owner of the machine would have every right to demand immediate possession of a machine he owns. Ask the local repo man.


 Fair enough. Good debate.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Fair enough. Good debate.


And somehow we managed to do it without personal insults and vitriol. Kudos.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Farmerga said:


> Now you are speaking of metaphysics. The DNA, inside the cells of the unborn, is human. That is what science says. So, scientific proof is already there. Beyond that hard, scientific, fact is nothing but a philosophical argument. Are we to be guided by science or metaphysics?


Science also says the unborn child can hear & feel at some points in development. Sucks his/her thumb. Shys away from some stimuli.
Kinda like a newborn. 
'Course some on the left want to be able to kill their newborn up to...2 months of age? Pretty soon it won't be the mantra of "when it takes a breath" but-"when it can talk".


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> The tumor is life. It has its own unique, human DNA. It is by your definition human. Or is there something more to being human?


So do you think a tumor will eventually be a child is left to grow? Essentially that's what you are saying. I find it totally ignorant of what will happen scientifically, to compare the 2.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> So do you think a tumor will eventually be a child is left to grow? Essentially that's what you are saying. I find it totally ignorant of what will happen scientifically, to compare the 2.


Nope. You might wish to go back and read my comments in the context they were written. I understand biology quite well. I also understand that being human is more than biology.


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> You are not comprehending my take on it and after a dozen attempts to explain it now, I can only conclude you never will. Or is that you don't want to comprehend it, you would just prefer to argue?
> 
> It's a shame when there is full agreement on the big, core issue but some people are so determined to have their way all the way they still have to spew on other people over irrelevant details.
> 
> I don't know what your profession is or was, but it seems a safe bet it wasn't building bridges!


You never answered my question- what is the difference between a mandatory hold and waiting to get into an appointment? You compare the two over and over which leads me to believe that you simply don't think there is a difference.

I comprehend things just fine, and feel that any infringement on a woman's right to choose is a slippery slope to ending abortion. Your state has some of the most restrictive anti abortion law in the US, and you seem to applaud the measures. Why?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Irish Pixie said:


> This is a MO state bill, and even the Rep knows it won't go through, but it's an interesting read.
> 
> "You can read the full text of House Bill 1397 here; it sweetly proposes that gun buyers have a 72-hour waiting period imposed upon them, and have to &#8220;confer and discuss with a licensed physician&#8221; and risk factors that might arise &#8220;from the proposed firearm purchase:&#8221;"
> 
> 
> http://theslot.jezebel.com/missouri-state-rep-files-bill-to-put-gun-sales-under-ex-1746030454


There is a 3 day wait in place.
If during that 3 day wait, I was given information and resources (like where to take a shooting class, how to clean and store my weapon, etc) and given information on the laws/my rights, I would be ok with that.

IF they would like to throw in autopsy photo's of folks who were killed by guns, I'd be ok with that too. It's information.
IF they wanted to throw in information on how to protect children from harming themselves AND if I am careless with my weapon, the penalties I would face by law, and psychologically, I would be ok with that too.

I have to wait 3 days anyway.
I wait because they want to make sure I am not a person who is NOT allowed to have a gun.
I wait because they want to make sure I am not making an emotional decision.
I wait because they want to make sure I am not making a decision I am going to regret later in life.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> Sorry, My authority for the protection of the defenseless and innocent comes from the Bible and you have no power to trump that authority.


Do you want to implement biblical law in the US? Just curious.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you want to implement biblical law in the US? Just curious.


How much of the law do you think is patterned to that which is found in the Bible? And to answer your question in a straightforward manner which you do not do very much, Yes, the Laws set down in the New Testament, I would highly recommend.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> How much of the law do you think is patterned to that which is found in the Bible? And to answer your question in a straightforward manner which you do not do very much, Yes, the Laws set down in the New Testament, I would highly recommend.


Not any of it. 

https://www.au.org/church-state/jun...s-law-not-based-on-ten-commandments-law-profs


Lots of scholars believe the Ten Commandments were based on the Code of Hammurabi which predates them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> How much of the law do you think is patterned to that which is found in the Bible? And to answer your question in a straightforward manner which you do not do very much, Yes, the Laws set down in the New Testament, I would highly recommend.


Are you suggesting a christian biblical law such as the muslim sharia law?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Ok, I have posted proof that the unborn child is alive. I have also proven that the unborn child is human, by its DNA. The unborn child has committed no crimes, so, it is innocent.
> 
> Is it time to expand Godwin's law to include references to Islamic Fascists as well as the Hitler type?


All your "proof" doesn't make it your business

Would you accept someone telling you the Koran gives them authority over your life?

It's no different. Playing mind games doesn't change reality. 

It simply attempts to distract attention from things you don't want to admit


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> I agree context DOES matter.
> If you are the one who OWNS the business, shouldn't you be the one who "minds" it?


When you own a woman and her fetus, you can decide anything you like.
This discussion isn't about illegal discrimination by businesses against customers


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Science also says the unborn child can hear & feel at some points in development. Sucks his/her thumb. Shys away from some stimuli.
> Kinda like a newborn.
> 
> '*Course some on the left want to be able to kill their newborn up to...2 months of age?*
> 
> Pretty soon it won't be the mantra of "when it takes a breath" but-"when it can talk".


I'm sure you can provide links to prove that statement.


----------



## mmoetc

I'm sure she's making her usual effort to find them.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> I know what your trying to say but you miss. In this case there is no alternative given to practice one's beliefs except to follow the governments rules. A doctor cannot perform an abortion nor a woman have one legally without the imposition of the three day wait and the government mandated propoganda. In the other cases you allude to the people involved can practice their faith and engage in activities without government intervention or punishment.





mmoetc said:


> And since you own your body shouldn't you be the one who minds it?


According to what happened to them, it sure didn't turn out that way. The gov't law interceded and forced an action that was opposed by the people involved.





Bearfootfarm said:


> When you own a woman and her fetus, you can decide anything you like.
> This discussion isn't about illegal discrimination by businesses against customers





I know what the discussion is about. The OP wanted to know how we felt about a gov't mandated action on what was considered a matter of personal freedom and choice.
I happen to agree with the concept and wondered if that personal freedom was willing to be extended to other matters or just THIS one?

Your own body is about as personal as it gets, but I think one's family, property and businesses would follow close behind.

Before I'm reminded again about which laws already on the books and what they state, I will remind you that it was an objection to a law that started the topic.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> According to what happened to them, it sure didn't turn out that way. The gov't law interceded and forced an action that was opposed by the people involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the discussion is about. The OP wanted to know how we felt about a gov't mandated action on what was considered a matter of personal freedom and choice.
> I happen to agree with the concept and wondered if that personal freedom was willing to be extended to other matters or just THIS one?
> 
> Your own body is about as personal as it gets, but I think one's family, property and businesses would follow close behind.
> 
> Before I'm reminded again about which laws already on the books and what they state, I will remind you that it was an objection to a law that started the topic.


They were never forced to take an action they disagreed with. They have ample opportunity to sell or not sell any item to anyone they choose without government intervention. Those are the facts you conveniently ignore. The doctor has no option but to follow the government dictates.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> They were never forced to take an action they disagreed with. They have ample opportunity to sell or not sell any item to anyone they choose without government intervention. Those are the facts you conveniently ignore. The doctor has no option but to follow the government dictates.


Oh, I don't know about that. I seem to recall the facts and attitudes about gov't force a little differently.....:fussin:


----------



## mmoetc

And I'll ask the same unanswered question. How is that the same actions you claim the government denied the freedom to do are done freely, openly and legally by so many others?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> And I'll ask the same unanswered question. How is that the same actions you claim the government denied the freedom to do are done freely, openly and legally by so many others?


