# No violations for Planned Parenthood



## Irish Pixie

*HHS to Congress: No violations of fetal tissue laws*

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...-tissue-laws-at-hhs-121410.html#ixzz3j5zm3I75

âCurrently, we know of no violation of these laws in connection with the research done at our agencies,â Jim Esquea, assistant secretary for legislation at HHS, wrote in a letter to Sens. Joni Ernst and Roy Blunt, obtained by POLITICO. âFurthermore â¦ we have confirmed that HHS researchers working with fetal tissue obtained the tissue from non-profit organizations that provided assurances to us that they are in compliance with all applicable legal requirements.

Very little federal research is done with fetal tissue, but it has come under scrutiny since an anti-abortion group earlier this summer began releasing undercover videos alleging that Planned Parenthood was trafficking in fetal tissue and organs. Planned Parenthood has denied that, saying it facilitates legal tissue donation at a few of its locations.


----------



## Farmerga

Don't worry everyone. The companies and the researchers assure us that they have done nothing wrong. There was no investigation, just "assurances" from some of those involved in the trafficking of human parts, that they didn't break the law.

Soon it will evolve like the Clinton e-mail saga. It starts with "we didn't break the law" , then "we didn't knowingly brake the law". Then some underling will be fired for breaking the law.


----------



## arabian knight

Ya just like the no violations at the VA, no violations at the IRS, no violations in Hitlary's emails, no violations in the Iran 100's of billions of dollars free give away to known terrorists who hate the US - sure, no violations - by the way did you get to keep your doctor or your insurance policy? does anyone of the 21 million unemployed Americans get a "shovel ready job"? no of course not because Obama and his entire administration are liars. And this is just another one of them.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Don't worry everyone. The companies and the researchers assure us that they have done nothing wrong. There was no investigation, just "assurances" from some of those involved in the trafficking of human parts, that they didn't break the law.
> 
> Soon it will evolve like the Clinton e-mail saga. It starts with "we didn't break the law" , then "we didn't knowingly brake the law". Then some underling will be fired for breaking the law.


I never expected anything other than "it's a lie!" from the pro unborn. 

I believe this is just the first of many that will show the Center for Medical Progress lied and misled. I hope they're charged for illegal recording as well.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> I never expected anything other than "it's a lie!" from the pro unborn.
> 
> I believe this is just the first of many that will show the Center for Medical Progress lied and misled. I hope they're charged for illegal recording as well.


Anyone with reading comprehension at sixth grade level who read the transcripts of those videos already knows the Center for Medical Progress not only misled the public but outright lied about their content.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Anyone with reading comprehension at sixth grade level who read the transcripts of those videos already knows the Center for Medical Progress not only misled the public but outright lied about their content.


I was going to use "prove" inside of "show" but I realized that there would never be enough proof to turn the snapped shut mind of the pro unborn. Ever. It will become a vast left wing conspiracy, urban legend, or whatever.


----------



## Farmerga

I didn't speak to the validity of the videos, which, at best show a callous and disturbed attitude towards killing the unborn. I find it laughable that assurances can take the place of investigation. Although, that attitude would speed up the justice system a great deal. 

Think of it.

"We have assurances, from the suspect, that he didn't kill anyone, so, the investigation will end today."


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I didn't speak to the validity of the videos, which, at best show a callous and disturbed attitude towards killing the unborn. I find it laughable that assurances can take the place of investigation. Although, that attitude would speed up the justice system a great deal.
> 
> Think of it.
> 
> "We have assurances, from the suspect, that he didn't kill anyone, so, the investigation will end today."


Do you know what the assurances are? For all you know it could be signed consent forms, research documentation, and signed affidavits, right?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I was going to use "prove" inside of "show" but I realized that there would never be enough proof to turn the snapped shut mind of the pro unborn. Ever. It will become a vast left wing conspiracy, urban legend, or whatever.


 As I have said before, the only thing the videos have done, thus far, is to put the issue of abortion towards the front of many mines. The facts of abortion, without the alleged law braking, are disturbing enough.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> As I have said before, the only thing the videos have done, thus far, is to put the issue of abortion towards the front of many mines. The facts of abortion, without the alleged law braking, are disturbing enough.


If that's true you are the first of the pro unborn to not take the bait and believe the videos were the absolute truth. The rest of them ate it up like candy.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you know what the assurances are? For all you know it could be signed consent forms, research documentation, and signed affidavits, right?


 Come on, you know exactly what happened. They called the researchers and/or companies up and asked if they had broken the law,(apparently, just the ones who are involved in Federal research, a very small portion of the total) to which they assured them that no law was broken. Looking at documentation would rise to the level of an investigation.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> If that's true you are the first of the pro unborn to not take the bait and believe the videos were the absolute truth. The rest of them ate it up like candy.


 I haven't watched any of the videos. I didn't need convincing and I am not in a position to investigate the allegations, so, they are irrelevant to me.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> As I have said before, the only thing the videos have done, thus far, is to put the issue of abortion towards the front of many mines. The facts of abortion, without the alleged law braking, are disturbing enough.


Agreed, abortion is distasteful to many.... Usually those who do not need one. However they are legal.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Come on, you know exactly what happened. They called the researchers and/or companies up and asked if they had broken the law,(apparently, just the ones who are involved in Federal research, a very small portion of the total) to which they assured them that no law was broken. Looking at documentation would rise to the level of an investigation.


I don't know that and neither do you. It went to Congress on Friday, we'll see what happens.


----------



## J.T.M.

Farmerga said:


> I didn't speak to the validity of the videos, which, at best *show a callous and disturbed attitude towards killing the unborn.* "


This ^^^^^ I watched about 3 mins. of the first one and that was all I needed to see. 

My wifes first attempt at photo shopping


----------



## Evons hubby

J.T.M. said:


> This ^^^^^ I watched about 3 mins. of the first one and that was all I needed to see.
> 
> My wifes first attempt at photo shopping


How very appropriate to this discussion! For whatever reason someone opted to put Charles Manson in the group of serial killers, to my knowledge he was never even placed at the scene of any murder, much less charged of actually committing any murders. His "crime" was saying to one of those involved "if you are going to do something do it right". He was also guilty of sleeping with more than one woman at the same time.... Some of whom happened to have daddies in positions of power.
It really is ironic the his name would come up in another discussion where no proof of any crime has been brought forward... Just accusations intended to convict in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Irish Pixie said:


> If that's true you are the first of the pro *unborn* to not take the bait and believe the videos were the absolute truth. The rest of them ate it up like candy.


That's interesting, you're use of the term unborn. In common usage it would mean the opposite of born. Born what? Baby perhaps? Are you finally in agreement that the subject of the procedure is other than a "clump of cells"?

That's okay, there's nothing wrong with being pro-baby - born or unborn.


----------



## Evons hubby

Ozarks Tom said:


> That's interesting, you're use of the term unborn. In common usage it would mean the opposite of born. Born what? Baby perhaps? Are you finally in agreement that the subject of the procedure is other than a "clump of cells"?
> 
> That's okay, there's nothing wrong with being pro-baby - born or unborn.


Pull out your websters... You just might find that an "unborn" baby is a fetus. Last I heard most folks hold brother Webster pretty high when it comes to meanings of words.


----------



## J.T.M.

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How very appropriate to this discussion! For whatever reason someone opted to put Charles Manson in the group of serial killers, to my knowledge he was never even placed at the scene of any murder, much less charged of actually committing any murders. His "crime" was saying to one of those involved "if you are going to do something do it right". He was also guilty of sleeping with more than one woman at the same time.... Some of whom happened to have daddies in positions of power.
> It really is ironic the his name would come up in another discussion where no proof of any crime has been brought forward... Just accusations intended to convict in the court of public opinion.


well aren't you mr hip and edgy ....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Ozarks Tom said:


> That's interesting, you're use of the term unborn. In common usage it would mean the opposite of born. Born what? Baby perhaps? Are you finally in agreement that the subject of the procedure is other than a "clump of cells"?
> 
> That's okay, there's nothing wrong with being pro-baby - born or unborn.


I use the term pro unborn because to me that's what the anti abortion contingent are. They care little or nothing for the child after it's born. I am, and always will be, pro choice. I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body, and neither do you. 

Nope, the subject of the procedure is a fetus, I'll also agree that it is a "clump of cells."


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Agreed, abortion is distasteful to many.... Usually those who do not need one. However they are legal.


Lethal injections are legal in some states ,but if it takes that person a extra five minuets to kick off there is heck to pay . But it is ok to kill just almost born with a hand ax :awh: Why not kill the woman and let the child live maybe it would make better decisions :clap:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Sawmill Jim said:


> Lethal injections are legal in some states ,but if it takes that person a extra five minuets to kick off there is heck to pay . But it is ok to kill just almost born with a hand ax :awh: Why not kill the woman and let the child live maybe it would make better decisions :clap:


Huh? Hand ax? Kill the woman? Lethal injection? I hope I don't understand what you're trying to say.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sawmill Jim said:


> Why not kill the woman and *let the child live* maybe it would make better decisions :clap:


How many of those are you currently raising, and how many more will you take?


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many of those are you currently raising, and how many more will you take?


Unless you care to tell how many abortions you are personally paying for out of your own pocket since you support them this is a silly question.


----------



## Evons hubby

Sawmill Jim said:


> Lethal injections are legal in some states ,but if it takes that person a extra five minuets to kick off there is heck to pay . But it is ok to kill just almost born with a hand ax :awh: Why not kill the woman and let the child live maybe it would make better decisions :clap:


That kind of thinking is why women get to make their own decisions.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh? Hand ax? Kill the woman? Lethal injection? I hope I don't understand what you're trying to say.


Unfortunately I am afraid you do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Unfortunately I am afraid you do.


The "pro unborn" bunch are scary.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Unless you care to tell how many abortions you are personally paying for out of your own pocket since you support them this is a silly question.


Those procedures are being paid for.

I've paid for every one I've had

Who is going to pay for all those orphans?

Also, I've never once said I "support" abortions

I've clearly stated multiple times *I support people minding their own business *and letting those with a personal involvement make their own decisions.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> The facts of abortion, without the alleged law braking, are disturbing enough.


That's what I thought this was about all along. The subject matter of the videos is disturbing to many, but there were no allegations of PP operating outside of the law.


----------



## Ozarks Tom

Nevada said:


> That's what I thought this was about all along. The subject matter of the videos is disturbing to many, but there were no allegations of PP operating outside of the law.


What universe are you living in? There are allegations of criminal acts concerning every video released so far. I'm betting they're saving the best/worst for last.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Ozarks Tom said:


> What universe are you living in? There are allegations of criminal acts concerning every video released so far. I'm betting they're saving the best/worst for last.


There was a lot of hype, misinformation, leading questions and insinuations, but there was no real proof of anything illegal, and the later videos seem to have less real information than the first.

This is all politics as usual with no real substance


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know that and neither do you. It went to Congress on Friday, we'll see what happens.



HERE IS THE REPLY THUS FAR FROM.CONGRESS​
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...rom-planned-parenthood-make-note-of-last-one/





The committee requested Richards provide seven items to Congress by August 28. Most of the requested information pertains to Planned Parenthood&#8217;s use of federal funding.

Item five requested that the abortion-provider provide a list of the 50 highest-paid employees. Item six requested a list of the &#8220;independently incorporated affiliates&#8221; that the organization supports, in addition to contact information.

The last requested piece of information requires Planned Parenthood to note &#8220;what procedures, services, or other medical treatments are available only or exclusively at a Planned Parenthood affiliate or health center that are covered by either a state&#8217;s Medicaid program or a health plan sold via a state exchange or HealthCare.gov under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.&#8221;


&#8220;Do not include services or procedures that could otherwise be provided by a private health care provider,&#8221; the letter added.

The House Oversight Committee also sent a similar letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burewell.


----------



## Evons hubby

Anyone can make allegations, as evidenced by the taped interviews. Facts and or evidence becomes a bit trickier. There was no evidence in those videos to support any of the allegations made. Discussing a distasteful situation over a drink and a snack is not illegal.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many of those are you currently raising, and how many more will you take?


Get something straight . Any I conceived I raised and I raised one by my self after trading his mother half of what the sale of our house brought . 
There is a long lost concept if you can't raise them don't breed em ,some should try it .:awh:


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh? Hand ax? Kill the woman? Lethal injection? I hope I don't understand what you're trying to say.


You don't remember the guy on death row where they botched his injection while killing him ? They raised more cane than a pig under a gate .:duel:


----------



## Evons hubby

Sawmill Jim said:


> Get something straight . Any I conceived I raised and I raised one by my self after trading his mother half of what the sale of our house brought .
> There is a long lost concept if you can't raise them don't breed em ,some should try it .:awh:


That sounds good on paper, but like communism it lacks a bit when put into practice in the real world.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That sounds good on paper, but like communism it lacks a bit when put into practice in the real world.


Yea if the Gov would quit rewarding lazy and stupid a lot of things would fix it's self . When a 16 year old can get a abortion with out telling anyone and a 63 year old man has to show ID to buy a beer the world is screwed up big time . :grumble::grumble:


----------



## Nevada

Ozarks Tom said:


> What universe are you living in? There are allegations of criminal acts concerning every video released so far. I'm betting they're saving the best/worst for last.


The problem was that nobody disputed the small amount paid for tissue (under $100), so there was no credible allegation of profit to PP.


----------



## poppy

As to PP's violations, someday they will have to answer for them.


----------



## kasilofhome

100 here a 100 there.

One baby HUMAN

4 limbs.. CAN I HEAR 25, 25, I got 25 can I hear 30.
Sold 30 time 4= 120 please.

Hold on we have liver.. this divide 3 sets of tissue.. highest bidder can take all or first pick starting bid 75... Sold 120..are you taking all three or.. all ok ...that's 360

We still have brain, heart, and lung... so stick around..

Next up we have a 22 week old. Ok the head got crushed but there are still some good parts


----------



## WildernesFamily

Irish Pixie said:


> The "pro unborn" bunch are scary.


The "anti unborn" are even scarier.

And that report is just a lot of nothing. There was no investigation, so how can they say no wrong was done?


----------



## Patchouli

You can not run a medical clinic that receives government funding without inspections. Google Joint Commission. Every one of those clinics have been thoroughly inspected paperwork and all every couple of years at minimum. So when they were asked if they had violated any laws they did actually have paper work and accreditation they could pull out to prove they were not breaking any.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Patchouli said:


> You can not run a medical clinic that receives government funding without inspections. Google Joint Commission. Every one of those clinics have been thoroughly inspected paperwork and all every couple of years at minimum. So when they were asked if they had violated any laws they did actually have paper work and accreditation they could pull out to prove they were not breaking any.


Paper work don't mean a thing it's the under the table deals that no one sees . I think most would call that a front .Pretty sorry book keeper if they can't make things look they way they want them to :happy:


----------



## Patchouli

Sawmill Jim said:


> Paper work don't mean a thing it's the under the table deals that no one sees . I think most would call that a front .Pretty sorry book keeper if they can't make things look they way they want them to :happy:


You have obviously never been through a Joint Commission inspection. We are talking about the disposal of medical waste and you can't just fudge some book keeping on it. 

Simple fact is they were never doing anything illegal. The videos proved it. They tried every way they could to get PP to admit to wrong doing or lead them along into saying something wrong and it never happened. The only thing they accomplished was provoking the outrage they wanted from the pro-life crowd, the squeamish and those ignorant of how medical facilities and research work.


----------



## kasilofhome

Jolly seems to have a background on medical research.

Fyi, plan parenthood has not been cleared and more than Hillary has been cleared... I know she's told everyone she never did anything wrong.... too.... but that's not good enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Sawmill Jim said:


> Get something straight . Any I conceived I raised and I raised one by my self after trading his mother half of what the sale of our house brought .
> There is a long lost concept *if you can't raise them don't breed em* ,some should try it .:awh:


That's a great theory that's been proven not to work in real life.

If you're going to demand the mothers be killed and the babies allowed to live, they have to be provided for by someone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> As to PP's violations, someday they will have to answer for them.


That's one theory, although I'm not sure who you think a business will "answer to".

Those who produced the videos seem to have a lot to answer for also


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WildernesFamily said:


> The "anti unborn" are even scarier.
> 
> And that report is just a lot of nothing. There was* no investigation*, so how can they say no wrong was done?


You seem pretty convinced there were "crimes" committed, based on "no investigation".

History has shown that when PP has been investigated for similar allegations in the past, no evidence has been found.

There is no reason to think this time will be different


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Patchouli said:


> You have obviously never been through a Joint Commission inspection. We are talking about the disposal of medical waste and you can't just fudge some book keeping on it.
> 
> Simple fact is they were never doing anything illegal. The videos proved it. They tried every way they could to get PP to admit to wrong doing or lead them along into saying something wrong and it never happened. The only thing they accomplished was provoking the outrage they wanted from the pro-life crowd, the squeamish and those ignorant of how medical facilities and research work.


It is a great comfort to know they keep up with abortions better than they do nukes . It would appear they need to put those folks in charge of nukes to as many have just diapered :goodjob:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Jolly seems to have a background on medical research.
> 
> Fyi, *plan parenthood has not been cleared *and more than Hillary has been cleared... I know she's told everyone she never did anything wrong.... too.... but that's not good enough.


Actually several of them have been cleared
It would be more accurate to say no violations have been proven:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned...ht-over-antiabortion-groups-videos-1439850374



> Four states find *no violations of fetal-tissue laws*, and Obama administration warns three others seeking to cut funding


----------



## popscott

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know that and neither do you. It went to Congress on Friday, we'll see what happens.



https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...4-JC-JJ-to-Richards-PP-Planned-Parenthood.pdf

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...rom-planned-parenthood-make-note-of-last-one/

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/17/...to-planned-parenthood-selling-aborted-babies/


The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of Health and Human Services, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to &#8220;support transactions involving fetal tissue.&#8221;


----------



## JJ Grandits

So if I'm Pro-Life can they be Anti-Life?

I kind of like that. "The Anti-Life crowd is celebrating the death of millions of children. There will be parades, games and fun for everyone". I'm surprised they are not trying to make abortion retroactive. 
At least, I don't think they are.


----------



## popscott

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually several of them have been cleared
> It would be more accurate to say no violations have been proven:
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned...ht-over-antiabortion-groups-videos-1439850374


I see reading your own links don't apply here... It's a great link.... If you subscribe.... 


"""""Quote:
Four states find no violations of fetal-tissue laws, and Obama administration warns three others seeking to cut funding """" 

But I do see the Dictator Obama administration hard at work bullying 3 other states that do not bow down to the "great ones" ways.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...4-JC-JJ-to-Richards-PP-Planned-Parenthood.pdf
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...rom-planned-parenthood-make-note-of-last-one/
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/17/...to-planned-parenthood-selling-aborted-babies/
> 
> 
> The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was to know if the Obama administration, via the Department of *Health and Human Services*, provided any federal grants to Planned Parenthood that ultimately went to pay for the sales of aborted baby body parts and if they were used by Planned Parenthood to âsupport transactions involving fetal tissue.â


That's already been answered in the OP:



> âCurrently, we know of *no violation of these laws* in connection with the research done at our agencies,â Jim Esquea, assistant secretary for legislation at *HHS*, wrote in a letter to Sens. Joni Ernst and Roy Blunt, obtained by POLITICO. âFurthermore â¦ we have confirmed that HHS researchers working with fetal tissue obtained the tissue from non-profit organizations that provided assurances to us that they are in compliance with all applicable legal requirements.


There's nothing illegal about doing the research, and only three states allow the donation of fetal tissues, so it wouldn't take long at all to confirm.


----------



## popscott

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem pretty convinced there were "crimes" committed, based on "no investigation".


You seem pretty convinced there were NO "crimes" committed, based on "no investigation".



Bearfootfarm said:


> That's already been answered in the OP:
> There's nothing illegal about doing the research, and only three states allow the donation of fetal tissues, so it wouldn't take long at all to confirm.


But the OP starts with the first line as...
* The Obama administration saysâ¦. *
So now the committee gets to look into thisâ¦.. We are at the beginning of an investigation, not the end, and because the Great Obama Administration âsaysâ does not make it so.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> HERE IS THE REPLY THUS FAR FROM.CONGRESS​


That's not a reply. It's a request for additional information. 

Did you think that Congress wouldn't need further information?


----------



## Irish Pixie

WildernesFamily said:


> The "anti unborn" are even scarier.
> 
> And that report is just a lot of nothing. There was no investigation, so how can they say no wrong was done?


Did you miss the part about how it was sent to Congress and additional information was requested? I'll bet you did...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> You can not run a medical clinic that receives government funding without inspections. Google Joint Commission. Every one of those clinics have been thoroughly inspected paperwork and all every couple of years at minimum. So when they were asked if they had violated any laws they did actually have paper work and accreditation they could pull out to prove they were not breaking any.


I was doing my internship at a hospital when the Joint Commission came in over a patient violation. The hospital lost its accreditation. 

The JCAH is serious. http://www.jointcommission.org/


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish.... did you reply to my comment?

I believe so. Congress is looking into the issue.. Well, with just a glance congress see something odd. They handle the money... so, they want to see if maybe the money could be better spent on other things...


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Irish.... did you reply to my comment?
> 
> I believe so. Congress is looking into the issue.. Well, with just a glance congress see something odd. They handle the money... so, they want to see if maybe the money could be better spent on other things...


You can read anything you want into the wording of the request. It's still a request for additional information that was totally expected.


----------



## Farmerga

Some, on the pro-abortion side, ask the question "how many of these babies would we take care of if abortion were illegal" The answer is "as many as are there and need our help". Many of us may not want the welfare state expanded, but, just because we don't want the inept government to do it, doesn't mean we don't want it done. That is the common straw man.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Some, on the pro-abortion side, ask the question "how many of these babies would we take care of if abortion were illegal" The answer is "as many as are there and need our help". Many of us may not want the welfare state expanded, but, just because we don't want the inept government to do it, doesn't mean we don't want it done. That is the common straw man.


And yet there are kids waiting to be adopted, even without adding an extra million or so per year.

It's easy to talk about what *could* be done, but it's not happening, so why think it will change?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> I see reading your own links don't apply here... It's a great link.... If you subscribe....
> 
> 
> """""Quote:
> Four states find no violations of fetal-tissue laws, and Obama administration warns three others seeking to cut funding """"
> 
> But I do see the Dictator Obama administration hard at work bullying 3 other states that do not bow down to the "great ones" ways.


It let me read it the first time I went to the site.
It's not hard for you to find another source with the same report now that I gave you the terms to search for.

Instead of the silly name calling, you could be looking for useful information


----------



## kasilofhome

Ok so the best course is murdering... is that your position?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Some, on the pro-abortion side, ask the question "how many of these babies would we take care of if abortion were illegal" The answer is "as many as are there and need our help". Many of us may not want the welfare state expanded, but, just because we don't want the inept government to do it, doesn't mean we don't want it done. That is the common straw man.


BS.  In my opinion conservatives, for the most part, want government programs gone. They whine, cry, and have hissy fits over food programs for kids and you want to add more mouths. And you want them to donate voluntarily...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Ok so the best course is murdering... is that your position?


The best choice is minding your own business and letting others do the same


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet there are kids waiting to be adopted, even without adding an extra million or so per year.
> 
> It's easy to talk about what *could* be done, but it's not happening, so why think it will change?


 But those kids are not starving, are they? They have a roof. They are fed, are they not? Sure, older kids and kids with disabilities are a more difficult than healthy babies. (BTW the vast majority of "new" children would be healthy babies), but, they are not now starving in the streets. They have a chance at life.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> BS.  In my opinion conservatives, for the most part, want government programs gone. They whine, cry, and have hissy fits over food programs for kids and you want to add more mouths. And you want them to donate voluntarily...


 
It has been shown time and time again that Conservatives tend to give more, voluntarily, than do "Progressives". So, yes. If a need is seen, I fully expect Conservatives to step up, as they always do. The government is not equipped, or, competent enough to provide such benefits for children, in an efficient manner.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> But those kids are not starving, are they? They have a roof. They are fed, are they not? Sure, older kids and kids with disabilities are a more difficult than healthy babies. (BTW the vast majority of "new" children would be healthy babies), but, they are not now starving in the streets. They have a chance at life.


There's no reason to believe there will suddenly be a huge new demand for minority babies. 

There have never been enough willing to adopt to take all those available, and it's naive to think that will ever change.

The ones most likely to be "starving in the streets" are all the welfare mothers who won't get abortions but keep having kids


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> The best choice is minding your own business and letting others do the same


 Just curious, would you have said the same to Harriet Tubman, if you had been alive in the 1850's. Serious question as many of the same arguments, used to defend abortion, were used to defend slavery. (it is legal, the SCOTUS has ruled...., the subject is not fully human, etc.)

Believe me, this is not meant as a jab. I know it will look like one, but, you must understand that, to a anti-abortionist, abortion is a vile and horrid practice that has resulted in the deaths of millions of human beings. We can no more "mind our own business" about it that the abolitionists could mind their own business about the plight of the slave.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no reason to believe there will suddenly be a huge new demand for minority babies.
> 
> There have never been enough willing to adopt to take all those available, and it's naive to think that will ever change.
> 
> The ones most likely to be &quot;starving in the streets&quot; are all the welfare mothers who won't get abortions but keep having kids


 Healthy babies have always been in demand, regardless of color. This demand will only grow as those, in the minority community, become more affluent and we increasingly leave our racist past behind.


----------



## painterswife

Healthy and babies being the operative words. That really says it all.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Healthy and babies being the operative words. That really says it all.


 
Out of the hundreds of thousands of abortions, performed every year, the vast majority of them are healthy pregnancies and would have resulted in a healthy baby. We tend not to kill an entire town because one or two has the flu. If a woman would have had an abortion, surely she would be willing to give up the child, through adoption, if abortions were not available.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> It has been shown time and time again that Conservatives tend to give more, voluntarily, than do "Progressives". So, yes. If a need is seen, I fully expect Conservatives to step up, as they always do. The government is not equipped, or, competent enough to provide such benefits for children, in an efficient manner.


_If_ that's true, why all the hissy fits about government programs that put some of the cost on "progressives"? I know "conservatives give more" has been posted over and over but that doesn't make it true. Plus, IIRC, it's based on church tithing which isn't really voluntary, it's expected.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> BS.  In my opinion conservatives, for the most part, want government programs gone. They whine, cry, and have hissy fits over food programs for kids and you want to add more mouths. And you want them to donate voluntarily...


Bingo... here's your gold star and the pat on the back affirmation you seem to need....

Correct knowing the true role of government does make it easy to see the pork piles in the name of helping a need.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Out of the hundreds of thousands of abortions, performed every year, the vast majority of them are healthy pregnancies and would have resulted in a healthy baby. We tend not to kill an entire town because one or two has the flu. If a woman would have had an abortion, surely she would be willing to give up the child, through adoption, if abortions were not available.


History doesn't prove that, DIY abortions were more prevalent than adoptions, to the detriment of women. Although I will concede that it was probably based on the stigma of an unwed mother, without the stigma there _may_ be more inclination to carry to term.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> _If_ that's true, why all the hissy fits about government programs that put some of the cost on "progressives"? I know "conservatives give more" has been posted over and over but that doesn't make it true. Plus, IIRC, it's based on church tithing which isn't really voluntary, it's expected.


 
Because, with government, it is not voluntary. If you don't "give", a government goon will take. Sure tithing is voluntary, the Church has absolutely no legal power to force you to give. 

As to the validity of the claim that conservatives give more, on average, than liberals all I can do is provide this: 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

It is not the only article on the subject.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Just curious, would you have said the same to Harriet Tubman, if you had been alive in the 1850's. Serious question as many of the same arguments, used to defend abortion, were used to defend slavery. (it is legal, the SCOTUS has ruled...., the subject is not fully human, etc.)
> 
> Believe me, this is not meant as a jab. I know it will look like one, but, you must understand that,* to a anti-abortionist, abortion is a vile and horrid practice* that has resulted in the deaths of millions of human beings. We can no more "mind our own business" about it that the abolitionists could mind their own business about the plight of the slave.


The slavery comparison has been done to death.
Forcing your will on another *is *slavery

Abortions have been done as long as there have been humans, and that is not going to change no matter what you think about it. 

The best way to get through life is to not attempt to control everyone else, and just work on yourself.

It should be obvious not everyone agrees with your views, and you can't force them on anyone


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Healthy babies have always been in demand, regardless of color. This demand will only grow as those, in the minority community, become more affluent and we increasingly leave our racist past behind.


Meanwhile, back in the *real* world.............


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> History doesn't prove that, DIY abortions were more prevalent than adoptions, to the detriment of women. Although I will concede that it was probably based on the stigma of an unwed mother, without the stigma there _may_ be more inclination to carry to term.


 It is true that stigma is a powerful motivator and that particular stigma was more powerful than most.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Out of the hundreds of thousands of abortions, performed every year, *the vast majority of them are healthy pregnancies and would have resulted in a healthy baby*. We tend not to kill an entire town because one or two has the flu. If a woman would have had an abortion, surely she would be willing to give up the child, through adoption, if abortions were not available.


Between 30 and 50% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage

History has shown when abortions are illegal, they still happen at the same rates, and more mothers will die from complications

All this has been covered multiple times in multiple threads over the last few weeks, and still the emotional misinformation is repeated.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> The slavery comparison has been done to death.
> Forcing your will on another *is *slavery
> 
> Abortions have been done as long as there have been humans, and that is not going to change no matter what you think about it.
> 
> The best way to get through life is to not attempt to control everyone else, and just work on yourself.
> 
> It should be obvious not everyone agrees with your views, and you can't force them on anyone


 The reason it has been done to death is that it is a valid comparison. Look at what you wrote. Take out the word "Abortions" and replace with "Slavery", your statement is still true. 

Slavery is illegal, however, slavery still exists, even in the U.S.. Should be repeal the 13th amendment and just "mind our own business"?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Because, with government, it is not voluntary. If you don't "give", a government goon will take. Sure tithing is voluntary, the Church has absolutely no legal power to force you to give.
> 
> As to the validity of the claim that conservatives give more, on average, than liberals all I can do is provide this:
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
> 
> It is not the only article on the subject.


Seven year old link and the information obtained is older than that. You (collective you) need new material. 

Exactly, as taxes are not voluntary everyone with enough income to be taxed will contribute, conservative and liberal alike. If conservatives don't like sharing the load now (based on your outdated article they give more) how will they like giving significantly more even _if_ it is voluntary? That's assuming that conservatives really do give more and I don't think they do.

Churches are kicking out members that don't tithe so perhaps it's not as voluntary as you think. http://wsls.com/2015/08/17/92-year-old-georgia-woman-kicked-out-of-church-for-not-tithing/


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Healthy and babies being the operative words. That really says it all.


Yes, a good portion of them will be born drug addicted and with medical issues. Plus ongoing mental health issues, so healthy is an operative word.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Between 30 and 50% of all pregnancies result in miscarriage
> 
> History has shown when abortions are illegal, they still happen at the same rates, and more mothers will die from complications
> 
> All this has been covered multiple times in multiple threads over the last few weeks, and still the emotional misinformation is repeated.


 Yes, and among the pregnancies, that end in miscarriage, I bet that abortions are performed on almost none of them. No, my claim stands. The vast majority of aborted pregnancies are done on healthy pregnancies. 

As Irish Pixie has pointed out, the stigma, for unwed mothers, is almost gone now, so, I am confident that far fewer women would risk death to get an illegal abortion. 

History also shows that if you don't have a law requiring horse owners to have poop catching bags affixed to south end of their horses, our city streets fill with tons of horse poop. I somehow doubt that that would be true if these laws were repealed today.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Seven year old link and the information obtained is older than that. You (collective you) need new material.
> 
> Exactly, as taxes are not voluntary everyone with enough income to be taxed will contribute, conservative and liberal alike. If conservatives don't like sharing the load now (based on your outdated article they give more) how will they like giving significantly more even _if_ it is voluntary? That's assuming that conservatives really do give more and I don't think they do.
> 
> Churches are kicking out members that don't tithe so perhaps it's not as voluntary as you think. http://wsls.com/2015/08/17/92-year-old-georgia-woman-kicked-out-of-church-for-not-tithing/


 Well, the trend likely still holds. There is no evidence to the contrary 

One case of a church kicking out a woman for not tithing makes tithing not voluntary? Did the Church throw her in jail? Did they take her home. Did they garnish her SS check? I have lived in Georgia all of my life and I have never heard of anyone being thrown out of a church because they didn't tithe. It may happen, from time to time, but, it is rare and this woman need only go down the street and attend another church.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Yes, and among the pregnancies, that end in miscarriage, *I bet* that abortions are performed on almost none of them. No, my claim stands. The vast majority of aborted pregnancies are done on healthy pregnancies.
> 
> As Irish Pixie has pointed out, the stigma, for unwed mothers, is almost gone now, so, I am confident that far fewer women would risk death to get an illegal abortion.
> 
> *History also shows that if you don't have a law requiring horse owners to have poop catching bags affixed to south end of their horses, our city streets fill with tons of horse poop. I somehow doubt that that would be true if these laws were repealed today*.


Now you're just guessing about statistics and rambling about horse poop and ignoring documented facts


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're just guessing about statistics and rambling about horse poop and ignoring documented facts


Well, I can't find any documentation on the number of abortions performed on women who miscarried, likely because it doesn't happen. I also can't find any data on the number of executions of people who died of natural causes. I suspect for the same reason. 

Well, history did show that my "ramblings about horse poop" were correct.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Well, *I can't find any documentation* on the number of abortions performed on women who miscarried, likely because it doesn't happen. I also can't find any data on the number of executions of people who died of natural causes. I suspect for the same reason.
> 
> Well, history did show that my "ramblings about horse poop" were correct.


History shows the facts about abortions aren't likely to change.

If you want to talk about executions and horse poop, that would be another thread

Luckily, I can find documentation:



> Approximately 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion.[10][18] Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies.


Most abortions happen in the first trimester, as do most miscarriages, so one cannot say all abortions would result in "healthy babies" if not performed:



> Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[30] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[24] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo.[31]
> 
> Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[32] 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester.[33]


----------



## kasilofhome

Membership churches need To hold business meeting and members vote. But no meeting is valid unless a certain percentage of members are at the meeting.

Having inflated membership numbers causes to mandate more member on the rolls to attend.

Purging of rolls is needed...just imagine all those dead democrats could finally rest in peace if they did not have to vote every few years.

Each church sets it own rules...standards for members. This is up to the voting members to set the standards.

So, it was noted in your link that beyond not tithing she was not attending..