???

I'm not sure what you're asking, it's been a long day, my brain has been working since 3am........

I took that to mean one of two things.

**Either you maintain the gov't did NOT force people to conduct their businesses how, when and with whom, according to newly passed laws/court rulings thereby infringing on their personal choices and freedoms.....

**Or you are saying the gov't and the governed have equal rights to force the other to comply. Tit for tat, IOW.

(Or I'm wrong on both counts, LOL)


I disagree with both assertions, regardless.

I'm simply pointing out how a person will view a law based on whether it infringes THEIR freedom or not.
Easy to get bent when you are the one on the short end of the stick and easy to say let the gov't use force, as long as it doesn't affect you personally.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> ???
> 
> I'm not sure what you're asking, it's been a long day, my brain has been working since 3am........
> 
> I took that to mean one of two things.
> 
> **Either you maintain the gov't did NOT force people to conduct their businesses how, when and with whom, according to newly passed laws/court rulings thereby infringing on their personal choices and freedoms.....
> 
> **Or you are saying the gov't and the governed have equal rights to force the other to comply. Tit for tat, IOW.
> 
> (Or I'm wrong on both counts, LOL)
> 
> 
> I disagree with both assertions, regardless.
> 
> I'm simply pointing out how a person will view a law based on whether it infringes THEIR freedom or not.
> Easy to get bent when you are the one on the short end of the stick and easy to say let the gov't use force, as long as it doesn't affect you personally.


It's the same point I've always made. The government didn't force them to do anything. They freely chose to operate their business as a public accomodation and then refused to follow the laws governing that form of business. They were freely able to operate their business in a way that allowed them to discriminate in any way they wished. The government allows for that also. The choice is theirs to make. The government doesn't force it upon them. Unlike the doctor performing abortions. He must operate under government restrictions and speak government mandated words, whether he believes them or not. He is given no choice.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> It's the same point I've always made. The government didn't force them to do anything. They freely chose to operate their business as a public accomodation and then refused to follow the laws governing that form of business. They were freely able to operate their business in a way that allowed them to discriminate in any way they wished. The government allows for that also. The choice is theirs to make. The government doesn't force it upon them. Unlike the doctor performing abortions. He must operate under government restrictions and speak government mandated words, whether he believes them or not. He is given no choice.


OK, THAT point.
You and I were a few of the ones that found that "loop hole", so to speak.

Yes, that is true, leaving out all the other ramifications like losing/turning in your business license, revising selling policies and advertising and possibly having to relocate. Sure the freedom is still available, somehow, somewhere.

But when the same remedies were offered here again, comply or find another way elsewhere (the patient, not the doctor) the cries of "That's my business, MY choice" were raised.

That's just the observation I made, that's all.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> OK, THAT point.
> You and I were a few of the ones that found that "loop hole", so to speak.
> 
> Yes, that is true, leaving out all the other ramifications like losing/turning in your business license, revising selling policies and advertising and possibly having to relocate. Sure the freedom is still available, somehow, somewhere.
> 
> But when the same remedies were offered here again, comply or find another way elsewhere (the patient, not the doctor) the cries of "That's my business, MY choice" were raised.
> 
> That's just the observation I made, that's all.


And you still miss the point. Across this land businesses that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin and various other affiliations operate openly and legally right next door to businesses that don't. You're right that marketing models have to change. No longer can that business lie and pretend to offer its goods and services to all who they invite in when they don't.

The patient can indeed go elsewhere. But the doctor shouldn't be required to operate contrary to his beliefs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The patient can indeed go elsewhere.


Maybe, maybe not.

If one has insurance your choices are often limited to those "in the system".

Some states have few clinics that offer such services, and it imposes hardships to force anyone to go to a Dr farther away


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> And you still miss the point. Across this land businesses that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, national origin and various other affiliations operate openly and legally right next door to businesses that don't. You're right that marketing models have to change. No longer can that business lie and pretend to offer its goods and services to all who they invite in when they don't.
> 
> The patient can indeed go elsewhere. But the doctor shouldn't be required to operate contrary to his beliefs.


I don't think I missed the point, it was clear about the doctors and gov't interference in their practice, and I agree.
If they break those gov't laws, they could lose their license, get sued and possibly go to jail, all because the gov't stuck its nose in a contract for service between two adults. Either party should have a right to choose and not have to follow guidelines or restrictions that one, or both, don't believe is anybody's business but theirs'.
If it weren't for that pesky license, all would be free.
Of course altering the doctors practice to eliminate that procedure would negate the legal problems, but that isn't fair to the doctor or some of his/her patients either.
The only other option is to go without a license, but that brings in a whole new set of problems.
One would still have options to make a living legally without the license, but it would definitely be a burden to do so.

I think people should be free to make those decisions without gov't interference and threats, don't you?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I don't think I missed the point, it was clear about the doctors and gov't interference in their practice, and I agree.
> If they break those gov't laws, they could lose their license, get sued and possibly go to jail, all because the gov't stuck its nose in a contract for service between two adults. Either party should have a right to choose and not have to follow guidelines or restrictions that one, or both, don't believe is anybody's business but theirs'.
> If it weren't for that pesky license, all would be free.
> Of course altering the doctors practice to eliminate that procedure would negate the legal problems, but that isn't fair to the doctor or some of his/her patients either.
> The only other option is to go without a license, but that brings in a whole new set of problems.
> One would still have options to make a living legally without the license, but it would definitely be a burden to do so.
> 
> I think people should be free to make those decisions without gov't interference and threats, don't you?


We do agree that people should be free to make those decisions. What I can see that you continue to refuse to is that business owners have that freedom today. They operate fully licensed establishments that discriminate. No government dictates who they serve. They must follow all the health, safety and tax laws as their nondiscriminatory neighbors. The government doesn't force the choice of who or what they serve upon them. That choice is made freely by the business owner. The only requirement is consistency. The public establishment must consistently serve everyone, the discriminatory establishment must consistently discriminate. Doctors should have the same freedom to serve their patients without government mandated barriers and speech.

To make your analogy even remotely apt the government must take the power from a business like a restaurant to dictate its menu descriptions and how long a customer must wait for the food. New York and other areas have done this in part with mandatory calorie counts, a practice I also disagree with.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> All your "proof" doesn't make it your business
> 
> Would you accept someone telling you the Koran gives them authority over your life?
> 
> It's no different. Playing mind games doesn't change reality.
> 
> It simply attempts to distract attention from things you don't want to admit


I fail to see how the Koran relates to scientific evidence of life and humanity?

Again, if I see a person trying to kill an infant, child, teenager, or, adult, I will do all I can, legally, to prevent it, the same goes for the unborn. You assertion that it is "none of my business" holds no water. 

What, exactly, do I not want to admit?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *I fail to see *how the Koran relates to scientific evidence of life and humanity?
> 
> Again, if I see a person trying to kill an infant, child, teenager, or, adult, I will do all I can, legally, to prevent it, the same goes for the unborn. You assertion that it is "none of my business" holds no water.
> 
> *What, exactly, do I not want to admit?*


That it's none of your business.
Why must everything be repeated so many times?

If you can't figure out the Koran reference, you need to scroll back and follow the conversation more closely.

Your scientific evidence "proves" something no one has disputed, so it's pointless and has little to do with anything I've said


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That it's none of your business.
> Why must everything be repeated so many times?
> 
> If you can't figure out the Koran reference, you need to scroll back and follow the conversation more closely.
> 
> Your scientific evidence "proves" something no one has disputed, so it's pointless and has little to do with anything I've said


 Well, lucky for us all, you are not King of America. 

Wanting to stop homicide has nothing to do with Islamic Fascism and you know that. 

So, you admit that the unborn are alive and human, yet you support the right to kill them? That sentiment would seem to be more in line with ISIS than anything I have said.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

Farmerga said:


> Well, lucky for us all, you are not King of America.
> 
> Wanting to stop homicide has nothing to do with Islamic Fascism and you know that.
> 
> So, you admit that the unborn are alive and human, yet you support the right to kill them? That sentiment would seem to be more in line with ISIS than anything I have said.


A long time ago in a land far far away there once was a girl who was abused by her spouse.
The conversation would start out "what's for dinner" "meat loaf, mashed potatoes, beans, cornbread"...........but when he was finished with her, she was apologizing for something she didn't even do......because he "gaslit" her by twisting / changing words, to make the conversation mean something different; use language to keep her off balance, and then convince her that SHE SAID 'x-y-z", when she really say "a-b-c".

Convinced she was 'going insane' she sought help from a place that offered free / reduced cost help.
That's where she learned she was being abused, and that abuse is more than black eyes, and broken bones.....

Today, she is so much better! Free from the clutches of her abuser, and able to clearly spot abuse when it happens.......


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Nope. You might wish to go back and read my comments in the context they were written. I understand biology quite well. I also understand that being human is more than biology.


Originally Posted by mmoetc View Post
The tumor is life. It has its own unique, human DNA. It is by your definition human. Or is there something more to being human?


So you didn't say this?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm sure you can provide links to prove that statement.


I have...we had long discussions on the left's publications of a lot of 'scholars' who believe a child is not human til ...some even say 2 yrs. BUt most of these monsters believe you should be able to kill 'it' even after several months of age. 
There were many links.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Farmerga said:


> Well, lucky for us all, you are not King of America.
> 
> Wanting to stop homicide has nothing to do with Islamic Fascism and you know that.
> 
> So, you admit that the unborn are alive and human, yet you support the right to kill them? That sentiment would seem to be more in line with ISIS than anything I have said.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I have...we had long discussions on the left's publications of a lot of 'scholars' who believe a child is not human til ...some even say 2 yrs. BUt most of these monsters believe you should be able to kill 'it' even after several months of age.
> There were many links.


Can you cite the links, please? I remember these discussions, and there _are_ a handful of extremists that support post delivery abortion. However, most people don't support extremists, do they? 

I can state I do not support post delivery abortion for any reason. I know of no one that does.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I'm sure she's making her usual effort to find them.


Do you think that is wrong or are you just trying to be rude/ugly? Do you support the rest of your lib buds who don't post links to their claims? Funny thing is, we'll post 'em then the rest of your ilk won't acknowlege they're wrong.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Originally Posted by mmoetc View Post
> The tumor is life. It has its own unique, human DNA. It is by your definition human. Or is there something more to being human?
> 
> 
> So you didn't say this?


Sure I did. Read the post I responded to. The tumor meets the defintion of human life outlined in that post. Therefor , according to the posters definition, not mine, the tumor must be human. I feel humanness means a bit more than biology. If you have a complaint take it up with the one who posted the definition.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Do you think that is wrong or are you just trying to be rude/ugly? Do you support the rest of your lib buds who don't post links to their claims? Funny thing is, we'll post 'em then the rest of your ilk won't acknowlege they're wrong.


Where are they?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Interesting thing is, many of those same liberals would never stand to killing puppies. If you say someone threw a puppy in the garbage after clubbing it, the odds are very good they will fly off the deep end and organize a parade.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Heritagefarm said:


> Interesting thing is, many of those same liberals would never stand to killing puppies. If you say someone threw a puppy in the garbage after clubbing it, the odds are very good they will fly off the deep end and organize a parade.


Spaying a pregnant *****? Nope, no problem.


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Sure I did. Read the post I responded to. The tumor meets the defintion of human life outlined in that post. Therefor , according to the posters definition, not mine, the tumor must be human. I feel humanness means a bit more than biology. If you have a complaint take it up with the one who posted the definition.


The tumor will never, in any way shape or form, develop into a sentient being. The fetus will. The argument is a non-starter.


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> The tumor will never, in any way shape or form, develop into a sentient being. The fetus will. The argument is a non-starter.


Again. Not my definition.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Again. Not my definition.


 Again, among my posts, I have repeated a very simple phrase, several times, that should, (and did, really) make it clear as to my definition of a human life when it applies to the unborn. That phrase is "separate life form". That would preclude any cancerous growth as a cancerous growth is, in fact, a part of a greater whole life form.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> *I have*...we had long discussions on the left's publications of a lot of 'scholars' who believe a child is not human til ...some even say 2 yrs. *BUt most of these monsters believe you should be able to kill 'it' even after several months of age.*
> There were many links.


Then they should be easy to find again, or you could post links to those threads

Simply repeating the accusations isn't the same as actual proof


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Well, lucky for us all, you are not King of America.
> 
> Wanting to stop homicide has nothing to do with Islamic Fascism and you know that.
> 
> So, you admit that the unborn are alive and human, yet you support the right to kill them? That sentiment would seem to be more in line with ISIS than anything I have said.


Here we go in circles again.
You took the Koran reference totally out of context and you're still running with it, while repeating yourself once more.

Calling abortion "homicide" is incorrect (another fact you refuse to accept)


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Again, among my posts, I have repeated a very simple phrase, several times, that should, (and did, really) make it clear as to my definition of a human life when it applies to the unborn. That phrase is "separate life form". That would preclude any cancerous growth as a cancerous growth is, in fact, a part of a greater whole life form.


Here's a story about "immortal cells" taken from a woman with cervical cancer. They've not been part of any other life form since the 1950's. So they meet the definition of life you posted. They have human DNA. They exist as a "separate life form". They're human, right. Or is being human more than simple biology?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> We do agree that people should be free to make those decisions.
> 
> *What I can see that you continue to refuse to is that business owners have that freedom today. They operate fully licensed establishments that discriminate. No government dictates who they serve. *
> They must follow all the health, safety and tax laws as their nondiscriminatory neighbors.
> *The government doesn't force the choice of who or what they serve upon them. That choice is made freely by the business owner. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only requirement is consistency. The public establishment must consistently serve everyone, the discriminatory establishment must consistently discriminate. Doctors should have the same freedom to serve their patients without government mandated barriers and speech.


The only reason I refuse to admit that, is because it isn't true.
I'm just a little surprised the standard bearers of abortion rights, gay rights, and secular rights haven't come along at some point to correct your statements.
I think they haven't missed these posts, but can't bring themselves to weigh in with their facts like they have in other numerous occasions.
Their silence is deafening.
:whistlin:







mmoetc said:


> To make your analogy even remotely apt the government must take the power from a business like a restaurant to dictate its menu descriptions and how long a customer must wait for the food. New York and other areas have done this in part with mandatory calorie counts, a practice I also disagree with.


Your analogy is much closer, but I wasn't trying for an exact match. I was pointing out that in all matters, there comes a point where the gov't steps in to impose its will based on legislation passed, and will ultimately take away someone's choice.
The only question is, should it consistently remain a private choice, or a gov't mandated one.


----------



## mmoetc

No one needs to come to my defense. Don't want to take a sweat with women? Here's your place. http://russianbathofny.com/facilities/mens-bath-house/. How do they exclude women without breaking the law?