Well, lack of involvement over time is common reason for purging. The notice is sent at our church to those we have not hear from. Some people move, or have to deal with family out of state. Or work locations change.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> History shows the facts about abortions aren't likely to change.
> 
> If you want to talk about executions and horse poop, that would be another thread
> 
> Luckily, I can find documentation:
> 
> 
> 
> Most abortions happen in the first trimester, as do most miscarriages, so one cannot say *all* abortions would result in "healthy babies" if not performed:


 The data you found doesn't speak to the number of abortions performed on women who miscarried. Hint: If the woman has miscarried, performing an abortion is impossible. (just to be clear you don't perform a spontaneous abortion, or, miscarriage, those are natural.) 

Also, I didn't say ALL would result in healthy babies, I said the vast majority.


----------



## poppy

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, a good portion of them will be born drug addicted and with medical issues. Plus ongoing mental health issues, so healthy is an operative word.



The same thing can be said of all births. Sooner or later all of them will will have medical issues and many will become addicted to something during their lives. Should we therefore just kill all babies?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> The data you found *doesn't speak to the number of abortions performed on women who miscarried.* Hint: If the woman has miscarried, performing an abortion is impossible. (just to be clear you don't perform a spontaneous abortion, or, miscarriage, those are natural.)
> 
> Also, I didn't say ALL would result in healthy babies, *I said the vast majority*.


That's because only you has said that at all.

I said 30-50% of pregnancies *end in miscarriage*. You added the rest

It does show that there's a good chance if the abortions hadn't been done they could have miscarried anyway, so there is no way to determine if they would have gone full term as you claim.

You keep making the claims, but showing nothing to support them.

The actual numbers show that only 50-70% of pregnancies result in a birth, so your "vast majority" claims are more guesswork


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's because only you has said that at all.
> 
> I said 30-50% of pregnancies *end in miscarriage*. You added the rest
> 
> It does show that there's a good chance if the abortions hadn't been done they could have miscarried anyway, so there is no way to determine if they would have gone full term as you claim.
> 
> You keep making the claims, but showing nothing to support them.
> 
> The actual numbers show that only 50-70% of pregnancies result in a birth, so your "vast majority" claims are more guesswork


 From your previous quote: (Bold added for emphasis) 
"Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[30] *The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception*."

So, the vast majority of the miscarriages occur prior to the women even knowing they were pregnant. That means that abortion wouldn't have been an issue in the vast majority of those cases. So, if we take out most of those, as irrelevant to the issue, we are left with, mostly healthy pregnancies, that are ended by abortion, it could even be said that the vast majority of those pregnancies are healthy and would end with a healthy baby.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> I never expected anything other than "it's a lie!" from the pro unborn.
> 
> I believe this is just the first of many that will show the Center for Medical Progress lied and misled. I hope they're charged for illegal recording as well.


Pro unborn?
You are anti-unborn?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> From your previous quote: (Bold added for emphasis)
> "Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[30] *The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception*."
> 
> So, the vast majority of the miscarriages occur prior to the women even knowing they were pregnant. That means that abortion wouldn't have been an issue in the vast majority of those cases.
> 
> So, if we take out most of those, as irrelevant to the issue,* we are left with, mostly healthy pregnancies,* that are ended by abortion, *it could even be said that the vast majority of those pregnancies are healthy and would end with a healthy baby*.


Again you're repeating claims without providing any supporting data.

None of your speculation is going to decrease the number of abortions nor increase the number of adoptions.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again you're repeating claims without providing any supporting data.
> 
> None of your speculation is going to decrease the number of abortions nor increase the number of adoptions.



By your own information, 30 to 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage, the VAST MAJORITY of which occur prior to knowledge of the pregnancy, so, it stands to reason that the majority of abortions end a healthy pregnancy because the VAST MAJORITY of unhealthy pregnancies have already ended naturally.


----------



## Patchouli

Sawmill Jim said:


> It is a great comfort to know they keep up with abortions better than they do nukes . It would appear they need to put those folks in charge of nukes to as many have just diapered :goodjob:


Joint commission is not run by the Federal government. It is an independent certifier and the government accepts their certifications.


----------



## Patchouli

popscott said:


> You seem pretty convinced there were NO "crimes" committed, based on "no investigation".
> 
> 
> 
> But the OP starts with the first line as...
> * The Obama administration saysâ¦. *
> So now the committee gets to look into thisâ¦.. We are at the beginning of an investigation, not the end, and because the Great Obama Administration âsaysâ does not make it so.


 Well Congressional committees are fond of their pointless, tax payer money wasting. I am sure we will have as many exercises in futility as we have with Benghazi.


----------



## Patchouli

Farmerga said:


> Some, on the pro-abortion side, ask the question "how many of these babies would we take care of if abortion were illegal" The answer is "as many as are there and need our help". Many of us may not want the welfare state expanded, but, just because we don't want the inept government to do it, doesn't mean we don't want it done. That is the common straw man.


Really? Then explain why we still have tons of children in foster care right now because nobody will step up and take them. Most state foster systems are overwhelmed as is, you really think they can handle another million babies a year? It's not a straw man when the facts today support it.


----------



## Farmerga

Patchouli said:


> Really? Then explain why we still have tons of children in foster care right now because nobody will step up and take them. Most state foster systems are overwhelmed as is, you really think they can handle another million babies a year? It's not a straw man when the facts today support it.


 
Read what you wrote. If they are in foster care, someone has stepped up, have they not? A few things. Babies, of any color are more simple to adopt out than older children. Without the option of abortion, there will likely be less pregnancy. Not all mothers would give up their children. 

A way to do some real fixing is to fix the broken adoption system. The legal fees and overly invasive and expensive "home studies" discourage many.

Again, why should race or economic situation be used in the justification for killing someone? (not that you did, but, it is common among the pro-abortion crowd.)


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Read what you wrote. If they are in foster care, someone has stepped up, have they not? A few things. Babies, of any color are more simple to adopt out than older children. Without the option of abortion, there will likely be less pregnancy. Not all mothers would give up their children.
> 
> A way to do some real fixing is to fix the broken adoption system. The legal fees and overly invasive and expensive "home studies" discourage many.
> 
> Again, why should race or economic situation be used in the justification for killing someone? (not that you did, but, it is common among the pro-abortion crowd.)


If they won't take the older children they don't deserve the babies. If they can't deal with the legal hoops and the costs now how will they deal with them when their are more children to adopt.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> If they won't take the older children they don't deserve the babies. If they can't deal with the legal hoops and the costs now how will they deal with them when their are more children to adopt.


 So, rather than find a way to save untold thousands of children, you would stick with the status quo and let the unborn be crushed in abortion facilities? How cold is that? It costs upwards of $50,000 to adopt a baby and that is over a sort period of time, and there is still a waiting list for healthy babies. Those, who start the process are not guaranteed a child. Why not simplify the process? It is overly costly and intrusive. I know, I have been through it.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> So, rather than find a way to save untold thousands of children, you would stick with the status quo and let the unborn be crushed in abortion facilities? How cold is that? It costs upwards of $50,000 to adopt a baby and that is over a sort period of time, and there is still a waiting list for healthy babies. Those, who start the process are not guaranteed a child. Why not simplify the process? It is overly costly and intrusive. I know, I have been through it.


So solve the problem with adoption before you add more children to the waiting list. Those older children should be adopted before one baby is.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So solve the problem with adoption before you add more children to the waiting list. Those older children should be adopted before one baby is.


 To be clear, the babies are not on the waiting list, the prospective parents are. Older children are often not available for adoption anyway as they are still claimed by the birth parents and are in the system waiting for their parents to get their act together.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> To be clear, the babies are not on the waiting list, the prospective parents are. Older children are often not available for adoption anyway as they are still claimed by the birth parents and are in the system waiting for their parents to get their act together.


Yes, that is why we see children on the news begging for someone to adopt them. There are about 20,000.00 children aging out of the system every year that don't get adopted. There are over 300,000.00 children in the foster care system. Over 100,000.00 can be adopted.


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> So, rather than find a way to save untold thousands of children, you would stick with the status quo and let the unborn be crushed in abortion facilities? How cold is that? It costs upwards of $50,000 to adopt a baby and that is over a sort period of time, and there is still a waiting list for healthy babies. Those, who start the process are not guaranteed a child. Why not simplify the process? It is overly costly and intrusive. I know, I have been through it.


Money is the overriding motivation for abortion. That being the case, would conservatives be open to taking financial responsibility for these kids?


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> Money is the overriding motivation for abortion. That being the case, would conservatives be open to taking financial responsibility for these kids?


 I can't speak for all, but, I have given much to such causes. The children will be taken care of.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Yes, that is why we see children on the news begging for someone to adopt them. There are about 20,000.00 children aging out of the system every year that don't get adopted. There are over 300,000.00 children in the foster care system. Over 100,000.00 can be adopted.


 As I stated. Most are unavailable for adoption. The costs and intrusions are prohibitive for many who would otherwise adopt them. All of those things are not sufficient cause to execute the excess children.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> As I stated. Most are unavailable for adoption. The costs and intrusions are prohibitive for many who would otherwise adopt them. All of those things are not sufficient cause to execute the excess children.


130,000.00 available and waiting. 20,000.00 aging out of the system every year. Solve that problem before you try to add hundreds of thousands more.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Nevada said:


> Money is the overriding motivation for abortion. That being the case, would conservatives be open to taking financial responsibility for these kids?


The reasons that a woman may have an abortion are many and varied. Money is only one of those reasons. Let's not reduce what is an agonizing decision to merely money.


----------



## kasilofhome

Farmerga said:


> As I stated. Most are unavailable for adoption. The costs and intrusions are prohibitive for many who would otherwise adopt them. All of those things are not sufficient cause to execute the excess children.


Many children are stuck in foster care till parental rights can be severed.

I have seen that take four years with out the bio parent even fighting to have their rights protected.....


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> 130,000.00 available and waiting. 20,000.00 aging out of the system every year. Solve that problem before you try to add hundreds of thousands more.


 Again, those 20,000, who age out of the system, are still alive as are the 130,000 waiting. (eating, breathing, going to school, learning, sleeping in a house, etc.) Again, how is it moral to kill the "excess children"? 
I agree that there is much room for improvement, but, I am not prepared to kill the excess because of that fact.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Many children are stuck in foster care till parental rights can be severed.
> 
> I have seen that take four years with out the bio parent even fighting to have their rights protected.....


Yes 200.000.00 that are not available to adopt but still 130,000.00 waiting and begging for a home with loving parents.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Again, those 20,000, who age out of the system, are still alive as are the 130,000 waiting. (eating, breathing, going to school, learning, sleeping in a house, etc.) Again, how is it moral to kill the "excess children"?
> I agree that there is much room for improvement, but, I am not prepared to kill the excess because of that fact.


No one is killing excess children.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> No one is killing excess children.


 
Of course they are. Oh, they will use gentle euphemisms like "choice", "fetus", "clump of cells", etc. but, bottom line, they are killing children, unborn yes, but, children none the less. It is time to call it for what it is.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> I can't speak for all, but, I have given much to such causes. The children will be taken care of.


With conservatives fighting tooth and nail to defund social safety net programs? I don't think so.

How about for every individual pregnant woman who agrees not to abort, they have a sponsor or patron who signs a legal contract that they will pay all expenses for the child till it reaches majority? 

Because you saying "the children will be taken care of" without something legally backing it up is just spitting into the wind.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Of course they are. Oh, they will use gentle euphemisms like "choice", "fetus", "clump of cells", etc. but, bottom line, they are killing children, unborn yes, but, children none the less. It is time to call it for what it is.


They are not children. They might have been if allowed to come to term. 90 percent abortions take place in the first trimester. I would think that most homesteaders understand biology and gestation.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> 130,000.00 available and waiting. 20,000.00 aging out of the system every year. Solve that problem before you try to add hundreds of thousands more.


In the mean time, just kill them.
How humane.


----------



## Patchouli

Farmerga said:


> Read what you wrote. If they are in foster care, someone has stepped up, have they not? A few things. Babies, of any color are more simple to adopt out than older children. Without the option of abortion, there will likely be less pregnancy. Not all mothers would give up their children.
> 
> A way to do some real fixing is to fix the broken adoption system. The legal fees and overly invasive and expensive "home studies" discourage many.
> 
> Again, why should race or economic situation be used in the justification for killing someone? (not that you did, but, it is common among the pro-abortion crowd.)


Maybe you should re-read what I wrote: 



> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _Really? Then explain why we still have tons of children in foster care right now because nobody will step up and take them. *Most state foster systems are overwhelmed as is*, you really think they can handle another million babies a year? It's not a straw man when the facts today support it._


There are NOT enough people stepping up. The foster system is over whelmed. Children in the system are being abused. Children can't be taken in because there are no foster homes available. The system is in crisis as is and you want to add more?

If there is no legal abortion there will be less pregnancies? Do you have any evidence for that? Illegal abortion was going pretty strong before we legalized it. 

The adoption system is broken: you might want to Google "re-homing". We just had a lovely case of that with Christian pro-life family here in AR who got overwhelmed with the kids they adopted trying to do the right thing. They skipped that whole adoption background check and handed them off to a child molester. 

I have no doubt you care about kids. I do too. We already have kids in desperate situations in America and I think it would be enormously cruel to add more children to that mess. Before we push to end abortion we have to be sure these children will actually have a life if they are born. I know it seems counterintuitive to you but we really are saying this out of compassion.


----------



## Nevada

SLFarmMI said:


> The reasons that a woman may have an abortion are many and varied. Money is only one of those reasons. Let's not reduce what is an agonizing decision to merely money.


Then let's remove money from the equation, by offering mothers a 19-year government endowment in the event that supporting the child becomes an issue. Fair enough?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Nevada said:


> Then let's remove money from the equation, by offering mothers a 19-year government endowment in the event that supporting the child becomes an issue. Fair enough?


I think she is saying that women choose to abort for reasons other than financial hardship which I agree with. If so, you can't remove something from the equation that wasn't there to begin with.


----------



## Nevada

basketti said:


> I think she is saying that women choose to abort for reasons other than financial hardship which I agree with. If so, you can't remove something from the equation that wasn't there to begin with.


Now you're talking about a hypothetical. Supporting the child is not hypothetical. So what's the problem with funding support is it becomes an issue?

****Edited to Add****
After a little looking around it is apparent that some 70% of abortions are motivated by money.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> Now you're talking about a hypothetical. Supporting the child is not hypothetical. So what's the problem with funding support is it becomes an issue?



Never ending, the reliance on government is always the answer ain't it.....


----------



## Nevada

dlmcafee said:


> Never ending, the reliance on government is always the answer ain't it.....


If you want to change something that's going to cost more, you have to pay for it. Why is that a problem?


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> If you want to change something that's going to cost more, you have to pay for it. Why is that a problem?



Ahh ok, you perceive a problem YOU pay for it, but not you personally just other people.


----------



## Nevada

dlmcafee said:


> Ahh ok, you perceive a problem YOU pay for it, but not you personally just other people.


I'll take that as a "no, we have no intention of supporting those kids."


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Pro unborn?
> You are anti-unborn?


Big sigh. No. How many times do I have to say I'm pro choice. You know- her body, her choice.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Big sigh. No. How many times do I have to say I'm pro choice. You know- her body, her choice.


How do you know she's a she unless you get her born?


Oh, you don't mean the victim, you mean the mother....
I understand it's the law, and we has to obey da law....unless it's something you disagree with, then you'll try to get it changed or complain about it, but by golly, nobody best disagree with a law that makes a business of killing the "unborn"


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> How do you know she's a she unless you get her born?
> 
> 
> Oh, you don't mean the victim, you mean the mother....
> I understand it's the law, and we has to obey da law....unless it's something you disagree with, then you'll try to get it changed or complain about it, but by golly, nobody best disagree with a law that makes a business of killing the "unborn"


The racist crap isn't cute. It wasn't cute the first time and it's not cute now.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> I'll take that as a "no, we have no intention of supporting those kids."



I ll take that as an assumption on your part. We as a society do support those kids, but you as an individual wish the government to do it. Governments are not real good at takin care of anything but taking from others.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Nevada said:


> Now you're talking about a hypothetical. Supporting the child is not hypothetical. So what's the problem with funding support is it becomes an issue?
> 
> ****Edited to Add****
> After a little looking around it is apparent that some 70% of abortions are motivated by money.


No.you saying that all abortions are based on financial decisions is a hypothetical. And I'm not willing to have my freedom of choice taken away because you want to come up with a plan that takes away that hypothetical financial reason when it's NOT the reason for all abortions.

But if it IS a financial decision, by all means. Let the anti choicers put their money where their mouths are.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> The racist crap isn't cute. It wasn't cute the first time and it's not cute now.


"racist crap"?
Really?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> "racist crap"?
> Really?


Really really. It's not cute. At all. This wasn't as bad as the "massa moderator" shtick but it's still not cute.


----------



## Nevada

basketti said:


> No.you saying that *all abortions are based on financial decisions* is a hypothetical.


Did I say that?


----------



## kasilofhome

No, you didn't but does it matter ....it was perceived, assumed and thus you will be condemned for what you did not say. That public control.


----------



## Nevada

kasilofhome said:


> No, you didn't


Thank you.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Really really. It's not cute. At all. This wasn't as bad as the "massa moderator" shtick but it's still not cute.


What race are you "defending"?
My grandpa talked like that


----------



## Cornhusker

I'm glad we have all these junior moderators keeping us on the straight and narrow, telling us what we can and can't post and where we can't post it.
We might make cute racist faux pas and without someone to slap us down, we'd probably never know it happened.:goodjob:


----------



## wiscto

kasilofhome said:


> No, you didn't but does it matter ....it was perceived, assumed and thus you will be condemned for what you did not say. That public control.