Don't want to golf with them? Here are four places in Chicago you don't have to. http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/men-only-golf-clubs-chicago-162984136.html
What? How does that happen?

The pizza establishment in Indiana violates no law with its refusal to cater gay weddings. Amazing, isn't it?

Religous organizations do it daily. Know any jewish members of the Knights of Columbus?

Discrimination is legally practiced across the land. Even the appellate judge in the bakery case acknowledged it in his decision. 

Once again, the women and doctors have no alternative to follow their conscience. They are required to dispense and hear government mandated anti abortion rhetoric. The three day wait bothers me but not as much as forcing a doctor to say words he may not believe.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Here's a story about "immortal cells" taken from a woman with cervical cancer. They've not been part of any other life form since the 1950's. So they meet the definition of life you posted. They have human DNA. They exist as a "separate life form". They're human, right. Or is being human more than simple biology?
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/


 But they WERE part of her, just because this particular cell line is being kept alive artificially, doesn't change that. An embryo is a separate life form from its creation.

We are almost to the point of keeping a heart alive, outside the body, for extended periods of time. Just because we will be able to do that, doesn't mean that the heart will, suddenly, become a separate life form.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> But they WERE part of her, just because this particular cell line is being kept alive artificially, doesn't change that. An embryo is a separate life form from its creation.
> 
> We are almost to the point of keeping a heart alive, outside the body, for extended periods of time. Just because we will be able to do that, doesn't mean that the heart will, suddenly, become a separate life form.


But the cancerous cells have their own unique DNA. The only difference is the degree of separation. They are both a separate life form from that which they originated from. Embryos in a Petri dish are kept alive artificially. Are they human? What's the difference between them and a cell line? Neither survive on their own. I'm not claiming they're, human. I'm pointing out that by all of your purely biological definitions they are. I think there's more to being human than simply being made of human cells with a DNA profile different than others. I suspect you do to.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here we go in circles again.
> You took the Koran reference totally out of context and you're still running with it, while repeating yourself once more.
> 
> *Calling abortion "homicide" is incorrect (another fact you refuse to accept)[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Lets take the definition of "homicide" and see if it is indeed incorrect to use it when speaking of abortion, or, is it merely uncomfortable.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Homicide occurs when one human being causes the death of another human being.[1] Homicides can be divided into many overlapping types, including murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, killing in war, euthanasia, and execution, depending on the circumstances of the death. These different types of homicides are often treated very differently in human societies; some are considered crimes, while others are permitted or even ordered by the legal system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Ok, the fetus is alive and it is human. Doctors caused the death of that human. (In a "successful" abortion). How is using the word "homicide" wrong? You didn't like the word murder because abortion is legal, well, the word "homicide" takes that into account. I swear, there is no pleasing you people!!!


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go in circles again.
> You took the Koran reference totally out of context and you're still running with it, while repeating yourself once more.
> 
> *Calling abortion "homicide" is incorrect (another fact you refuse to accept)[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Lets take the definition of "homicide" and see if it is indeed incorrect to use it when speaking of abortion, or, is it merely uncomfortable.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, the fetus is alive and it is human. Doctors caused the death of that human. (In a "successful" abortion). How is using the word "homicide" wrong? You didn't like the word murder because abortion is legal, well, the word "homicide" takes that into account. I swear, there is no pleasing you people!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Because we go back to having to accept your definition that the fetus is human. Something I'm not willing to do. I contend that being human means more than being a collection of cells with human DNA.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> But the cancerous cells have their own unique DNA. The only difference is the degree of separation. They are both a separate life form from that which they originated from. Embryos in a Petri dish are kept alive artificially. Are they human? What's the difference between them and a cell line? Neither survive on their own. I'm not claiming they're, human. I'm pointing out that by all of your purely biological definitions they are. I think there's more to being human than simply being made of human cells with a DNA profile different than others. I suspect you do to.


 The embryos, if left to develop naturally, change and grow into a fully functional human, whereas the cell line is will not. The cell line is a dead end, it will never change, adapt, evolve beyond the point of being a cell line. The embryos are simply less developed than you, or, I, but, they are no less human. We are more developed than an infant, but, we are all human. Those cancer cells will not develop as those embryos will.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because we go back to having to accept your definition that the fetus is human. Something I'm not willing to do. I contend that being human means more than being a collection of cells with human DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what is your definition of human?
> 
> I contend that anything, other than the biology, gets into either religion, or, metaphysics and those have no place in our secular law.
Click to expand...


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, what is your definition of human?
> 
> I contend that anything, other than the biology, gets into either religion, or, metaphysics and those have no place in our secular law.
> 
> 
> 
> ETA- I've shown the flaws in biology else you wouldn't have to ask.
> 
> My definition really only matters to me. All of a society's laws require some compromise in individual beliefs vs law. My definition centers around viability. The constitution allows me to have whatever metaphysical belief I wish. The government shouldn't define it for me. The government freely allows you to act on your definition. It doesn't force you to take any action to harm that which you call human.
> 
> Here's a rather weak analogy. I don't think killing another human because he is in your house stealing your possessions is right. In some places the government and law set the bar fairly low for "protecting" what is yours. I don't have to shoot anyone. A law mandating it would be wrong. But punishing you for shooting is equally wrong. The law compromises on where that line is and allows us some freedom to act on our own conscience.
> 
> As I've said, I wish no abortion occurred. It will be interesting in future years when viability is moved ever younger through medical intervention. Will artificial wombs or fetal transplant make abortion a thing of the past, or will it open up a whole new set of problems?
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> ETA- I've shown the flaws in biology else you wouldn't have to ask.
> 
> My definition really only matters to me. All of a society's laws require some compromise in individual beliefs vs law. My definition centers around viability. The constitution allows me to have whatever metaphysical belief I wish. The government shouldn't define it for me. The government freely allows you to act on your definition. It doesn't force you to take any action to harm that which you call human.
> 
> Here's a rather weak analogy. I don't think killing another human because he is in your house stealing your possessions is right. In some places the government and law set the bar fairly low for "protecting" what is yours. I don't have to shoot anyone. A law mandating it would be wrong. But punishing you for shooting is equally wrong. The law compromises on where that line is and allows us some freedom to act on our own conscience.
> 
> As I've said, I wish no abortion occurred. It will be interesting in future years when viability is moved ever younger through medical intervention. Will artificial wombs or fetal transplant make abortion a thing of the past, or will it open up a whole new set of problems?
> 
> 
> 
> It is because I don't understand your resistance to the biological definition is why I ask.
> 
> The viability thing never has held much water with me. To me that would suggest that people can gain and lose their humanity based on their ability to feed themselves and breath on their own. Is a person with a feeding tube and respirator human?
Click to expand...