Interesting that you mention that, because this tactic seems to be a go to for several right leaning people around here... I'll assume that plan to call them out on it from this point forward, including yourself.


----------



## gapeach

wiscto said:


> Interesting that you mention that, because this tactic seems to be a go to for several right leaning people around here... I'll assume that plan to call them out on it from this point forward, including yourself.


wiscto, reading your public profile, you sound like someone I would really like in person even tho I am southern and you are from Wisconsin. We both like country and have a lot of other things in common. Right leaning people are not all bad and neither are left leaning people. Most of our differences may be political but I would bet if we met each other, we would like each other. We are Americans who want the best for us and our families.
My DH and I have had some very good friends from Wisconsin over the years.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> So, rather than find a way to save untold thousands of children, you would stick with the status quo and let the unborn be crushed in abortion facilities? How cold is that? It costs upwards of $50,000 to adopt a baby and that is over a sort period of time, and there is still a waiting list for healthy babies. Those, who start the process are not guaranteed a child. Why not simplify the process? It is overly costly and intrusive. I know, I have been through it.


It costs more than that to raise one. 

If you want them, you can't complain about the price

Why not let the women involved make the decisions?


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> It costs more than that to raise one.
> 
> If you want them, you can't complain about the price
> 
> Why not let the women involved make the decisions?


If something costs too much, just kill it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I can't speak for all, but, I have given much to such causes. The children will be taken care of.


You say that in one post, and in the next say it costs too much for most people.
It can't be both ways


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> So, rather than find a way to save untold thousands of children, you would stick with the status quo and let the unborn be crushed in abortion facilities? How cold is that? It costs upwards of $50,000 to adopt a baby and that is over a sort period of time, and *there is still a waiting list for healthy babies. * Those, who start the process are not guaranteed a child. Why not simplify the process? It is overly costly and intrusive. I know, I have been through it.


why not adopt those "not so healthy" babies? After all their crackhead mothers didn't abort them just so you could adopt them...... Like you promise to do. Seems to me you want to make these moms choice.... As long as it's on your terms. Anything unsuitable and you run like a turpentined dog.... How cold is that?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> If something costs too much, just kill it?


That's for the mothers to decide.

*Third parties* shouldn't complain about abortions if they won't pay the costs of raising the children for at least 18 years


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's for the mothers to decide.
> 
> *Third parties* shouldn't complain about abortions if they won't pay the costs of raising the children for at least 18 years


By that line of thinking, the people who oppose the death penalty should pay the cost of keeping prisoners fed and housed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Ahh ok, *you perceive a problem YOU pay for it*, but not you personally just other people.


That is exactly what we have been saying, yet no one is stepping up with the cash


----------



## gapeach

Is you are a liberal Democrat, do you have to support abortion?
My mother, may God rest her soul, was a Democrat her whole life and she did not believe in abortion. 

What is so different now with all of this Progressive stuff, that you have to believe abortion is ok?
It seems to me too that these Progressives are not for Christians either. What happened to change people so much?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> By that line of thinking, the people who oppose the death penalty should pay the cost of keeping prisoners fed and housed.


I'd have no problems with that, but they won't, just like they won't do more than talk about supporting more kids that aren't their own


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> Is you are a liberal Democrat, do you have to support abortion?
> My mother, may God rest her soul, was a Democrat her whole life and she did not believe in abortion.
> 
> What is so different now with all of this Progressive stuff, that you have to believe abortion is ok?
> It seems to me too that these Progressives are not for Christians either. What happened to change people so much?


No one has said you have to believe anything you don't want to.
But you don't get to force your beliefs on anyone either

Nothing is "different now". 
Abortion rates have remained about the same throughout history, and I don't foresee any big changes


----------



## SLFarmMI

gapeach said:


> Is you are a liberal Democrat, do you have to support abortion?
> My mother, may God rest her soul, was a Democrat her whole life and she did not believe in abortion.
> 
> What is so different now with all of this Progressive stuff, that you have to believe abortion is ok?
> It seems to me too that these Progressives are not for Christians either. What happened to change people so much?


Plenty of people, Republican, Democrat and all things in between support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her life and body. Plenty of Christians too.


----------



## Woolieface

Cornhusker said:


> What race are you "defending"?
> My grandpa talked like that


I know I was confused. Read it twice trying to figure out what "race" that was supposed to represent.


----------



## Cornhusker

Woolieface said:


> I know I was confused. Read it twice trying to figure out what "race" that was supposed to represent.


Some people love to be offended, and they'll say I'm racist, then run crying to the mods.


----------



## Cornhusker

SLFarmMI said:


> Plenty of people, Republican, Democrat and all things in between support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her life and body. Plenty of Christians too.


And plenty more view as it as not her body or her life she's snuffing out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> And plenty more view as it as not her body or her life she's snuffing out.


All the more reason to let her decide.
You can't impose your views on another

Your signature points that out


----------



## SLFarmMI

Cornhusker said:


> And plenty more view as it as not her body or her life she's snuffing out.


And plenty more, myself included, believe it is the epitome of hubris to think that you know better than the woman involved how an unwanted pregnancy would impact her and are therefore somehow better qualified to make that decision. 

When you (global you) express a desire to outlaw abortion that is exactly the argument you are making -- that somehow your decision for her is better and more worthy than her decision for her.


----------



## gapeach

SLFarmMI said:


> Plenty of people, Republican, Democrat and all things in between support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her life and body. Plenty of Christians too.


I used to feel that way too until I had my first preemie grandchildren, twin boys, and then another preemie, a single little girl. All in neonatal but 15 yrs apart.

Then another grandchild, a boy, who was sideways and his mother went through agony, until he was finally delivered by c-section, full term. He was fine except for a squashed long head that straightened up in a few months.&#9829;. All of my grandbabies changed me from pro choice to pro life!
The longer I live the more pro life I become.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gapeach said:


> I used to feel that way too until I had my first preemie grandchildren, twin boys, and then another preemie, a single little girl. All in neonatal but 15 yrs apart.
> 
> Then another grandchild, a boy, who was sideways and his mother went through agony, until he was finally delivered by c-section, full term. He was fine except for a squashed long head that straightened up in a few months.&#9829;. All of my grandbabies changed me from pro choice to pro life!
> The longer I live the more pro life I become.


So you get to make up your own mind but other women don't? Why don't you just stay out of other women's business and if it's the horrible sin that you believe, you can laugh while they burn in a lake of fire. Or whatever.


----------



## gapeach

basketti said:


> So you get to make up your own mind but other women don't? Why don't you just stay out of other women's business and if it's the horrible sin that you believe, you can laugh while they burn in a lake of fire. Or whatever.


I would never laugh while someone burns in a lake of fire or whatever.

I don't know why you are so upset that someone is pro-life. Life is hard and it causes you sometimes to change your mind. It might just happen to you too when you think about your own little grandbabies if they are preemies and I really hope that they are full term and healthy. After our first two preemies, one with bad problems, and several major surgeries in another city/hospital to save his life, I had said that I hoped that we never had another premature grandchild. Life deals you some hard stuff sometimes. Thank God, they are all alive today and healthy. I hope the same for all.


----------



## Patchouli

Cornhusker said:


> By that line of thinking, the people who oppose the death penalty should pay the cost of keeping prisoners fed and housed.


We do don't we?


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> Is you are a liberal Democrat, do you have to support abortion?
> My mother, may God rest her soul, was a Democrat her whole life and she did not believe in abortion.
> 
> What is so different now with all of this Progressive stuff, that you have to believe abortion is ok?
> It seems to me too that these Progressives are not for Christians either. What happened to change people so much?


I am not sure people have changed all that much, I think maybe perceptions of people have changed. I am very much apposed to abortion.... Nearly as much as I am opposed to denying a woman the right to make her own choice in the matter. I would vastly prefer that no woman would opt for an abortion, but it is her decision to make, not mine nor anyone except the woman carrying that fetus.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> We do don't we?


Yes you pay part of the expense of keeping those lumps of waste alive, those of us who would have them put out of our misery end up paying the rest of those costs.


----------



## Evons hubby

Cornhusker said:


> And plenty more view as it as not her body or her life she's snuffing out.


Yup it's nearly a fifty-fifty split between the meddlers and the "mind yer own business" crowd, just like it's always been.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> I would never laugh while someone burns in a lake of fire or whatever.
> 
> *I don't know why you are so upset that someone is pro-life. * Life is hard and it causes you sometimes to change your mind. It might just happen to you too when you think about your own little grandbabies if they are preemies and I really hope that they are full term and healthy. After our first two preemies, one with bad problems, and several major surgeries in another city/hospital to save his life, I had said that I hoped that we never had another premature grandchild. Life deals you some hard stuff sometimes. Thank God, they are all alive today and healthy. I hope the same for all.


I don't give a rat's fat bum if someone is pro unborn _if_ they are content with their own self righteous satisfaction. It's when they start meddling in the rights of other women that I get a mite defensive. 

Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. It's none of your business what a woman does with her body. Why can't you (collective you) understand that? 

I had two premature daughters, so have millions of other women. I have two grandchildren and one due in 3 weeks. I'm still pro choice, and so are both of the my daughters. My husband is too for that matter. Why? Because we feel that no one should be able to tell another person what they can and can't do with their own body.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's for the mothers to decide.
> 
> *Third parties* shouldn't complain about abortions if they won't pay the costs of raising the children for at least 18 years


 If they are in the system, we do.


----------



## Farmerga

Reading the posts on these threads, over the last few weeks has taught me a lot. 

1) Like most other killing, the first step, in abortion, is to dehumanize the target. (just a clump of cells, not developed enough for higher brain function, etc.) The same tactic has been used for centuries in warfare. 
2) Step 2 is to, if possible, remove oneself from the process. ("I hate abortion, and would never have one, but, it is the choice of the "mother"") This tactic has been used extensively with bomber pilots. 

Pro-abortionists (that is what they are, because most posters here, who are all for "choice" when it comes to abortion, balk at the idea of choice when it comes to choosing with whom one does business. So, the "pro-choice" label is false.) MUST dehumanize the human babies who are the silent victims of abortion. They MUST wrap it in words like "choice" and "her body". The results of abortion, to them, is "tissue", not bodies. So, my anti-abortion/pro-unborn friends, As long as they refuse to acknowledge the obvious humanity of the victims of abortion, there is no hope of changing their minds.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Reading the posts on these threads, over the last few weeks has taught me a lot.
> 
> 1) Like most other killing, the first step, in abortion, is to dehumanize the target. (just a clump of cells, not developed enough for higher brain function, etc.) The same tactic has been used for centuries in warfare.
> 2) Step 2 is to, if possible, remove oneself from the process. ("I hate abortion, and would never have one, but, it is the choice of the "mother"") This tactic has been used extensively with bomber pilots.
> 
> Pro-abortionists (that is what they are, because most posters here, who are all for "choice" when it comes to abortion, balk at the idea of choice when it comes to choosing with whom one does business. So, the "pro-choice" label is false.) MUST dehumanize the human babies who are the silent victims of abortion. They MUST wrap it in words like "choice" and "her body". The results of abortion, to them, is "tissue", not bodies. So, my anti-abortion/pro-unborn friends, As long as they refuse to acknowledge the obvious humanity of the victims of abortion, there is no hope of changing their minds.


Actually as a homesteader who deals with life and death on a daily basis I understand what life is. I don't assign personhood to a fetus. I know that all eggs and sperm are not meant to survive until first breath. I believe there is a cut off date where abortions should not happen unless health problems need it to happen.

I won't allow you or anyone to try to shame me into your point of view.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Actually as a homesteader who deals with life and death on a daily basis I understand what life is. I don't assign personhood to a fetus. I know that all eggs and sperm are not meant to survive until first breath. I believe there is a cut off date where abortions should not happen unless health problems need it to happen.
> 
> I won't allow you or anyone to try to shame me into your point of view.


 I know a little about life myself and my post simply spoke to my observations over the last couple of weeks.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I know a little about life myself and my post simply spoke to my observations over the last couple of weeks.


You took it beyond observation.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Reading the posts on these threads, over the last few weeks has taught me a lot.
> 
> 1) Like most other killing, the first step, in abortion, is to dehumanize the target. (just a clump of cells, not developed enough for higher brain function, etc.) The same tactic has been used for centuries in warfare.
> 2) Step 2 is to, if possible, remove oneself from the process. ("I hate abortion, and would never have one, but, it is the choice of the "mother"") This tactic has been used extensively with bomber pilots.
> 
> Pro-abortionists (that is what they are, because most posters here, who are all for "choice" when it comes to abortion, balk at the idea of choice when it comes to choosing with whom one does business. So, the "pro-choice" label is false.) MUST dehumanize the human babies who are the silent victims of abortion. They MUST wrap it in words like "choice" and "her body". The results of abortion, to them, is "tissue", not bodies. So, my anti-abortion/pro-unborn friends, As long as they refuse to acknowledge the obvious humanity of the victims of abortion, there is no hope of changing their minds.


I agree with painterswife, you are trying to use _your_ sense of morality to publicly shame pro choice people into accepting what you feel is right. The control issue and utter arrogance that the pro unborn try to have over others is staggering. Not only do you want us to think in lockstep with you, you know better what should be done with our bodies based only on _your_ self imposed moral code. 

All the rhetoric culminates in this: You (the pro unborn) cannot control another person with shame, bullying, or any other type of manipulation. A woman's body, a woman's choice. There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing.


----------



## dixiegal62

I've found people get the most offended when something gets too close to the truth and hits a nerve. In reading all these abortion threads both sides have some who try to shame and humiliate. I agree with famerga, I think she hit the nail right on the head. I also agree that's there's nothing we can do about it.... until laws change. Doesn't mean we have to embrace the butcher of innocents.


----------



## Farmerga

&#8220;*The sting* of *any rebuke is the truth*.&#8221; ~ *Ben Franklin*

It would seem that my post, about what I have learned here, did some real stinging.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> I've found people get the most offended when something gets too close to the truth and hits a nerve. In reading all these abortion threads both sides have some who try to shame and humiliate. I agree with famerga, I think she hit the nail right on the head. I also agree that's there's nothing we can do about it.... until laws change. Doesn't mean we have to embrace the butcher of innocents.





Farmerga said:


> â*The sting* of *any rebuke is the truth*.â ~ *Ben Franklin*
> 
> It would seem that my post, about what I have learned here, did some real stinging.


If you need to believe that to get you through the day I won't disillusion you with reality.


----------



## Cornhusker

Patchouli said:


> We do don't we?


I think he meant personally pay for a baby to grow to 18 years.
I think people who believe that but cry about abolishing the death penalty should have to pay for the keeping of their prisoners.
Surely a good liberal won't mind coughing up $60,000 or so a year to keep killers and pedophiles alive.
Darned if I know why they think criminals are worth saving but innocents aren't, but if they want to pay for it, then by golly, they should be able to.
I'm waiting for the line to start


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Actually as a homesteader who deals with life and death on a daily basis I understand what life is. I don't assign personhood to a fetus. I know that all eggs and sperm are not meant to survive until first breath. I believe there is a cut off date where abortions should not happen unless health problems need it to happen.
> 
> I won't allow you or anyone to try to shame me into your point of view.


Yet you try to bully people into your point of view.
But then we've come to expect that


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Yet you try to bully people into your point of view.
> But then we've come to expect that


I don't need anyone to believe as I do. I just need you to accept that my point of view is mine and I have the right to it.

Was that last line meant to hurt me in some way? Otherwise what was the point of it?


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> I don't need anyone to believe as I do. I just need you to accept that my point of view is mine and I have the right to it.
> 
> Was that last line meant to hurt me in some way? Otherwise what was the point of it?


You are too sensitive.
I don't care what you believe, even if I think you are wrong.
I find it odd that your opinion should be held sacred, but you don't mind telling those who disagree with you that they are either stupid, wrong or both.
The least line was merely informative, and if it hurt your feelings, I apologize.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> You are too sensitive.
> I don't care what you believe, even if I think you are wrong.
> I find it odd that your opinion should be held sacred, but you don't mind telling those who disagree with you that they are either stupid, wrong or both.
> The least line was merely informative, and if it hurt your feelings, I apologize.


Please show me where I have called someone stupid?

Also please feel free to comment on my posts but stop commenting about me personally.


----------



## arabian knight

You so gracefully put imo on the end it is that that people are trying to correct you in because it is a wrong. Nothing wrong with trying to change a persons option when the majority are finding out option worn in many ways.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> You so gracefully put imo on the end it is that that people are trying to correct you in because it is a wrong. Nothing wrong with trying to change a persons option when the majority are finding out option worn in many ways.


So instead of talking about the opinion, they start in on my feelings and try to shame me or anyone that is Pro choice. That is attacking the person not the opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Well, I think the only "stinging" is the chapped behinds of all the pro unborn due to their utter and complete lack of being able to control abortion. Just a guess tho, ymmv.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Please show me where I have called someone stupid?
> 
> Also please feel free to comment on my posts but stop commenting about me personally.


I wish you people would stop telling people what, when, where to post.
If you don't want people being offensive to you, then try being nice to others and stop with the insults.
Most people would know that "you" is the collective anti life people.
Better report me again.
Rock on mod squad.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, I think the only "stinging" is the chapped behinds of all the pro unborn due to their utter and complete lack of being able to control abortion. Just a guess tho, ymmv.


If I said that it would be considered a personal attack by the hypersensitive pseudo mods. :rotfl:


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> I wish you people would stop telling people what, when, where to post.
> If you don't want people being offensive to you, then try being nice to others and stop with the insults.
> Most people would know that "you" is the collective anti life people.
> Better report me again.
> Rock on mod squad.


You quoted me and then post that I call people stupid. If that is not correct then fix your post and clarify it. I don't read minds.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> You quoted me and then post that I call people stupid. If that is not correct then fix your post and clarify it. I don't read minds.


Don't tell me what to do
You don't have to be rude and snotty all the time.
I guess you better go tell your mods to kick me out, since the plan seems to be get rid of everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> If I said that it would be considered a personal attack by the hypersensitive pseudo mods. :rotfl:


Why don't you or one of your buddies report it if it offends you so?

ETA: This is off topic and beyond thread drift. I won't be involved in the "this and that" any longer. Have a nice day.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Don't tell me what to do
> You don't have to be rude and snotty all the time.
> I guess you better go tell your mods to kick me out, since the plan seems to be get rid of everyone who doesn't agree 100% with you.


I have never felt the need to report you. Your posts speak volumes and I think the other readers see who's post are rude and snotty quite clearly. That is evidenced by the posts that are getting deleted.


----------



## Farmerga

It is my wish to turn the tide of abortion. If I could snap my finger and make it illegal, I would, but, I can't. I am fully aware that this fight is likely to take decades. What I can do is tell the truth. The truth is that there is nothing about a human fetus that is not human. Those who, deny that fact, are dehumanizing in order to justify their views on abortion, there can be no other logical reason. The same can be said of supporters of the Death Penalty. How many times have we heard "We should just put those animals down"? That is a natural human reaction to make the killing more palatable.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> It is my wish to turn the tide of abortion. If I could snap my finger and make it illegal, I would, but, I can't. I am fully aware that this fight is likely to take decades. What I can do is tell the truth. The truth is that there is nothing about a human fetus that is not human. Those who, deny that fact, are dehumanizing in order to justify their views on abortion, there can be no other logical reason. The same can be said of supporters of the Death Penalty. How many times have we heard "We should just put those animals down"? That is a natural human reaction to make the killing more palatable.


Something human is not a person.

I too wish to have no need for abortion in all but situations regarding health. I believe we will get there. I however am realistic about what abortion is at different points in gestation. There is a difference between a fetus and a person.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't give a rat's fat bum if someone is pro unborn _if_ they are content with their own self righteous satisfaction. It's when they start meddling in the rights of other women that I get a mite defensive.
> 
> Don't believe in abortion? Don't have one. It's none of your business what a woman does with her body. Why can't you (collective you) understand that?
> 
> I had two premature daughters, so have millions of other women. I have two grandchildren and one due in 3 weeks. I'm still pro choice, and so are both of the my daughters. My husband is too for that matter. Why? Because we feel that no one should be able to tell another person what they can and can't do with their own body.


Exactly.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> It is my wish to turn the tide of abortion. If I could snap my finger and make it illegal, I would, but, I can't. I am fully aware that this fight is likely to take decades. *What I can do is tell the truth.* The truth is that there is nothing about a human fetus that is not human. Those who, deny that fact, are dehumanizing in order to justify their views on abortion, there can be no other logical reason. The same can be said of supporters of the Death Penalty. How many times have we heard "We should just put those animals down"? That is a natural human reaction to make the killing more palatable.


That is your truth, and it is not universal. Your truth holds no sway over anyone but you. You can believe anything you'd like but you can't force another person to accept it. You can't control another person to believe it. It's simply your opinion and isn't any better than mine or anyone else's.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> That is your truth, and it is not universal. Your truth holds no sway over anyone but you. You can believe anything you'd like but you can't force another person to accept it. You can't control another person to believe it. It's simply your opinion and isn't any better than mine or anyone else's.


Our entire political system is built on forcing ones opinion on others. IMO, the government has no right to force me to buy health insurance, but, others opinions differ and, guess what? I am now forced to buy health insurance or face punishment. So, when it comes to the protection of the unborn, I am not above trying to sway enough opinions to get my opinion written into law.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Why don't you or one of your buddies report it if it offends you so?
> 
> ETA: This is off topic and beyond thread drift. I won't be involved in the "this and that" any longer. Have a nice day.


Yes Ma'am :goodjob:


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> I have never felt the need to report you. Your posts speak volumes and I think the other readers see who's post are rude and snotty quite clearly. That is evidenced by the posts that are getting deleted.


Yes ma'am :goodjob:
We will try to not put forth our opinion if it's not in lockstep.
And no, I suppose you don't get much deleted. :rotfl:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Our entire political system is built on forcing ones opinion on others. IMO, the government has no right to force me to buy health insurance, but, others opinions differ and, guess what? I am now forced to buy health insurance or face punishment. So, when it comes to the protection of the unborn, I am not above trying to sway enough opinions to get my opinion written into law.


Good luck with that.


----------



## susieneddy

SLFarmMI said:


> Plenty of people, Republican, Democrat and all things in between support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her life and body. Plenty of Christians too.



Plenty of Christians are Pro-Life but when it hits home they turn away from that thought. 

My ex father-in-law is a member of a Church of Christ in a small town. He has always given to the church and to many charities throughout his life. He is a very religious man until.....

One day one one of his three daughters came to him because she was pregnant. She was in a bad marriage that was headed for divorce (and it did ). Guess what he got her an abortion since neither one of them wanted the child brought up in that situation. 

Then the next daughter got pregnant and ended up with an abortion also.
She had anorexia and didn't think she could handle it so she got an abortion.

The 3rd daughter had an abortion also. At the time I think she was 17 yrs old. 

None of the three daughters or their father wanted them to have a baby.

All 3 daughters were on BC pills subscribed by their father

With him being a Doctor he knew exactly whom to call and set this up. 

Both of us are Pro-Choice and we will keep believing that it is up to the woman to decide what is best for her. If she wants to have the baby that is fine, If not that is fine also.


----------



## Farmerga

susieneddy said:


> Plenty of Christians are Pro-Life but when it hits home they turn away from that thought.
> 
> My ex father-in-law is a member of a Church of Christ in a small town. He has always given to the church and to many charities throughout his life. He is a very religious man until.....
> 
> One day one one of his three daughters came to him because she was pregnant. She was in a bad marriage that was headed for divorce (and it did ). Guess what he got her an abortion since neither one of them wanted the child brought up in that situation.
> 
> Then the next daughter got pregnant and ended up with an abortion also.
> She had anorexia and didn't think she could handle it so she got an abortion.
> 
> The 3rd daughter had an abortion also. At the time I think she was 17 yrs old.
> 
> None of the three daughters or their father wanted them to have a baby.
> 
> All 3 daughters were on BC pills subscribed by their father
> 
> With him being a Doctor he knew exactly whom to call and set this up.
> 
> Both of us are Pro-Choice and we will keep believing that it is up to the woman to decide what is best for her. If she wants to have the baby that is fine, If not that is fine also.


 I am pro-life and there was a situation, in my family that would make what happened to the hypocrite in your example look like a walk in the park. The baby was not murdered and is loved, by my family and his mother, to this day.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Good luck with that.


 Thanks:happy: I am encouraged by the progress of civil rights, seen over the last century and a half. Slavery was NEVER going to be outlawed by those "crazy" abolitionists. Blacks were NEVER going to go to school, eat with, marry, etc. with whites, no matter what those "crazy" agitators said. Homosexuals will NEVER have the right to marry, no matter what those "crazy" folks say. The unborn are merely the final unprotected group that will, one day, be afforded the most basic human right, the right to live.


----------



## susieneddy

Farmerga said:


> Thanks:happy: I am encouraged by the progress of civil rights, seen over the last century and a half. Slavery was NEVER going to be outlawed by those "crazy" abolitionists. Blacks were NEVER going to go to school, eat with, marry, etc. with whites, no matter what those "crazy" agitators said. Homosexuals will NEVER have the right to marry, no matter what those "crazy" folks say. The unborn are merely the final unprotected group that will, one day, be afforded the most basic human right, the right to live.


there will always be abortions. If abortion is ever overturned it will be back to the dark alleys for women like it use to be.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Our entire political system is built on forcing ones opinion on others. IMO, the government has no right to force me to buy health insurance, but, others opinions differ and, guess what? I am now forced to buy health insurance or face punishment. So, when it comes to the protection of the unborn, I am not above trying to sway enough opinions to get my opinion written into law.


All you have to do is formulate this law in such a way that it doesn't violate any one else's rights.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Thanks:happy: I am encouraged by the progress of civil rights, seen over the last century and a half. Slavery was NEVER going to be outlawed by those "crazy" abolitionists. Blacks were NEVER going to go to school, eat with, marry, etc. with whites, no matter what those "crazy" agitators said. Homosexuals will NEVER have the right to marry, no matter what those "crazy" folks say. The unborn are merely the final unprotected group that will, one day, be afforded the most basic human right, the right to live.


Keep us apprised of your progress. K?


----------



## Farmerga

susieneddy said:


> there will always be abortions. If abortion is ever overturned it will be back to the dark alleys for women like it use to be.


 Just like there is still slavery, but, I don't here calls for repeal of the 13th amendment. As was discussed previously, the culture has changed and it is likely that, without the social stigma that un-wed motherhood used to have, most would not risk a back alley abortion.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All you have to do is formulate this law in such a way that it doesn't violate any one else's rights.


As with most laws, that deal with behavior, it will prioritize rights. Wether or not rights are correctly prioritized will be a matter of opinion.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> As with most laws, that deal with behavior, it will prioritize rights. If those rights are correctly prioritized will be a matter of opinion.


I don't believe abortion will ever be outlawed.

There are two things that will be taken into account. A women's rights and viability. A women will always have the right to an abortion when her health is the measure.

Viability may become the next measure. I believe however we will get to the point were our medical band or our toilet will tell us we are pregnant within days of conception and it will be a simple pill that terminates the pregnancy long before viability is any needed measure. I believe that is where Pro life should be focusing their attention. Making sure conception is easily prevented and when mistakes happen ( because we are all human) it is terminated if need be quickly.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I don't believe abortion will ever be outlawed.
> 
> There are two things that will be taken into account. A women's rights and viability. A women will always have the right to an abortion when her health is the measure.
> 
> Viability may become the next measure. I believe however we will get to the point were our medical band or our toilet will tell us we are pregnant within days of conception and it will be a simple pill that terminates the pregnancy long before viability is any needed measure. I believe that is where Pro life should be focusing their attention. Making sure conception is easily prevented and when mistakes happen ( because we are all human) it is terminated if need be quickly.


Real Life award


----------



## susieneddy

Farmerga said:


> As was discussed previously, the culture has changed and it is likely that, without the social stigma that un-wed motherhood used to have, *most would not risk a back alley abortion*.


you can believe that if you want. It will happen


----------



## Farmerga

The more likely scenario will be that, as science dives deeper into human development, the humanity and personhood of the unborn will no longer be in doubt. This will cause a cultural shift to where abortion is looked upon, by the majority, as the barbaric practice that it is.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> The more likely scenario will be that, as science dives deeper into human development, the humanity and personhood of the unborn will no longer be in doubt. This will cause a cultural shift to where abortion is looked upon, by the majority, as the barbaric practice that it is.


Dive deeper? They have a pretty good fix on it now. Hoping it is otherwise is a pipe dream.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Just like there is still slavery, but, I don't here calls for repeal of the 13th amendment. As was discussed previously, the culture has changed and it is likely that, without the social stigma that un-wed motherhood used to have, most would not risk a back alley abortion.


This is what I said, "Although I will concede that it was probably based on the stigma of an unwed mother, without the stigma there _may_ be more inclination to carry to term." I never said anything remotely like "most would not risk a back alley abortion". This is the second time you've tried to put words in my mouth.


----------



## gapeach

Farmerga said:


> Just like there is still slavery, but, I don't here calls for repeal of the 13th amendment. As was discussed previously, the culture has changed and it is likely that, without the social stigma that un-wed motherhood used to have, most would not risk a back alley abortion.


The back alley abortions were also before the pill.


----------



## susieneddy

Farmerga said:


> The more likely scenario will be that, as science dives deeper into human development, the humanity and personhood of the unborn will no longer be in doubt. This will cause a cultural shift to where abortion is looked upon, by the majority, as the barbaric practice that it is.


All your opinion and the majority doesn't agree with your opinion


----------



## susieneddy

gapeach said:


> The back alley abortions were also before the pill.


and we know how well they work.


----------



## dixiegal62

I don't agree babies are the final ones. I think in our lifetime the elderly will be next. Then older children. Won't surprise me if terminally ill will be in the mix of dispendable humans. We are losing the value of life.


----------



## gapeach

The pills do work if they are taken as prescribed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> The back alley abortions were also before the pill.


The Pill was approved by the FDA for contraception in 1960, Roe v. Wade was in 1973. So there were 13 years of "back alley abortions" after the Pill was introduced.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> The pills do work if they are taken as prescribed.


Unless you are on antibiotics or you were sick and could not keep anything down at any time during that month's cycle. Just a couple of instances.


----------



## susieneddy

gapeach said:


> The pills do work if they are taken as prescribed.


no they don't


----------



## Patchouli

dixiegal62 said:


> I've found people get the most offended when something gets too close to the truth and hits a nerve. In reading all these abortion threads both sides have some who try to shame and humiliate. I agree with famerga, I think she hit the nail right on the head. I also agree that's there's nothing we can do about it.... until laws change. Doesn't mean we have to embrace the butcher of innocents.



If it truly was a butcher of innocents all of us would be against it. What you guys are missing here is that it's not us dehumanizing fetuses. It's you turning them into something they are not. Pro-life pictures and literature routinely tweak those weekly fetal pictures into looking more like a baby. They have been caught twisting those little plastic fetuses they hand out into bigger and farther along specimens than they are in reality. You talk about babies, you picture babies, etc. and so your mental image is distorted. 

You need to look to your own side first before you tackle the opposing one.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> This is what I said, "Although I will concede that it was probably based on the stigma of an unwed mother, without the stigma there _may_ be more inclination to carry to term." I never said anything remotely like "most would not risk a back alley abortion". This is the second time you've tried to put words in my mouth.


 I didn't even mention you. Unless noted as otherwise, the words, that I post, are mine.


----------



## Cornhusker

Patchouli said:


> If it truly was a butcher of innocents all of us would be against it. What you guys are missing here is that it's not us dehumanizing fetuses. It's you turning them into something they are not. Pro-life pictures and literature routinely tweak those weekly fetal pictures into looking more like a baby. They have been caught twisting those little plastic fetuses they hand out into bigger and farther along specimens than they are in reality. You talk about babies, you picture babies, etc. and so your mental image is distorted.
> 
> You need to look to your own side first before you tackle the opposing one.


Link?


----------



## dixiegal62

Patchouli said:


> If it truly was a butcher of innocents all of us would be against it. What you guys are missing here is that it's not us dehumanizing fetuses. It's you turning them into something they are not. Pro-life pictures and literature routinely tweak those weekly fetal pictures into looking more like a baby. They have been caught twisting those little plastic fetuses they hand out into bigger and farther along specimens than they are in reality. You talk about babies, you picture babies, etc. and so your mental image is distorted.
> 
> You need to look to your own side first before you tackle the opposing one.


I'm fine with 'my side' I carried 4 of those babies in my body and felt their life inside me. Lost one he was still a baby.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I didn't even mention you. Unless noted as otherwise, the words, that I post, are mine.


You did in the prior post and you said, "As Irish Pixie has pointed out, the stigma, for unwed mothers, is almost gone now, so, I am confident that far fewer women would risk death to get an illegal abortion." If you are going to use what I said please quote me so there are no "misunderstandings."


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm fine with 'my side' I carried 4 of those babies in my body and felt their life inside me. Lost one he was still a baby.


That was your choice, correct? Did anyone force you to carry to term or terminate the pregnancy?


----------



## SLFarmMI

gapeach said:


> The back alley abortions were also before the pill.


A. Not everyone can take the pill. I know I can't.

B. The pill isn't 100% effective (no BC is) so there will always be unwanted pregnancy regardless of the BC method used.

C. Unwanted pregnancy (whether the anti-choice people want to admit it or not) is much more than "inconvenient" as some people in these never ending abortion threads have posted. There are many women whose lives would be ruined if they were forced to continue a pregnancy.


----------



## Farmerga

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't agree babies are the final ones. I think in our lifetime the elderly will be next. Then older children. Won't surprise me if terminally ill will be in the mix of dispendable humans. We are losing the value of life.


 Of course you are correct. I mean what is next? As soon as grandma gets a little forgetful, off her? When someone is in a coma, for more than a week, starve them to death? Let the "choice" to abort extend until the child is walking? Am I being silly? I sure hope so, but, the really disturbing thing is that, my silly rant may actually be the direction towards which we are headed. It is not that much of a leap.


----------



## Farmerga

SLFarmMI said:


> A. Not everyone can take the pill. I know I can't.
> 
> B. The pill isn't 100% effective (no BC is) so there will always be unwanted pregnancy regardless of the BC method used.
> 
> C. Unwanted pregnancy (whether the anti-choice people want to admit it or not) is much more than "inconvenient" as some people in these never ending abortion threads have posted. There are many women whose lives would be ruined if they were forced to continue a pregnancy.


 Ok, when it comes to "C", give me a scenario.


----------



## Patchouli

Farmerga said:


> The more likely scenario will be that, as science dives deeper into human development, the humanity and personhood of the unborn will no longer be in doubt. This will cause a cultural shift to where abortion is looked upon, by the majority, as the barbaric practice that it is.