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is because I don't understand your resistance to the biological definition is why I ask.
> 
> The viability thing never has held much water with me. To me that would suggest that people can gain and lose their humanity based on their ability to feed themselves and breath on their own. Is a person with a feeding tube and respirator human?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no objection to a biological answer. Viability is just another step in the biological process. It's not fundamentally different than differentiating between why an egg or sperm aren't human, why the conjoined cells gain humanity, whether implantation means anything or any of the other biological markers that occur during development. All any of them are is some biological construct. Even your Wiki definition was vague enough to invite question and require further definition on your and others parts. If we cannot agree on a simple definition then the ability to live outside the womb, even with assistance, seems a logical place to offer protections to me.
> 
> The second part of your question is easier. You can't lose humanity once you have it. But even then I've given others permission to pull the plug on my humanity if they find it appropriate.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no objection to a biological answer. Viability is just another step in the biological process. It's not fundamentally different than differentiating between why an egg or sperm aren't human, why the conjoined cells gain humanity, whether implantation means anything or any of the other biological markers that occur during development. All any of them are is some biological construct. Even your Wiki definition was vague enough to invite question and require further definition on your and others parts. If we cannot agree on a simple definition then the ability to live outside the womb, even with assistance, seems a logical place to offer protections to me.
> 
> The second part of your question is easier. You can't lose humanity once you have it. But even then I've given others permission to pull the plug on my humanity if they find it appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see, viability is an ever changing point, as you pointed out. Fertilization is a fixed point. With your definition, what is not human this year may be human next year. With my definition what is human this year will be human next year and for as long as humans exist.
Click to expand...


----------



## Shine

First, I wish to congratulate both of you, FarmerGa and MMOETC. You have placed before us a wonderful example of reasonable discourse. I would hope that others view the give and take manner in which you two are sharing your ideas and see it as a template to model their future posts. 

Well Done!


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, viability is an ever changing point, as you pointed out. Fertilization is a fixed point. With your definition, what is not human this year may be human next year. With my definition what is human this year will be human next year and for as long as humans exist.
> 
> 
> 
> And while I understand that point if view I respectfully disagree with. Even fertilization has its issues. Implantation is no guarantee. Does anything that interferes with that also violate your principles? All points, at some point are arbitrary.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> And while I understand that point if view I respectfully disagree with. Even fertilization has its issues. Implantation is no guarantee. Does anything that interferes with that also violate your principles? All points, at some point are arbitrary.
> 
> 
> 
> As I see fertilization as a fixed point, any thing done, after that, to prevent pregnancy, violates my principles. I am all for pre-fertilization forms of BC.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I see fertilization as a fixed point, any thing done, after that, to prevent pregnancy, violates my principles. I am all for pre-fertilization forms of BC.
> 
> 
> 
> That's wonderful, *for you*
> 
> It's still none of your business what others decide to do.
> 
> Their privacy overrides your "principles"
> 
> ETA: I see the quoting glitch is working well today
Click to expand...


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> As I see fertilization as a fixed point, any thing done, after that, to prevent pregnancy, violates my principles. I am all for pre-fertilization forms of BC.



So it's great that no one is forcing you to violate your principals. 
God bless America!


----------



## Patchouli

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mmoetc*
> _We do agree that people should be free to make those decisions.
> 
> *What I can see that you continue to refuse to is that business owners have that freedom today. They operate fully licensed establishments that discriminate. No government dictates who they serve. *
> They must follow all the health, safety and tax laws as their nondiscriminatory neighbors.
> *The government doesn't force the choice of who or what they serve upon them. That choice is made freely by the business owner. *_
> 
> _
> 
> The only requirement is consistency. The public establishment must consistently serve everyone, the discriminatory establishment must consistently discriminate. Doctors should have the same freedom to serve their patients without government mandated barriers and speech._







farmrbrown said:


> The only reason I refuse to admit that, is because it isn't true.
> I'm just a little surprised the standard bearers of abortion rights, gay rights, and secular rights haven't come along at some point to correct your statements.
> I think they haven't missed these posts, but can't bring themselves to weigh in with their facts like they have in other numerous occasions.
> Their silence is deafening.:whistlin:
> 
> 
> Your analogy is much closer, but I wasn't trying for an exact match. I was pointing out that in all matters, there comes a point where the gov't steps in to impose its will based on legislation passed, and will ultimately take away someone's choice.
> The only question is, should it consistently remain a private choice, or a gov't mandated one.


I agree with mmoetc's posts in this thread. I have to admit though when stuff goes off on rabbit trails like dragging cake bakers into abortion threads I just ignore all of those posts.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> As I see fertilization as a fixed point, any thing done, after that, to prevent pregnancy, violates my principles. I am all for pre-fertilization forms of BC.


And I see anything done to prevent fertilization violates my principles based on the absolute fact that life began at some point in the very distant past. To deliberately deny its natural continuation by any method or during any part of that natural process is wrong.

Aren't you glad you aren't being forced to share my beliefs and conduct yourself accordingly?:icecream:


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> No one needs to come to my defense. Don't want to take a sweat with women? Here's your place. http://russianbathofny.com/facilities/mens-bath-house/. How do they exclude women without breaking the law?
> 
> Don't want to golf with them? Here are four places in Chicago you don't have to. http://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/men-only-golf-clubs-chicago-162984136.html
> What? How does that happen?
> 
> The pizza establishment in Indiana violates no law with its refusal to cater gay weddings. Amazing, isn't it?
> 
> Religous organizations do it daily. Know any jewish members of the Knights of Columbus?
> 
> Discrimination is legally practiced across the land. Even the appellate judge in the bakery case acknowledged it in his decision.
> 
> Once again, the women and doctors have no alternative to follow their conscience. They are required to dispense and hear government mandated anti abortion rhetoric. The three day wait bothers me but not as much as forcing a doctor to say words he may not believe.



*The Russian bath house has women in bikinis walking around and caters to the younger crowd and families as well as the older generation, according to the owner.

*The golf courses are private, not public as I alluded to in the known loophole discussed earlier. 

*The Indiana pizzeria is protected under the Enrolled Senate Act 101 (religious freedom act), an example of one state or jurisdiction having a different law in a different part of the country, like the OP.
It remains to be seen if anyone will challenge that state law in the federal courts.

The other examples also fall into the category of private clubs requiring memberships, not generally open to the public.

Only the pizza place in Indiana was an example of a business that openly discriminates and they are protected by a state law for the time being, not being forced by a government to comply or in violation.

I didn't say you needed defending, but since the chorus was very loud and united when some said, "Mind your own business" I thought they would be consistent either way.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> *The Russian bath house has women in bikinis walking around and caters to the younger crowd and families as well as the older generation, according to the owner.
> 
> *The golf courses are private, not public as I alluded to in the known loophole discussed earlier.
> 
> *The Indiana pizzeria is protected under the Enrolled Senate Act 101 (religious freedom act), an example of one state or jurisdiction having a different law in a different part of the country, like the OP.
> It remains to be seen if anyone will challenge that state law in the federal courts.
> 
> The other examples also fall into the category of private clubs requiring memberships, not generally open to the public.
> 
> Only the pizza place in Indiana was an example of a business that openly discriminates and they are protected by a state law for the time being, not being forced by a government to comply or in violation.
> 
> I didn't say you needed defending, but since the chorus was very loud and united when some said, "Mind your own business" I thought they would be consistent either way.


By definition- if you're going to deny service to any group you aren't "open to the public". You are open only to those you pick and choose. You must therefor operate as a private establishment. You can't have it both ways. The law only requires that you, and you alone, decide which way to have it.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> [/I]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with mmoetc's posts in this thread. I have to admit though when stuff goes off on rabbit trails like dragging cake bakers into abortion threads I just ignore all of those posts.




Well, it did start with the OP comparison to gun rights, an unusual pairing, but a valid one.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> By definition- if you're going to deny service to any group you aren't "open to the public". You are open only to those you pick and choose. You must therefor operate as a private establishment. You can't have it both ways. The law only requires that you, and you alone, decide which way to have it.