You know it is possible it could actually go the other way? That absolute proof will be given of zero brain function, no pain felt and so no personhood at all. Oh wait we already have that don't we?


----------



## susieneddy

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm fine with 'my side' I carried 4 of those babies in my body and felt their life inside me. Lost one he was still a baby.


Good for you on your kids. Sorry about the one you lost. At least you had a choice.

Seems to me that your side is trying to take away other women's choice in the matter. Why does your side get to dictate whether a woman can have an abortion or not.


----------



## Farmerga

Patchouli said:


> You know it is possible it could actually go the other way? That absolute proof will be given of zero brain function, no pain felt and so no personhood at all. Oh wait we already have that don't we?


 Or, people could come to the realization that, in the case of most pregnancies, the qualities that you list, are temporary and it would be as horrid to kill the unborn as it would to murder someone on the operating table.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Of course you are correct. I mean what is next? As soon as grandma gets a little forgetful, off her? When someone is in a coma, for more than a week, starve them to death? Let the "choice" to abort extend until the child is walking? Am I being silly? I sure hope so, but, the really disturbing thing is that, my silly rant may actually be the direction towards which we are headed. It is not that much of a leap.


The go to slippery slope crap that shoots up when the posters can't provide logical responses.


----------



## Farmerga

susieneddy said:


> Good for you on your kids. Sorry about the one you lost. At least you had a choice.
> 
> Seems to me that your side is trying to take away other women's choice in the matter. Why does your side get to dictate whether a woman can have an abortion or not.


 I would assume that if someone wanted to kill their 5 year old child, you would be against it, would you not? We simply don't believe that level of development should dictate when the protection of that life begins.


----------



## dixiegal62

susieneddy said:


> Good for you on your kids. Sorry about the one you lost. At least you had a choice.
> 
> Seems to me that your side is trying to take away other women's choice in the matter. Why does your side get to dictate whether a woman can have an abortion or not.


As far as I'm concerned she can kill off all her young, it's the law we're stuck with.....for now. Since it 'her' body 'her' choice how about she reaches into 'her' wallet and pays for killing her kid herself. Instead of forcing people who are agaisnt it to pay to kill her baby. PP needs to be defunded.


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> The go to slippery slope crap that shoots up when the posters can't provide logical responses.


 I believe that, if one can dehumanize one group, when they become inconvenient, they can dehumanize any group. Remember, there are those, among the pro-abortion crowd, who would advocate for the right to kill children up to the age of one or two. Sure, for now they are on the far fringe, but, who knows what the future holds.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I believe that, if one can dehumanize one group, when they become inconvenient, they can dehumanize any group. Remember, there are those, among the pro-abortion crowd, who would advocate for the right to kill children up to the age of one or two. Sure, for now they are on the far fringe, but, who knows what the future holds.


Again posting crap that maybe 3 people believe. There always exceptions to the rule but they are not how you back up your position and make it look at all a legitimate concern.


----------



## Patchouli

Cornhusker said:


> Link?


Link to what? Distortions? 

The claim that abortions have serious mental effects down the road. Studies prove they do not. 
http://www.steveahlquist.com/2014/01/lies-and-distortions-from-pro-life-crowd.html

This picture is actually of a dead aborted posed 20 wk fetus. http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/visibleembryos/s7_4.html










This is really interesting if you want to spend some time on the topic: http://hypocritereader.com/14/picturing-abortion

Silent scream is another bit of pro-life propaganda that I find particularly stomach turning. If you really believe it is a baby why would you want to watch that? Not even going to go into the psychological ramifications there. But turns out it was pretty much roundly debunked by the medical community. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2009/11/silent-scream-is-lie.html

Fake babies wrong developmental stage: http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/12weekfetus.asp


----------



## Patchouli

dixiegal62 said:


> I'm fine with 'my side' I carried 4 of those babies in my body and felt their life inside me. Lost one he was still a baby.


Me 2 right down to 3 living and one miscarriage. And I am staunchly pro-choice. I am not fine with lies and distortions though no mater which side does it. Here's the question to ask yourself: if your cause is truly righteous and just then why do you have to lie and cheat to get pro-life stuff passed?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Again posting crap that maybe 3 people believe. There always exceptions to the rule but they are not how you back up your position and make it look at all a legitimate concern.


 It seems to be getting a little attention. That is how the fringe becomes the mainstream. All it takes is a "convincing" argument and time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html

Notice, not a "Right wing" news source.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> As far as I'm concerned she can kill off all her young, it's the law we're stuck with.....for now. Since it 'her' body 'her' choice how about she reaches into 'her' wallet and pays for killing her kid herself. Instead of forcing people who are agaisnt it to pay to kill her baby. PP needs to be defunded.


You've never heard of the Hyde Amendment? It states, "In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother." It was passed in 1976 in response to Roe v. Wade.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> It seems to be getting a little attention. That is how the fringe becomes the mainstream. All it takes is a "convincing" argument and time.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html
> 
> Notice, not a "Right wing" news source.


Yes, and we tall about how crazy the Westboro baptist church is should we consider them every time we we deal with someone of religion? Would you like me to tanish every church going with that kind of crazy?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I believe that, if one can dehumanize one group, when they become inconvenient, they can dehumanize any group. Remember, there are those, among the pro-abortion crowd, who would advocate for the right to kill children up to the age of one or two. Sure, for now they are on the far fringe, but, who knows what the future holds.


Sure, there a few extremists among people that are pro choice. They don't speak for everyone. Do you agree with anti abortion extremists (aka as anti abortion terrorists) that kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics?


----------



## Farmerga

Patchouli said:


> Me 2 right down to 3 living and one miscarriage. And I am staunchly pro-choice. I am not fine with lies and distortions though no mater which side does it. Here's the question to ask yourself: if your cause is truly righteous and just then why do you have to lie and cheat to get pro-life stuff passed?


 I don't think that it is needed. The facts are heart wrenching enough. Millions of unique human unborn children have been "legally" taken (ripped, sucked, pushed, cut, etc) out of women for over 40 years. I simply wish to let that fact be known. I will not use the more gentle euphemisms employed by the pro-abortionists. I will call it as I see it..


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Sure, there a few extremists among people that are pro choice. They don't speak for everyone. Do you agree with anti abortion extremists (aka as anti abortion terrorists) that kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics?


 
That is why I said "sure, they are on the far fringe" in my post.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> That is why I said "sure, they are on the far fringe" in my post.


Can you answer my question, please? Do you agree with anti abortion extremists (aka as anti abortion terrorists) that kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics?


----------



## Patchouli

Farmerga said:


> I don't think that it is needed. The facts are heart wrenching enough. Millions of unique human unborn children have been "legally" taken (ripped, sucked, pushed, cut, etc) out of women for over 40 years. I simply wish to let that fact be known. I will not use the more gentle euphemisms employed by the pro-abortionists. I will call it as I see it..


Go back and look at my post about the pro-life lies and distortions..... Your side is lying about almost everything.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you answer my question, please? Do you agree with anti abortion extremists (aka as anti abortion terrorists) that kill abortion doctors and bomb clinics?


 Of course not, why do you ask?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Of course not, why do you ask?


I don't agree with killing children either. Like the "fringe group" of two far far left people does. No one likes to be lumped in with extremists, do they?


----------



## Cornhusker

Patchouli said:


> Go back and look at my post about the pro-life lies and distortions..... Your side is lying about almost everything.


"Your side"?
Good Lord, you think this is a competition.


----------



## Farmerga

Patchouli said:


> Go back and look at my post about the pro-life lies and distortions..... Your side is lying about almost everything.


 My side? I am my side, and I haven't been lying. Sure, others, on both sides have lied. I am only responsible for me. I don't believe that lies are needed, for my side, as my views deal with reality, as I see it. At the moment of conception, a new, unique human life is formed that deserves the most basic human right, the right to live. That is it, that is "My side" Level of development is irrelevant, age of the embryo/fetus is irrelevant. Also, the media has a way of distorting things as well, so, I don't provide a lot of links to stories, either pro-life or pro-abortion.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't agree with killing children either. Like the &quot;fringe group&quot; of two far fare left people does. No one likes to be lumped in with extremists, do they?


 Find where I lumped you, or, anyone else in with them. I stated that they were the far fringe of the pro-abortion movement, which is 100% true. Just like the bombers are the far fringe of the pro-life movement.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Farmerga said:


> Ok, when it comes to "C", give me a scenario.


Yes, I could give you a scenario. But I'm not going to because, quite frankly, the story is none of your business. 

Suffice it to say that there are women out there that, if forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, would lose their family support (emotionally and financially), their partners (because it's really easy for men to walk away from the situation), their opportunity for a college education and their homes.


----------



## Farmerga

SLFarmMI said:


> Yes, I could give you a scenario. But I'm not going to because, quite frankly, the story is none of your business.
> 
> Suffice it to say that there are women out there that, if forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, would lose their family support (emotionally and financially), their partners (because it's really easy for men to walk away from the situation), their opportunity for a college education and their homes.


 I didn't expect a real story, but, rather a fictionalized story that would make your concern more clear. 

It would seem that adoption would fix most of the problems you listed.


----------



## dixiegal62

Patchouli said:


> Me 2 right down to 3 living and one miscarriage. And I am staunchly pro-choice. I am not fine with lies and distortions though no mater which side does it. Here's the question to ask yourself: if your cause is truly righteous and just then why do you have to lie and cheat to get pro-life stuff passed?


I've never lied or cheated about anything. You might want to check yourself.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Find where I lumped you, or, anyone else in with them. I stated that they were the far fringe of the pro-abortion movement, which is 100% true. Just like the bombers are the far fringe of the pro-life movement.


I'm not playing your game today.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Farmerga said:


> I didn't expect a real story, but, rather a fictionalized story that would make your concern more clear.
> 
> It would seem that adoption would fix most of the problems you listed.


Adoption would not have fixed any of the listed problems as the problems would have resulted from being forced to be pregnant.


----------



## susieneddy

Farmerga said:


> I would assume that if someone wanted to kill their 5 year old child, you would be against it, would you not? We simply don't believe that level of development should dictate when the protection of that life begins.


there is a big difference between someone killing or murdering (how ever you want to say it) a 5 year old child vs performing an abortion up to the limit the law allows.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> I didn't expect a real story, but, rather a fictionalized story that would make your concern more clear.
> 
> It would seem that adoption would fix most of the problems you listed.


We have been down that road to.... A great many kids are hard to find parents for and end up being raised by the system.
Seems nobody wants to deal with any child less than "perfect". When you get all the current kids in adoptive homes, come back and we can talk about getting you some more.


----------



## Cornhusker

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We have been down that road to.... A great many kids are hard to find parents for and end up being raised by the system.
> Seems nobody wants to deal with any child less than "perfect". When you get all the current kids in adoptive homes, come back and we can talk about getting you some more.


Less than perfect is hardly a reason to terminate a life.
If it was, we'd all be in trouble


----------



## Woolieface

Patchouli said:


> Link to what? Distortions?
> 
> The claim that abortions have serious mental effects down the road. Studies prove they do not.
> http://www.steveahlquist.com/2014/01/lies-and-distortions-from-pro-life-crowd.html
> 
> This picture is actually of a dead aborted posed 20 wk fetus. http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/visibleembryos/s7_4.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is really interesting if you want to spend some time on the topic: http://hypocritereader.com/14/picturing-abortion
> 
> Silent scream is another bit of pro-life propaganda that I find particularly stomach turning. If you really believe it is a baby why would you want to watch that? Not even going to go into the psychological ramifications there. But turns out it was pretty much roundly debunked by the medical community. http://prochoicechristian1.blogspot.com/2009/11/silent-scream-is-lie.html
> 
> Fake babies wrong developmental stage: http://www.snopes.com/photos/medical/12weekfetus.asp


Ive posted pictures here of fetal development. The photos were from a pregnancy site... not a pro-life site, not an anything site as far as a bias towards or against abortion. Simply an information site for pregnant women who want to know what's going on inside them when they're pregnant.

They were very clearly humans. Very clearly what anyone would expect a baby to look like. The only really notable difference was the size in a picture of a 20 week fetus. 

It's beyond my scope of imagination, when it comes to later term abortions of an age that would actually be viable if delivered premature, how anyone scrapes up something to say in defense of the idea that this is not a human being. Literally, the only difference in these cases are the location of the baby and the choice of the mother. Location and choice doesn't change the basic nature of what any living thing is. It's a choice of perception, and it has nothing remotely scientific to defend it.


----------



## poppy

susieneddy said:


> there is a big difference between someone killing or murdering (how ever you want to say it) a 5 year old child vs performing an abortion up to the limit the law allows.


Nonsense. Laws are often wrong. Slavery used to be legal too. I believe in a higher law which says when you premeditate killing someone, it is murder. There is also the commandment not to shed innocent blood. What could be more innocent than a baby? Abortion is a vile, evil, hedonistic act perpetrated and supported by people who would have supported barbarism in the past.


----------



## Irish Pixie

poppy said:


> Nonsense. Laws are often wrong. Slavery used to be legal too. I believe in a higher law which says when you premeditate killing someone, it is murder. There is also the commandment not to shed innocent blood. What could be more innocent than a baby? Abortion is a vile, evil, hedonistic act perpetrated and supported by people who would have supported barbarism in the past.


Pro-life used to be a law, until Roe v. Wade overturned it.

Your moral belief states that abortion is murder, a fetus is a viable baby, and that people that support it are barbaric but that's not universal. It's a bullying tactic to try to shame people that are pro choice. It rarely works.


----------



## 7thswan

Uh oh. Newest video is out. The worst so far.


----------



## Irish Pixie

7thswan said:


> Uh oh. Newest video is out. The worst so far.


There is already a thread about it. http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...333-latest-center-medical-progress-video.html


----------



## gapeach

Swan, I saw it earlier today and agree with you. I was hoping someone else would post it since I posted the last thread that turned out to be locked today.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I've found people get the most offended when something gets too close to the truth and hits a nerve. In reading all these abortion threads both sides have some who try to shame and humiliate. I agree with famerga, I think she hit the nail right on the head. I also agree that's *there's nothing we can do about it*.... until laws change. Doesn't mean we have to embrace the butcher of innocents.


You don't have to "embrace" anything at all.
You just have to accept the fact that you don't get to choose for anyone other than yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Just like there is still slavery, but, I don't here calls for repeal of the 13th amendment. *As was discussed previously*, the culture has changed and it is likely that, without the social stigma that un-wed motherhood used to have, most would not risk a back alley abortion.


You keep repeating things like that when the historical data proves abortions are going to happen at the same rates, legal or not.

What happened to you "only having the truth"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> As far as I'm concerned she can kill off all her young, it's the law we're stuck with.....for now. Since it 'her' body 'her' choice how about she reaches into 'her' wallet and pays for killing her kid herself. *Instead of forcing people who are agaisnt it to pay to kill her baby*. PP needs to be defunded.


Are you going to parrot the lie that the Govt funds abortions?
That's pretty lame


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep repeating things like that when the historical data proves abortions are going to happen at the same rates, legal or not.
> 
> What happened to you "only having the truth"?


being married didn't stop my mother from having one of those back alley abortions back in 1949.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Woolieface said:


> Ive posted pictures here of fetal development.
> They were very clearly humans. Very clearly what anyone would expect a baby to look like. The only really notable difference was the size in a picture of a *20 week fetus. *
> 
> It's beyond my scope of imagination, when it comes to later term abortions of an age that would actually be viable if delivered premature, how anyone scrapes up something to say in defense of *the idea that this is not a human being.*


No one has claimed they aren't "human", so repeating that is false

No fetus has ever survived at less than 21 weeks
Most abortions are done before the 12th week

You pictures are only for the emotional "shock value" and are just they typical misinformation used by the pro *control *crowd


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> Nonsense. Laws are often wrong. Slavery used to be legal too. *I believe in a higher law* which says when you premeditate killing someone, it is murder. There is also the commandment not to shed innocent blood. What could be more innocent than a baby? Abortion is a vile, evil, hedonistic act perpetrated and supported by people who would have supported barbarism in the past.


You can believe anything you want
What you can NOT do is force your beliefs on anyone else.
It's not your choice to make


----------



## Evons hubby

poppy said:


> Nonsense. Laws are often wrong. Slavery used to be legal too. I believe in a higher law which says when you premeditate killing someone, it is murder. There is also the commandment not to shed innocent blood. What could be more innocent than a baby? Abortion is a vile, evil, hedonistic act perpetrated and supported by people who would have supported barbarism in the past.


Abortion was once illegal too. Many people in our country today are opposed to sharia law, that's one of the reasons we don't allow our government to establish or promote ANY religion. If you believe abortion is vile, evil, and hedonistic I strongly urge you not to have one.


----------



## Evons hubby

Cornhusker said:


> Less than perfect is hardly a reason to terminate a life.
> If it was, we'd all be in trouble


I didn't say it was.... I was referring to them being unacceptable by adoptive parents.... You know the ones, always screaming "don't abort that baby! Let me adopt it!". Funny that there are thousands of these babies being born.... Now where did those folks go? They don't seem to be nearly as excited as they had been to take these kids in. If they were we wouldn't have umpteen thousands being raised by the system.