Yes.
I know that and agree with you.
And since the doctors' offices are not private establishments and open to the public, I fail to see why you should object to them doing what the law requires, in this case following a waiting period?
:shrug:


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes.
> I know that and agree with you.
> And since the doctors' offices are not private establishments and open to the public, I fail to see why you should object to them doing what the law requires, in this case following a waiting period?
> :shrug:


But why can't the doctor's offices act privately and ignore the three day waiting period and mandatory anti abortion counseling? Other business can ignore the antidiscrimination statutes. Neither the wait nor the counseling serve a health function. An abortion done today will be done under the same circumstances as one three days from now. Why do you insist that the government put words in the doctor's mouth he otherwise wouldn't utter. Should the private golf club be forced to issue a public apology to all they deny entrance.


----------



## mmoetc

By the way. Earlier you said my contention that businesses openly discriminate wasn't true. Now you agree they do. Which is it?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> By the way. Earlier you said my contention that businesses openly discriminate wasn't true. Now you agree they do. Which is it?




Fair enough.
Businesses in Indiana do, at least one.

I wouldn't classify private clubs or social organizations as "businesses" but since some ultimately have financial dealings you can certainly view them as such.
I conceded that exclusion from the beginning, that as a way to get around such laws, they can and do make themselves private clubs. (post #331)
Perhaps doctors can do the same?




farmrbrown said:


> *OK, THAT point.
> You and I were a few of the ones that found that "loop hole", so to speak.*
> 
> Yes, that is true, leaving out all the other ramifications like losing/turning in your business license, revising selling policies and advertising and possibly having to relocate. Sure the freedom is still available, somehow, somewhere.
> 
> But when the same remedies were offered here again, comply or find another way elsewhere (the patient, not the doctor) the cries of "That's my business, MY choice" were raised.
> 
> That's just the observation I made, that's all.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Fair enough.
> Businesses in Indiana do, at least one.
> 
> I wouldn't classify private clubs or social organizations as "businesses" but since some ultimately have financial dealings you can certainly view them as such.
> I conceded that exclusion from the beginning, that as a way to get around such laws, they can and do make themselves private clubs.
> Perhaps doctors can do the same?


They are businesses. They sell goods and services and hopefully turn a profit. A club that discriminates is fundamentally different from the club next door that doesn't in only one way. They limit their membership based on some arbitrary criteria. They aren't open to everyone. Parse it whatever way makes you feel best. I'm done chasing through this particular rabbit hole. The law applies to all doctors and all elective abortions. No exceptions. Why do you think the goverent should tell doctors what to say?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> But why can't the doctor's offices act privately and ignore the three day waiting period and mandatory anti abortion counseling? Other business can ignore the antidiscrimination statutes.


That's a good question. It might be found a legal defense is that the doctor has a "membership" of accepted patients is therefore not "open to the public".:shrug:




mmoetc said:


> Neither the wait nor the counseling serve a health function. An abortion done today will be done under the same circumstances as one three days from now. Why do you insist that the government put words in the doctor's mouth he otherwise wouldn't utter. Should the private golf club be forced to issue a public apology to all they deny entrance.


Let me repeat, *I* would never insist that, the state of Missouri did, and have said they should butt out, along with other places the givernment sticks its nose into.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> That's a good question. It might be found a legal defense is that the doctor has a "membership" of accepted patients is therefore not "open to the public".:shrug:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me repeat, *I* would never insist that, the state of Missouri did, and have said they should butt out, along with other places the givernment sticks its nose into.


The law doesn't really cover the doctor. It covers the procedure itself. It's as if the government dictated the recipe of the cake and it's decoration without exception.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> The law doesn't really cover the doctor. It covers the procedure itself. It's as if the government dictated the recipe of the cake and it's decoration without exception.


That's true.
But if the procedure is conducted between two members of a private club.......

I was thinking about bingo games at various places. Gambling that was otherwise illegal, but permitted by law. 
That's probably written into law as an exception for that "procedure" for certain groups though and wouldn't apply in this case.

Another tangent, I know, lol.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Here's a story about "immortal cells" taken from a woman with cervical cancer. They've not been part of any other life form since the 1950's. So they meet the definition of life you posted. They have human DNA. They exist as a "separate life form". They're human, right. Or is being human more than simple biology?
> 
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/


Read that Very good.

Until you have credible links showing a tumor grows into being a human baby, you're blowin' smoke. And its incorrect smoke.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Read that Very good.
> 
> Until you have credible links showing a tumor grows into being a human baby, you're blowin' smoke. And its ignorant smoke.


And until you read and understand the definition posted and how these cells meet the criteria stated for "human life" your comments are your own brand of "ignorant smoke". I didn't state the definition. I don't think the definition accurately describes "human life". I can prove, using simple logic, that these cells meet every critetia ascribed by the definition. Even you have to add a caveat to make my statement untrue.

Now , about those links you were going to provide?


----------



## Tricky Grama

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

http://www.ieu.uzh.ch/en/staff/postdocs/saner.html

http://americanrtl.org/defending-infanticide-pro-choicers-advocating-killing-babies-even-after-birth

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shocking-case-for-legalizing-infanticide-2012-2

http://watchdogwire.com/florida/201...upports-after-birth-abortions-and-euthanasia/

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/1...anned-parenthood-rep-claims-daniel-greenfield

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/peter-singer-princeton-bioethics-professor-faces-c/


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html
> 
> http://www.ieu.uzh.ch/en/staff/postdocs/saner.html
> 
> http://americanrtl.org/defending-infanticide-pro-choicers-advocating-killing-babies-even-after-birth
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shocking-case-for-legalizing-infanticide-2012-2
> 
> http://watchdogwire.com/florida/201...upports-after-birth-abortions-and-euthanasia/
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/1...anned-parenthood-rep-claims-daniel-greenfield
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/peter-singer-princeton-bioethics-professor-faces-c/


I took 15 minutes out of my life and went through the links. 

The 2nd one is about rain forests. 

Links 1, 3-7 are all opinion pieces about two *extremists* that support infancide, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

Link 8 is about a different *extremist* from Princeton named Peter Singer.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


I could say that your addition of "Have a wonderful day. " comes across to me just as some on here said that "I'll say a prayer for you" is received [with contempt] and is hurtful to me... But, I can just walk right past it and keep on keeping on...

I did want you to know though... 

Maybe someone will report it for being "hateful" - I don't know...

lol

I wish you well... {he said with the best of intentions...}


----------



## Lisa in WA

http://www.snopes.com/after-birth-abortion/


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I could say that your addition of "Have a wonderful day. " comes across to me just as some on here said that "I'll say a prayer for you" is received [with contempt] and is hurtful to me... But, I can just walk right past it and keep on keeping on...
> 
> I did want you to know though...
> 
> Maybe someone will report it for being "hateful" - I don't know...
> 
> lol
> 
> I wish you well... {he said with the best of intentions...}


Obviously you can't "walk right past it and keep on keeping on". 

Report it. I broke no rules, and I'll continue to say it. If you want to "bless me" remember this by Paulo Coelho, "The warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong." I'd have to wonder why _your_ faith is so weak that you'd have to mock my lack of belief? 

G'day.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Obviously you can't "walk right past it and keep on keeping on".
> 
> Report it. I broke no rules, and I'll continue to say it. If you want to "bless me" remember this by Paulo Coelho, "The warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong." I'd have to wonder why _your_ faith is so weak that you'd have to mock my lack of belief?
> 
> G'day.


I only cited it as you were doing the same thing that you accuse others of...

Never accused you of breaking any rules. Just pointing out that as you stated some time ago, you will unashamedly be "ugly" when YOU think others have been "ugly" to you. Perception is all the rage now, If someone offends you, whether or not it was meant to offend you then the utterer MUST be punished. Do you think that is fair? You have used this premise quite effectively in the interest of vilifying others. Just want to know if the "premise" goes both ways. 

Not mocking anything except your purported claim to have been harmed by an innocuous statement. My faith, while not as strong as I would have it is not "weak" by any standards, and most assuredly not by the estimates of one who indicates that they have no faith.

"The warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong." <- This referred to as "running amok"


----------



## Lisa in WA

*******************


----------



## Lisa in WA

shine said:


> "the warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong." <- this referred to as "running amok"


.



????


----------



## Patchouli

Irish Pixie said:


> I took 15 minutes out of my life and went through the links.
> 
> The 2nd one is about rain forests.
> 
> Links 1, 3-7 are all opinion pieces about two *extremists* that support infancide, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.
> 
> Link 8 is about a different *extremist* from Princeton named Peter Singer.


I only read the first one from Slate. I disagree with Minerva and Giubilini. I think the vast majority of people who are pro-choice would also disagree with them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I only cited it as you were doing the same thing that you accuse others of...
> 
> Never accused you of breaking any rules. Just pointing out that as you stated some time ago, you will unashamedly be "ugly" when YOU think others have been "ugly" to you. Perception is all the rage now, If someone offends you, whether or not it was meant to offend you then the utterer MUST be punished. Do you think that is fair? You have used this premise quite effectively in the interest of vilifying others. Just want to know if the "premise" goes both ways.
> 
> Not mocking anything except your purported claim to have been harmed by an innocuous statement. My faith, while not as strong as I would have it is not "weak" by any standards, and most assuredly not by the estimates of one who indicates that they have no faith.
> 
> "The warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong." <- This referred to as "running amok"


I suggest two things- 1) If you don't like the way I post put me on ignore, or just don't read what I write. 2) You obviously don't understand the Paulo Coelho quote. Google is your friend. 

I do have a question for you tho, are you consuming adult beverages? 

SlÃ¡inte


----------



## Lisa in WA

Patchouli said:


> I only read the first one from Slate. I disagree with Minerva and Giubilini. I think the vast majority of people who are pro-choice would also disagree with them.


It sounds like it was strictly an academic exercise in which they expected it to stay in the bioethicist/philospher community and be challenged. A tad naive of them...


_When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate.

&#8220;Why not? You should have known!&#8221; people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments. Indeed, as Professor Savulescu explains in his editorial, this debate has been going on for 40 years.

We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise. It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y. We expected that other bioethicists would challenge either the premise or the logical pattern we followed, because this is what happens in academic debates. And we believed we were going to read interesting responses to the argument, as we already read a few on this topic in religious websites.

However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, people&#8217;s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.

Moreover, we did not suggest that after birth abortion should be permissible for months or years as the media erroneously reported.

If we wanted to suggest something about policy, we would have written, for example, a comment related the Groningen Protocol (in the Netherlands), which is a guideline that permits killing newborns under certain circumstances (e.g. when the newborn is affected by serious diseases). But we do not discuss guidelines in the paper. Rather we acknowledged the fact that such a protocol exists and this is a good reason to discuss the topic (and probably also for publishing papers on this topic).

However, the content of (the abstract of) the paper started to be picked up by newspapers, radio and on the web. What people understood was that we were in favour of killing people. This, of course, is not what we suggested. This is easier to see when our thesis is read in the context of the history of the debate.

We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened. We apologise to them, but we could not control how the message was promulgated across the internet and then conveyed by the media. In fact, we personally do not agree with much of what the media suggest we think. Because of these misleading messages pumped by certain groups on the internet and picked up for a controversy-hungry media, we started to receive many emails from very angry people (most of whom claimed to be Pro-Life and very religious) who threatened to kill us or which were extremely abusive. Prof Savulescu said these responses were out of place, and he himself was attacked because, after all, &#8220;we deserve it.&#8221;

We do not think anyone should be abused for writing an academic paper on a controversial topic.

However, we also received many emails from people thanking us for raising this debate which is stimulating in an academic sense. These people understood there was no legal implication in the paper. We did not recommend or suggest anything in the paper about what people should do (or about what policies should allow).

We apologise for offence caused by our paper, and we hope this letter helps people to understand the essential distinction between academic language and the misleading media presentation, and between what could be discussed in an academic paper and what could be legally permissible.

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva
_


----------



## Patchouli

Ah that makes a whole lot more sense! They were just victims of the outrage machine.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest two things- 1) If you don't like the way I post put me on ignore, or just don't read what I write. 2) You obviously don't understand the Paulo Coelho quote. Google is your friend.
> 
> I do have a question for you tho, are you consuming adult beverages?
> 
> SlÃ¡inte


You like suggesting that people put you on ignore - sad. I only posted something that purposed that someone might be offended by the way you added an innocuous wish to have a great day. My offering to you some time ago was not in the same line of thought, it was done as something that I understood to be a kind gesture, you used it to accuse me of something malicious when it was not, I wondered if you would understand the similarities and chastise yourself, guess not. You must be above that type of thing. 

Running Amok fits. I can see the exact parallel. 

Adult beverage?? Why would you ask such a thing if it was not to belittle me? Why so much hatred? IF Mountain Dew Kick Starts are an adult beverage, well then - yes I am.


----------



## Evons hubby

I grew up on a farm and was observing births at a pretty early age. I was pretty much convinced that most critters drop the afterbirth shortly after the baby is born, thus eliminating the need to abort it. :whistlin:


----------



## mreynolds

Patchouli said:


> Ah that makes a whole lot more sense! They were just victims of the outrage machine.


Yes but the net is the new outrage machine. Nothing gets by these days.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html
> 
> http://www.ieu.uzh.ch/en/staff/postdocs/saner.html
> 
> http://americanrtl.org/defending-infanticide-pro-choicers-advocating-killing-babies-even-after-birth
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
> 
> http://www.businessinsider.com/the-shocking-case-for-legalizing-infanticide-2012-2
> 
> http://watchdogwire.com/florida/201...upports-after-birth-abortions-and-euthanasia/
> 
> http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/1...anned-parenthood-rep-claims-daniel-greenfield
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/16/peter-singer-princeton-bioethics-professor-faces-c/


One out of eight isn't bad. It's not exactly good, either. Of course, I never disputed there were those with extreme beliefs on infanticide. I never said I agreed with them. I largely don't. I never asked for links proving they exist because I knew they did. I also know the discussion is largely philosophical and they and the very small minority of those who agree with them aren't marching in front of hospital maternity wards or petitioning congress to make those beliefs law and impose upon the rest of us a requirement to act on those beliefs. Quite different from those on the other side who have what I consider to be equally extreme beliefs.

Now, about those links I asked for.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Were you OK with your reps spending a bunch of money to get one of the strictest abortion laws in the country enacted? Just curious...


I'm good with it...I think three days to really think about having your son or daughters brains vacuumed out of their head is a good idea...I mean...if you really have to think about it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> I'm good with it...I think three days to really think about having your son or daughters brains vacuumed out of their head is a good idea...I mean...if you really have to think about it.


If you don't like abortion, don't have one. I don't think that is a hard concept to understand.


----------



## edcopp

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


Some women.


----------



## Irish Pixie

edcopp said:


> Some women.


Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying. Care to explain?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry. I don't understand what you're saying. Care to explain?


I think she may be saying that some women will never have one regardless of the circumstance. May be wrong but that's the way I took it.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> If you don't like abortion, don't have one. I don't think that is a hard concept to understand.


Where did you get I don't like abortion? Because of the description? Never assume anything. I said three days before butchering your child is a good idea.