----------



## gapeach

Woolieface said:


> Ive posted pictures here of fetal development. The photos were from a pregnancy site... not a pro-life site, not an anything site as far as a bias towards or against abortion. Simply an information site for pregnant women who want to know what's going on inside them when they're pregnant.
> 
> They were very clearly humans. Very clearly what anyone would expect a baby to look like. The only really notable difference was the size in a picture of a 20 week fetus.
> 
> It's beyond my scope of imagination, when it comes to later term abortions of an age that would actually be viable if delivered premature, how anyone scrapes up something to say in defense of the idea that this is not a human being. Literally, the only difference in these cases are the location of the baby and the choice of the mother. Location and choice doesn't change the basic nature of what any living thing is. It's a choice of perception, and it has nothing remotely scientific to defend it.


I could post an ultrasound that I rec'd today from a dear little friend that we have known her whole life and she is 19 wks pregnant. Her baby is a little girl and is as sweet and feminine as you have ever seen a baby to be. She even has eyebrows! 
a question:
Why is it that if a woman, pregnant with a viable fetus is murdered, the killer can be charged with double murder, but an abortionist is not charged with anything?


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I didn't say it was.... I was referring to them being unacceptable by adoptive parents.... You know the ones, always screaming "don't abort that baby! Let me adopt it!". Funny that there are thousands of these babies being born.... Now where did those folks go? They don't seem to be nearly as excited as they had been to take these kids in. If they were we wouldn't have umpteen thousands being raised by the system.


I have been looking at adoption sites this afternoon just to get some statistics and find out what the requirements are now. If you are looking for a baby, there are lots of sites who wanting potential adoptive parents. You have to meet a lot of requirements, and then the birth mother has a lot of folders to go through to pick out her adoptive parents.
If you want an older child, there are a lot of children available. You have to be able to handle the expense of taking care of special needs children. If the child has emotional problems, then you also have to be in a position to pay for extra help, mental health needs.
Many older children know their biological family and you have to through counseling to handle the transition and continued visits with their biological family. It is not all cut and dried to just go out and adopt an older child. Even after you go through the placement, you go through at least a year trial , home visits by social worker, plus written correspondence with the agency. and finally finalized in court.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> I could post an ultrasound that I rec'd today from a dear little friend that we have known her whole life and she is 19 wks pregnant. Her baby is a little girl and is as sweet and feminine as you have ever seen a baby to be. She even has eyebrows!
> a question:
> Why is it that if a woman, pregnant with a viable fetus is murdered, the killer can be charged with double murder, but an abortionist is not charged with anything?


This has been answered dozens of times in various threads. One more time just for you.... The mother is the only one in charge of that decision and if she has opted to take her pregnancy to full term the court can charge someone for killing the fetus against her will with murder. It's all part of that whole "it's her choice" thing.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't have to "embrace" anything at all.
> You just have to accept the fact that you don't get to choose for anyone other than yourself


Accepting a law doesn't mean I have to turn tail and start saying I support abortion. It also doesn't mean I can't continue to be a voice for those who can't speak for themselves.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> I have been looking at adoption sites this afternoon just to get some statistics and find out what the requirements are now. If you are looking for a baby, there are lots of sites who wanting potential adoptive parents. You have to meet a lot of requirements, and then the birth mother has a lot of folders to go through to pick out her adoptive parents.
> If you want an older child, there are a lot of children available.* You have h be able to handle the expense of taking care of special needs children. If the child has emotional problems, then you also have to be in a position to pay for extra help, mental health needs.
> Many older children know their biological family and you have to through counseling to handle the transition and continued visits with their biological family. It is not all cut and dried to just go out and adopt an older child*. Even after you go through the placement, you go through at least a year trial , home visits by social worker, plus written correspondence with the agency. and finally finalized in court.


Any child, adopted or your own, baby or older could come down with lots of expensive needs. Using that excuse is so riduculous that It shows someone really wants the easy way. Either you want to be a parent to another child or you don't. If money is a barrier then you don't want it enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> a question:
> *Why is it* that if a woman, pregnant with a viable fetus is murdered, the killer can be charged with double murder, but an abortionist is not charged with anything?


That has been asked and answered multiple times on all these abortion threads


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> I have been looking at adoption sites this afternoon just to get some statistics and find out what the requirements are now. If you are looking for a baby, there are lots of sites who wanting potential adoptive parents. You have to meet a lot of requirements, and then the birth mother has a lot of folders to go through to pick out her adoptive parents.
> If you want an older child, there are a lot of children available. You have to be able to handle the expense of taking care of special needs children. If the child has emotional problems, then you also have to be in a position to pay for extra help, mental health needs.
> Many older children know their biological family and you have to through counseling to handle the transition and continued visits with their biological family. It is not all cut and dried to just go out and adopt an older child. Even after you go through the placement, you go through at least a year trial , home visits by social worker, plus written correspondence with the agency. and finally finalized in court.


and yet the birth mother is expected to be able to deal with all those issues all by herself if she opts to keep her own special needs child? Like I said... Let's get all of these already born and breathing on their own kids taken care of.... Do that and then we can discuss bringing more of them into the world.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Accepting a law *doesn't mean* I have to turn tail and start saying I support abortion. It also *doesn't mean* I can't continue to be a voice for those who can't speak for themselves.


Again, no one has said you have to do anything at all other than accept the fact you can't force your views on others.

I already know "what it doesn't mean", since if I wanted to "mean" something else, I wouldn't have said what I did.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, no one has said you have to do anything at all other than accept the fact you can't force your views on others.
> 
> I already know "what it doesn't mean", since if I wanted to "mean" something else, I wouldn't have said what I did.


Then perhaps instead of spending so much time telling those who don't share your views they are wrong, since that's not very accepting. Or better yet, as you said earlier today mind your own business and quit telling others what they can or can't do or think.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> I could post an ultrasound that I rec'd today from a dear little friend that we have known her whole life and she is 19 wks pregnant. Her baby is a little girl and is as sweet and feminine as you have ever seen a baby to be. She even has eyebrows!
> a question:
> Why is it that if a woman, pregnant with a viable fetus is murdered, the killer can be charged with double murder, but an abortionist is not charged with anything?


I have one on my desk that was done last week, my grandson. He is sucking the first two fingers of his left hand. My daughter will deliver him next month. It was her choice to carry the pregnancy to term. She's pro-choice. 

See how that works? Pro-choice means the mother chooses what happens to her body, she can abort or she can carry to term. She chooses, and that's the way it should be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Then perhaps instead of spending so much time telling those who don't share your views they are wrong, since that's not very accepting. Or better yet, as you said earlier today mind your own business and quit telling others what they can or can't do or think.


Someone has to be "a voice for those who can't speak"


----------



## gapeach

Bearfootfarm said:


> That has been asked and answered multiple times on all these abortion threads


I can take just so many of these threads before I cannot emotionally stand it anymore. I really should not even read them or participate in them. I know that.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> Someone has to be "a voice for those who can't speak"


Women can't speak for themselves? Being female myself I can tell you with certainty we can and do.


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> Any child, adopted or your own, baby or older could come down with lots of expensive needs. Using that excuse is so riduculous that It shows someone really wants the easy way. Either you want to be a parent to another child or you don't. If money is a barrier then you don't want it enough.


What I am saying is that you have to be financially able to take that expense on to qualify. Not being financially secure can keep you from being able to adopt a child.

That part has not changed. Even 45 and 50 years ago to adopt, you had to submit your whole financial statement for a year in order to qualify. An agency is not going to place a baby or an older child unless you qualify to be able to support that child no matter what comes up.

That is not an excuse. Times have been hard for a lot of people for the last 10 years.

Many times I have thought that it is just not fair that some people have such a hard time even being to physically have a child and there are so many who just use abortion as a birth control.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> *I can take just so many* of these threads before I cannot emotionally stand it anymore. *I really should not even read them* or participate in them. I know that.


You started many of them yourself


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> Someone has to be "a voice for those who can't speak"


Hence pro life supporters


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> *Women* can't speak for themselves? Being female myself I can tell you with certainty we can and do.


I said "those who CAN'T speak for themselves"

I never said "women", which could not logically be what I meant, since we all know they seldom stop talking.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Hence pro life supporters


I think you mean pro *control* supporters
People can speak for themselves, but most "life" can't speak at all


----------



## popscott

...........


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> I said "those who CAN'T speak for themselves"
> 
> I never said "women", which could not logically be what I meant, since we all know they seldom stop talking.


I have a feeling you could out talk any women I know, myself included


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> I have one on my desk that was done last week, my grandson. He is sucking the first two fingers of his left hand. My daughter will deliver him next month. It was her choice to carry the pregnancy to term. She's pro-choice.
> 
> See how that works? Pro-choice means the mother chooses what happens to her body, she can abort or she can carry to term. She chooses, and that's the way it should be.


I hope everything goes well for her and the baby.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I have a feeling you could out talk any women I know, myself included


You'd be mistaken


----------



## Patchouli

dixiegal62 said:


> I've never lied or cheated about anything. You might want to check yourself.


Oh good grief I meant your side. Which should have been been obvious in context. Sorry.


----------



## Patchouli

Woolieface said:


> Ive posted pictures here of fetal development. The photos were from a pregnancy site... not a pro-life site, not an anything site as far as a bias towards or against abortion. Simply an information site for pregnant women who want to know what's going on inside them when they're pregnant.
> 
> They were very clearly humans. Very clearly what anyone would expect a baby to look like. The only really notable difference was the size in a picture of a 20 week fetus.
> 
> It's beyond my scope of imagination, when it comes to later term abortions of an age that would actually be viable if delivered premature, how anyone scrapes up something to say in defense of the idea that this is not a human being. Literally, the only difference in these cases are the location of the baby and the choice of the mother. Location and choice doesn't change the basic nature of what any living thing is. It's a choice of perception, and it has nothing remotely scientific to defend it.



I went to look for pictures and was so horrified by the stuff pro-lifers have spewed forth on the internet I can't even share them. It's just sick.


----------



## Patchouli

gapeach said:


> I have been looking at adoption sites this afternoon just to get some statistics and find out what the requirements are now. If you are looking for a baby, there are lots of sites who wanting potential adoptive parents. You have to meet a lot of requirements, and then the birth mother has a lot of folders to go through to pick out her adoptive parents.
> If you want an older child, there are a lot of children available. You have to be able to handle the expense of taking care of special needs children. If the child has emotional problems, then you also have to be in a position to pay for extra help, mental health needs.
> Many older children know their biological family and you have to through counseling to handle the transition and continued visits with their biological family. It is not all cut and dried to just go out and adopt an older child. Even after you go through the placement, you go through at least a year trial , home visits by social worker, plus written correspondence with the agency. and finally finalized in court.


Adopt through the state. 130,000 children are going begging for homes right now. Not only is their adoption FREE the state will cover their costs if they have health issues or need counseling. And yet y'all are not adopting them. The state's system to check you out isn't even all that onerous.


----------



## popscott

Patchouli said:


> I went to look for pictures and was so horrified by the stuff pro-lifers have spewed forth on the internet I can't even share them. It's just sick.


It's called a "reality check". Please share some "sick picture" links so the pro-abortion folks can see what they are *fighting for.* Please include the one with the gloved hand holding an infant arm... Yep, just an arm... Sick indeed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> It's called a "reality check". Please share some "sick picture" links so the pro-abortion folks can see what they are *fighting for.* Please include the one with the gloved hand holding an infant arm... Yep, just an arm... Sick indeed.


Everyone knows already.
It's no secret, and it's been going on for thousands of years.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Patchouli said:


> Adopt through the state. 130,000 children are going begging for homes right now. Not only is their adoption FREE the state will cover their costs if they have health issues or need counseling. And yet y'all are not adopting them. The state's system to check you out isn't even all that onerous.


Real Life award 

Another reason why pro life is really pro unborn.


----------



## Farmerga

Patchouli said:


> Adopt through the state. 130,000 children are going begging for homes right now. Not only is their adoption FREE the state will cover their costs if they have health issues or need counseling. And yet y'all are not adopting them. The state's system to check you out isn't even all that onerous.


 I have gone through this system that is "not all that onerous" trying to adopt an older child. They declined me for health reasons (they say), but, the reaction, the social worker had about my firearms collection, was likely the real reason. The system is ran, mostly, by pro-abortionists. BTW, why are we talking about older children? If one decides to abort, it is obvious that she doesn't want the baby and, when it is born, it is an infant, not an older child, so, the lack of good homes, for older children, is irrelevant in this situation. Also, ask some of those poor children, who go to bed in a warm house with a full belly, if they wish they had never been born.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, no one has said you have to do anything at all other than accept the fact you can't force your views on others.
> 
> I already know "what it doesn't mean", since if I wanted to "mean" something else, I wouldn't have said what I did.


 Again, that is what laws do. There are plenty of laws that force someone else's views on me. One major example is the ACA, Another would be drug prohibitions. There are thousands of other examples where the views of a subset of society have been written into law and force others to bend to their will, or, face the consequences.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I have gone through this system that is "not all that onerous" trying to adopt an older child. They declined me for health reasons (they say), but, the reaction, the social worker had about my firearms collection, was likely the real reason. The system is ran, mostly, by pro-abortionists. BTW, why are we talking about older children? If one decides to abort, it is obvious that she doesn't want the baby and, when it is born, it is an infant, not an older child, so, the lack of good homes, for older children, is irrelevant in this situation. Also, ask some of those poor children, who go to bed in a warm house with a full belly, if they wish they had never been born.


If you really want to adopt then age of the child should not matter. Less abortions does not mean only more babies. It more mean more older children after the parents can't cope.

Everyone that wants to adopt should have to take an older child first.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> If you really want to adopt then age of the child should not matter. Less abortions does not mean only more babies. It more mean more older children after the parents can't cope.
> 
> Everyone that wants to adopt should have to take an older child first.


 I tend to agree. I really wanted to adopt a family of 3 beautiful kids from age 3 to 12, but the State denied me. They said "health reason" but, my health is not really bad, so, I am forced to believe that there were other reasons, such as my hobby, judging from the reaction of the social worker. A friend of mine, with similar education, financial situation, and health was able to adopt 4. She didn't have the same hobby as I do.


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> If you really want to adopt then age of the child should not matter. Less abortions does not mean only more babies. It more mean more older children after the parents can't cope.
> *
> Everyone that wants to adopt should have to take an older child first.*



Now you want to dictate which children can be adopted. Why is it liberals want to control every detail of everything? We have a foster care system. Adopt the babies and in a few years there will be no older children needing adopted.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> Now you want to dictate which children can be adopted. Why is it liberals want to control every detail of everything? We have a foster care system. Adopt the babies and in a few years there will be no older children needing adopted.


There are always older children needing to be adopted. More as the parents can't cope with the child they had because someone wanted to dictate what they do with their own body.

You want to adopt a child, you get dictated to. Society has decided that is a good thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> Now you want to dictate which children can be adopted. Why is it liberals want to control every detail of everything? We have a foster care system. Adopt the babies and in a few years there will be no older children needing adopted.


If people want to ban abortions and substitute adoptions, they need to prove they are serious and able to handle the volume available already before adding another million each year


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> If people want to ban abortions and substitute adoptions, they need to prove they are serious and able to handle the volume available already before adding another million each year


 
Why? These kids are being taken care of. They are being fed. They go to school, they have fun. Is their situation ideal? No. Whose is? It doubt it is common to find one who wishes he/she had never been born. 
That being said, I am all for making the process much much easier to adopt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *Why?* These kids are being taken care of. They are being fed. They go to school, they have fun. Is their situation ideal? No. Whose is? It doubt it is common to find one who wishes he/she had never been born.
> That being said, I am all for making the process much much easier to adopt.


I already answered that question more than once.


----------



## gapeach

Farmerga said:


> Why? These kids are being taken care of. They are being fed. They go to school, they have fun. Is their situation ideal? No. Whose is? It doubt it is common to find one who wishes he/she had never been born.
> That being said, I am all for making the process much much easier to adopt.


I agree with you and don't see how adopting older children, even if you can qualify, has anything to do with aborted babies

Unless people have been through the process like you have, they just don't realize how hard it is to qualify. Qualifications to be an adoptive parent are not the same as those to be a foster parent.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> I agree with you and don't see how adopting older children, even if you can qualify, has anything to do with aborted babies
> 
> Unless people have been through the process like you have, *they just don't realize how hard it is to qualify*. Qualifications to be an adoptive parent are not the same as those to be a foster parent.


If you can't adopt now, you won't be able to adopt the extra million babies per year.

It won't get easier to qualify, and there won't be millions more looking to adopt


----------



## Farmerga

gapeach said:


> I agree with you and don't see how adopting older children, even if you can qualify, has anything to do with aborted babies
> 
> Unless people have been through the process like you have, they just don't realize how hard it is to qualify. Qualifications to be an adoptive parent are not the same as those to be a foster parent.


 It doesn't.

Yes, it is convoluted, intrusive, mind numbing, insulting, very difficult, expensive, etc. to TRY and qualify to adopt.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you can't adopt now, you won't be able to adopt the extra million babies per year.
> 
> It won't get easier to qualify, and there won't be millions more looking to adopt


 Even if true. (there is NO reason why it couldn't be made easier/cheaper to adopt.) Still, it is no excuse to kill the excess unborn children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Even if true. (there is NO reason why it couldn't be made easier/cheaper to adopt.) Still, it is *no excuse* to kill the excess unborn children.


That's your opinion, and obviously many disagree.

You cannot make them do as you want

No one needs an "excuse" since there are many valid reasons why women want abortions, and they don't have to justify any of them to you


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's your opinion, and obviously many disagree.
> 
> *You cannot make them do as you want
> *
> No one needs an "excuse" since there are many valid reasons why women want abortions, and they don't have to justify any of them to you


 240 years of changing American law calls this statement into question.