----------



## Patchouli

elevenpoint said:


> Where did you get I don't like abortion? Because of the description? Never assume anything. I said three days before butchering your child is a good idea.





> Originally Posted by *elevenpoint*
> _I'm good with it...I think three days to really think about having your son or daughters brains vacuumed out of their head is a good idea...I mean...if you really have to think about it._


If you are for abortion you must be a very conflicted person!


----------



## mmoetc

elevenpoint said:


> Where did you get I don't like abortion? Because of the description? Never assume anything. I said three days before butchering your child is a good idea.


Then we can direct all those attacks addressed to "abortion lovers" to your inbox? Thanks.


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Where did you get I don't like abortion? Because of the description? Never assume anything. *I said three days before butchering your child is a good idea.*


Well, this is a big clue. :facepalm: Oh, and this too: 



elevenpoint said:


> I'm good with it...I think three days to really think about having your son or daughters brains vacuumed out of their head is a good idea...I mean...if you really have to think about it.


I don't think I assumed anything.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> I only cited it as you were doing the same thing that you accuse others of...
> 
> Never accused you of breaking any rules. Just pointing out that as you stated some time ago, you will unashamedly be "ugly" when YOU think others have been "ugly" to you. Perception is all the rage now, If someone offends you, whether or not it was meant to offend you then the utterer MUST be punished. Do you think that is fair? You have used this premise quite effectively in the interest of vilifying others. Just want to know if the "premise" goes both ways.
> 
> Not mocking anything except your purported claim to have been harmed by an innocuous statement. My faith, while not as strong as I would have it is not "weak" by any standards, and most assuredly not by the estimates of one who indicates that they have no faith.
> 
> "The warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong." <- This referred to as "running amok"


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> One out of eight isn't bad. It's not exactly good, either. Of course, I never disputed there were those with extreme beliefs on infanticide. I never said I agreed with them. I largely don't. I never asked for links proving they exist because I knew they did. I also know the discussion is largely philosophical and they and the very small minority of those who agree with them aren't marching in front of hospital maternity wards or petitioning congress to make those beliefs law and impose upon the rest of us a requirement to act on those beliefs. Quite different from those on the other side who have what I consider to be equally extreme beliefs.
> 
> Now, about those links I asked for.


There are many many more references on this. It disgusts & upsets me to read about it.

Your previous taunts for me to provide links certainly suggested there wasn't a movement on the left to allow infanticide. There certainly IS!

While it's nice that you aren't FOR this atrocity, it speaks volumes about those who support the side who is.

One link on singer was to show his stature in the left community. 

When this was discussed last summer, I posted links on several other well "respected" scholars holding the same views. I've intentionally forgotten the names of those VILE folks so didn't get those links.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mmoetc said:


> Then we can direct all those attacks addressed to "abortion lovers" to your inbox? Thanks.


Abortion lovers? Did not know there were people like that. I got to get off the farm a bit more often.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> There are many many more references on this. It disgusts & upsets me to read about it.
> 
> *Your previous taunts for me to provide links certainly suggested there wasn't a movement on the left to allow infanticide. There certainly IS!*
> 
> While it's nice that you aren't FOR this atrocity, it speaks volumes about those who support the side who is.
> 
> One link on singer was to show his stature in the left community.
> 
> When this was discussed last summer, I posted links on several other well "respected" scholars holding the same views. I've intentionally forgotten the names of those VILE folks so didn't get those links.


You do like to post assumptions on your part that have no basis in truth. I guess I could respond that there is a move by conservatives to murder all doctors that perform abortions. Just as realistic as your post.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> There are many many more references on this. It disgusts & upsets me to read about it.
> 
> Your previous taunts for me to provide links certainly suggested there wasn't a movement on the left to allow infanticide. There certainly IS!
> 
> While it's nice that you aren't FOR this atrocity, it speaks volumes about those who support the side who is.
> 
> One link on singer was to show his stature in the left community.
> 
> When this was discussed last summer, I posted links on several other well "respected" scholars holding the same views. I've intentionally forgotten the names of those VILE folks so didn't get those links.


If it bothers you so much I suggest you quit reading about it, especially since most of your links about this are just a rehash of previous links. Links which it has been proven have little or no relationship to the views or feelings of the researchers you and the links try to ascribe them. It would probably be in your best interest to quit reading misinformation. I know it would be in mine to not have to wade through such drivel. Or at least use your own stated standards and disavow the misleading links.

As to my taunts. You still haven't addressed them by offering links to the information I requested. Here or in countless other threads. I do appreciate your effort, though.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, this is a big clue. :facepalm: Oh, and this too:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I assumed anything.


Yes...you got me...one of my flaws is that you never guess where I stand.


----------



## Patchouli

elevenpoint said:


> Yes...you got me...one of my flaws is that you never guess where I stand.


It's not a lack of guessing power. You can't seem to stand behind your own assertions is the real problem.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Patchouli said:


> It's not a lack of guessing power. You can't seem to stand behind your own assertions is the real problem.


No...they were crystal clear...if you missed them...read them over and over again...


----------



## Alaska

Im pro choice. BUT life is the right choice. The only choice if I get to choose. 
When does life begin? I cant make that decision. So I will play it safe and say at conception.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Your previous taunts for me to provide links certainly suggested there wasn't *a movement *on the left to allow infanticide. There certainly IS!


Your links didn't show evidence of any "movement"
They mainly talked about *two* individuals, if they even mentioned the topic at all


----------



## Irish Pixie

elevenpoint said:


> Yes...you got me...one of my flaws is that you never guess where I stand.


Nope. The problem is that you want someone to guess rather than simply state your stance on abortion. 

Have fun playing games by yourself.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

elevenpoint said:


> No...they were crystal clear...if you missed them...read them over and over again...


Let me guess.
You said something, the usual suspects DEMANDED a link (something they will say "i'm not your google mommy" if you ask THEM for a link) THEN when you do provide a link (or 2, 3, 4...) they say "not reliable, not true, too right wing, it's a hoax, etc.......

(big deep sigh)

Second verse, same as the first.......


----------



## Irish Pixie

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Let me guess.
> You said something, the usual suspects DEMANDED a link (something they will say "i'm not your google mommy" if you ask THEM for a link) THEN when you do provide a link (or 2, 3, 4...) they say "not reliable, not true, too right wing, it's a hoax, etc.......
> 
> (big deep sigh)
> 
> Second verse, same as the first.......


Perhaps you should read the thread and _then_ post.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. The problem is that you want someone to guess rather than simply state your stance on abortion.
> 
> Have fun playing games by yourself.


Well here...let me help you out a bit this morning...the statements I made should be effectively construed as a person that abhors the act of abortion...now in the future when you stumble upon statements like I made you won't be confused.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> If you don't like abortion, don't have one. I don't think that is a hard concept to understand.





elevenpoint said:


> Where did you get I don't like abortion? Because of the description? Never assume anything. I said three days before butchering your child is a good idea.





Irish Pixie said:


> Well, this is a big clue. :facepalm: Oh, and this too:
> I don't think I assumed anything.





elevenpoint said:


> Well here...let me help you out a bit this morning...the statements I made should be effectively construed as a person that abhors the act of abortion...now in the future when you stumble upon statements like I made you won't be confused.


Got it. You were playing games. There are people that like that sort of thing.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Got it. You were playing games. There are people that like that sort of thing.


You mean people that post a title...then the post itself has nothing to do with it? Yes...some do that.


----------



## ninny

Doctors cause more deaths than guns...

.


----------