----------



## gapeach

Farmerga said:


> I have gone through this system that is "not all that onerous" trying to adopt an older child. They declined me for health reasons (they say), but, the reaction, the social worker had about my firearms collection, was likely the real reason. The system is ran, mostly, by pro-abortionists. BTW, why are we talking about older children? If one decides to abort, it is obvious that she doesn't want the baby and, when it is born, it is an infant, not an older child, so, the lack of good homes, for older children, is irrelevant in this situation. Also, ask some of those poor children, who go to bed in a warm house with a full belly, if they wish they had never been born.


Way back in the 70's, our best friends were not approved for adoption, they were healthy, educated, she was a 1st grade teacher, he had a good job as part owner of building company. They got a letter through the mail that they were rejected and the social worker said she hoped that they would be able to work their marriage problems out. When they were finally able to get the social worker to return there call for Why???? She said that when she interviewed them once individually that the wife answered her question, was her husband immature and she had said "yes, at times". 
It was really horrible for them. They went to the same church as the social worker.:rain:


It is also much easier for a baby to bond with a mom and dad. Many older children still see their parents and relatives.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> Way back in the 70's, our best friends were not approved for adoption, they were healthy, educated, she was a 1st grade teacher, he had a good job as part owner of building company. They got a letter through the mail that they were rejected and the social worker said she hoped that they would be able to work their marriage problems out. When they were finally able to get the social worker to return there call for Why???? She said that when she interviewed them once individually that the wife answered her question, was her husband immature and she had said "yes, at times".
> It was really horrible for them. They went to the same church as the social worker.:rain:
> 
> 
> It is also much easier for a baby to bond with a mom and dad. Many older children still see their parents and relatives.


It sounds to me like there is a lot of work to be done on the adoption process before we force that system to deal with an additional million or so unwanted kids to be placed every year.


----------



## gapeach

That was in the 70's dealing with the state agency. I hope that they have lightened up somewhat by now. One thing was that you had to be a regular churchgoer and promise to bring the child up in the church. They really left no stone unturned back then and I completely understand why.
When you trust a young couple with a baby, you have to be very careful.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> 240 years of changing American law calls this statement into question.


It hasn't changed the abortion rates.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> That was in the 70's dealing with the state agency. I hope that they have lightened up somewhat by now. One thing was that you had to be a regular churchgoer and promise to bring the child up in the church. They really left no stone unturned back then and I completely understand why.
> *When you trust a young couple with a baby, you have to be very careful.*


But its ok to force a drug addicted prostitute to carry her baby to full term and raise it herself. Sounds like a real plan to me.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But its ok to force a drug addicted prostitute to carry her baby to full term and raise it herself. Sounds like a real plan to me.


 Who said anything about raising it herself? In the pro-life position, there are two points of choice, when it comes to children. One can (usually) choose to engage in activity where pregnancy may result, or, not. Also, one can choose to give up the living child to the state/adoption/etc. There absolutely should be no option to end a healthy pregnancy, where the death of the child is the goal.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Who said anything about raising it herself? In the pro-life position, there are two points of choice, when it comes to children. One can (usually) choose to engage in activity where pregnancy may result, or, not. Also, one can choose to give up the living child to the state/adoption/etc. There absolutely should be no option to end a healthy pregnancy, where the death of the child is the goal.


Where is your line on abortion? Conception, one week? 5 weeks?


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Where is your line on abortion? Conception, one week? 5 weeks?


How about where the process actually begins.... when that egg drops and awaits fertilization? I find it amazing that some will argue that an abortion is monstrous because it ends a potential life, and yet will argue that abstinence is perfectly ok even though it ends that very same life!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Who said anything about raising it herself? In the pro-life position, there are two points of choice, when it comes to children. One can (usually) choose to engage in activity where pregnancy may result, or, not. Also, one can choose to give up the living child to the state/adoption/etc. There absolutely should be no option to end a healthy pregnancy, where the death of the child is the goal.


So the pro *control* position is to force a women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, and then to take the child away to be raised by someone who meets all the adoption requirements, or to be placed in a foster home and bounced around until they turn 18

Sounds like slavery to me


----------



## painterswife

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How about where the process actually begins.... when that egg drops and awaits fertilization? I find it amazing that some will argue that an abortion is monstrous because it ends a potential life, and yet will argue that abstinence is perfectly ok even though it ends that very same life!


I agree. It does make a difference where someone's line is and why to a discussion. Someone who believes it is conception ( or before) does not want to work towards a solution. They believe it is a child has has some kind of right to life that overrides the mothers rights. They don't even want to investigate the science that go along with viability and personhood.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Where is your line on abortion? Conception, one week? 5 weeks?


 Conception, the moment that a unique new human life is created. Very simple.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> So the pro *control* position is to force a women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, and then to take the child away to be raised by someone who meets all the adoption requirements, or to be placed in a foster home and bounced around until they turn 18
> 
> Sounds like slavery to me


 Not even remotely what I said, but you know that. The choice begins and ends (in most cases) with the activity that may lead to pregnancy. If pregnancy results it is not just the woman's rights that have to be considered, but, also the child. If the pregnancy will kill the mother, and in turn the child, abortion is justified. If the pregnancy has progressed to the point where the child is viable, and, complications dictate that the pregnancy must be terminated, every effort must be utilized to ensure that the child has a chance of survival. If little more than temporary inconvenience and other external consequences occur, as a result of the pregnancy, the child's right to live should be given priority. After pregnancy, the mother has the choice to raise the baby, or, give it up to the state or for adoption. Lack of adoption parents and/or failure of the state to pull its head out of its butt, should not be considered in this argument as justification for the murder of the unborn.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How about where the process actually begins.... when that egg drops and awaits fertilization? I find it amazing that some will argue that an abortion is monstrous because it ends a potential life, and yet will argue that abstinence is perfectly ok even though it ends that very same life!


 Abortion doesn't end a potential life, it ends an actual life.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Abortion doesn't end a potential life, it ends an actual life.


It does not however mean it is ending a person. There is no person just cells for much of a pregnancy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Lack of adoption parents and/or failure of the state to pull its head out of its butt, should not be considered in this argument as justification for the murder of the unborn.


You're the one pushing for adoption as the solution, so there has to be one set of parents for each abortion not performed.

Otherwise you need to follow the principles you espoused in the baker thread about "freedom to choose"


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're the one pushing for adoption as the solution, so there has to be one set of parents for each abortion not performed.
> 
> Otherwise you need to follow the principles you espoused in the baker thread about "freedom to choose"


 You know, I don't believe that the baker should be able to shoot those, who he doesn't want to serve, in the head, so, the comparison is not valid. And BTW, I never said that adoption was "the solution" I said it was a more humane and civilized option, warts and all.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> It does not however mean it is ending a person. There is no person just cells for much of a pregnancy.


 Much is a stretch, a fetus is very human looking in short order. Anyway, we are talking about human rights, the embryo/fetus is definitely human.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Much is a stretch, a fetus is very human looking in short order. Anyway, we are talking about human rights, the embryo/fetus is definitely human.


Human looking does not make a person.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> You know, *I don't believe that the baker should be able to shoot those, who he doesn't want to serve*, in the head, so, the comparison is not valid. And BTW, I never said that adoption was "the solution" I said it was a more humane and civilized option, warts and all.


Who said anything about shooting anyone?

You talked about "freedom to choose", but you only want it for the causes you approve.

You said he shouldn't be "forced", but you would force women to have babies they don't want.

You have an obvious double standard on these two issues


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Not even remotely what I said, but you know that. The choice begins and ends (in most cases) with the activity that may lead to pregnancy. If pregnancy results it is not just the woman's rights that have to be considered, but, also the child. If the pregnancy will kill the mother, and in turn the child, abortion is justified. If the pregnancy has progressed to the point where the child is viable, and, complications dictate that the pregnancy must be terminated, every effort must be utilized to ensure that the child has a chance of survival. If little more than temporary inconvenience and other external consequences occur, as a result of the pregnancy, the child's right to live should be given priority. After pregnancy, the mother has the choice to raise the baby, or, give it up to the state or for adoption. Lack of adoption parents and/or failure of the state to pull its head out of its butt, should not be considered in this argument as justification for the murder of the unborn.


You are totally and completely wrong. According to Roe v. Wade every women in the US has the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. It's been that way for over 40 years. 

The real question is this: what are you and your kind going to do about it? The protests, marches, and whining on the internet have done absolutely nothing... So I'm assuming we can look forward to more of the same? Including incessant whining, wailing about how it's not right and moral to kill, murder, blah blah blah and other nonsense? 

If you really wanted to adopt older children you'd give up your hobby. After all, what's more important?

Until the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned, or as I like to think of it when hell freezes over, there is not one constructive thing you can do to stop abortion. Actually, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow there's _still_ nothing you could do about abortion. 

There. I'm feeling as self satisfied as old women cackling about getting Medicaid funding taken away from poor people.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Human looking does not make a person.


 Say they are not a person. They are human, are they not? Their situation is changing and advancing towards personhood, is it not? It is not like a brain dead person who has no hope of improvement, the unborn are developing towards your definition of personhood.


----------



## gapeach

Farmerga said:


> Much is a stretch, a fetus is very human looking in short order. Anyway, we are talking about human rights, the embryo/fetus is definitely human.



I could not do it now at almost 75 yrs old but if anyone in my family had become pregnant and was considering abortion, my DH and I would have gladly raised another baby. I think people in most families would if it were possible for them.

We did have a situation like that once, a family member, but her boyfriend wanted to marry her when he found out so it ended well.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How about where the process actually begins.... when that egg drops and awaits fertilization? I find it amazing that some will argue that an abortion is monstrous because it ends a potential life, and yet will argue that abstinence is perfectly ok even though it ends that very same life!


If a women releases more than one egg a month that's 12+ lives a year. A claim can be made that abstinence actually terminates more lives than abortion.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Conception, the moment that a unique new human life is created. Very simple.


Thats one place in the timetable, Many would agree with you. Now consider for a moment that you may be wrong. From a scientific stand point conception is indeed one of the major mile markers, but then so is the moment of birth. There is several mile markers between those, 20 weeks comes up often as being the point of viablity for the fetus. Yet another mile marker is when the egg is pulled from the ovary and dropped into the womb.... very much alive. Those are some of the various mile markers on the road to a baby drawing its first breath. (which is another valid milestone in itself)

Science however has little to do with morals and morality. Those are abstract principles often determined by religious beliefs or other personal beliefs. Right and wrong.... not always the same for everyone, and a lot of gray areas. Speaking from a strictly moral basis, I find the abortion issue to be rather complex. The object of an abortion is to prevent a human being from ever drawing that first breath. If preventing that unique individual from doing so is "immoral" then any use of any form of birth control is also logically immoral. It makes no difference at what state the interference takes place if it prevents that baby drawing a first breath. 
Abstinence is just one more way to prevent that child.... and therefor is every bit as "immoral" as a late term abortion.... speaking strictly from a moral standpoint, leaving out science and emotion.


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> If a women releases more than one egg a month that's 12+ lives a year. A claim can be made that abstinence actually terminates more lives than abortion.


That is just plain silly.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> That is just plain silly.


Not any more silly than stating over and over and over that a 12 week old fetus is viable.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You are totally and completely wrong. According to Roe v. Wade every women in the US has the right to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. It's been that way for over 40 years.
> 
> The real question is this: what are you and your kind going to do about it? The protests, marches, and whining on the internet have done absolutely nothing... So I'm assuming we can look forward to more of the same? Including incessant whining, wailing about how it's not right and moral to kill, murder, blah blah blah and other nonsense?
> 
> If you really wanted to adopt older children you'd give up your hobby. After all, what's more important?
> 
> Until the day that Roe v. Wade is overturned, or as I like to think of it when hell freezes over, there is not one constructive thing you can do to stop abortion. Actually, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow there's _still_ nothing you could do about abortion.
> 
> There. I'm feeling as self satisfied as old women cackling about getting Medicaid funding taken away from poor people.


 Me and "my kind" are going to fight to have that mistake of a ruling either overturned, or, even better, a Constitutional amendment placed that enumerates the human right to life for the unborn. It may take decades. It may take generations, it may even take a century, or, more, but the Crime against humanity that is abortion will, on day, be looked back upon with the revulsion it deserves.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who said anything about shooting anyone?
> 
> You talked about "freedom to choose", but you only want it for the causes you approve.
> 
> You said he shouldn't be "forced", but you would force women to have babies they don't want.
> 
> You have an obvious double standard on these two issues


We are talking about killing the unborn, which is evil, sick and twisted, or, not selling a cake. The two issues do not compare, so, to put them on the same level I stated that I wasn't for store owners having the right to kill people with whom they do not want to do business. I did this only so that the comparison could be valid. You're welcome.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Me and "my kind" are going to fight to have that mistake of a ruling either overturned, or, even better, a Constitutional amendment placed that enumerates the human right to life for the unborn. It may take decades. It may take generations, it may even take a century, or, more, but the Crime against humanity that is abortion will, on day, be looked back upon with the revulsion it deserves.


The drama... and they say women are overly emotional. I've read on here how "liberals" are all about emotions and feelings, well they don't hold a candle to some conservatives. 

How are you going to _do_ that? Just what are you currently doing to overturn Roe v. Wade? Do you have an attorney fighting in court? Or just whining about it on the internet? How's that working for you?

Are you going to give up your hobby and adopt older special needs kids? Or doesn't your conviction run that strong?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Much is a stretch, a fetus is very human looking in short order. Anyway, we are talking about human rights, the embryo/fetus is definitely human.


True, we are discussing human rights.... from the legal standpoint. In the USA we have what is called a Constitution which is accepted as the highest law of our land. At this point that document puts a persons rights being protected by law at the moment of a live birth. (see the fourteenth amendment) Previous to being born our government does not feel obligated to protect anyones human rights. You may wish to propose another amendment if you are not happy with things as they stand.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thats one place in the timetable, Many would agree with you. Now consider for a moment that you may be wrong. From a scientific stand point conception is indeed one of the major mile markers, but then so is the moment of birth. There is several mile markers between those, 20 weeks comes up often as being the point of viablity for the fetus. Yet another mile marker is when the egg is pulled from the ovary and dropped into the womb.... very much alive. Those are some of the various mile markers on the road to a baby drawing its first breath. (which is another valid milestone in itself)
> 
> Science however has little to do with morals and morality. Those are abstract principles often determined by religious beliefs or other personal beliefs. Right and wrong.... not always the same for everyone, and a lot of gray areas. Speaking from a strictly moral basis, I find the abortion issue to be rather complex. The object of an abortion is to prevent a human being from ever drawing that first breath. If preventing that unique individual from doing so is "immoral" then any use of any form of birth control is also logically immoral. It makes no difference at what state the interference takes place if it prevents that baby drawing a first breath.
> Abstinence is just one more way to prevent that child.... and therefor is every bit as "immoral" as a late term abortion.... speaking strictly from a moral standpoint, leaving out science and emotion.


 There is a difference between preventing the child, as you put it, through some form of conception prevention, and killing the child that has been created. Prior to conception, there is no unique human life involved. At the moment of conception that life is created. There is no "potential" anymore, that life is actual.


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> If a women releases more than one egg a month that's 12+ lives a year. A claim can be made that abstinence actually terminates more lives than abortion.





gapeach said:


> That is just plain silly.


That is not silly, its factual. unlike being based on emotion or religious beliefs facts are facts


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> True, we are discussing human rights.... from the legal standpoint. In the USA we have what is called a Constitution which is accepted as the highest law of our land. At this point that document puts a persons rights being protected by law at the moment of a live birth. (see the fourteenth amendment) Previous to being born our government does not feel obligated to protect anyones human rights. You may wish to propose another amendment if you are not happy with things as they stand.


 
As I said in my response to Irish Pixie, that is a goal.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Say they are not a person. They are human, are they not? Their situation is changing and advancing towards personhood, is it not? It is not like a brain dead person who has no hope of improvement, the unborn are developing towards your definition of personhood.


Yes they might get there but you are not killing a person. I do agree that at the point of viability there should be another solution for all healthy fetuses. 

I am a very matter of fact person. I don't believe we should keep brain dead people alive. I think all adults should be able to end their lives when they can't take care of themselves if they wish. I don't think a fetus has rights that override that of their mother.


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> ...........












You do realize that is an obviously photo shopped picture, right? :facepalm:

And the quote? Because their mothers _chose_ to carry them to term.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Yes they might get there but you are not killing a person. I do agree that at the point of viability there should be another solution for all healthy fetuses.
> 
> I am a very matter of fact person. I don't believe we should keep brain dead people alive. I think all adults should be able to end their lives when they can't take care of themselves if they wish. I don't think a fetus has rights that override that of their mother.


With the exception of the first and last sentence, I agree.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> We are talking about killing the unborn, which is *evil, sick and twisted*, or, not selling a cake. *The two issues do not compare*, so, to put them on the same level I stated that I wasn't for store owners having the right to kill people with whom they do not want to do business. I did this only so that the comparison could be valid. Your welcome.


They compare more than you kissing your kids and someone running a business

If you believe in "*freedom and choice*" it has to be for everyone, all the time, not just those causes you support


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> They compare more than you kissing your kids and someone running a business
> 
> If you believe in "*freedom and choice*" it has to be for everyone, all the time, not just those causes you support


 
I'll put it here as well so everyone can see it. There should be no choice when the choice results in the death of another human being. That goes for business and pregnancy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I'll put it here as well so everyone can see it. *There should be no choice *when the choice results in the death of another human being. That goes for business and pregnancy.


Again, that's only your opinion, and about half disagree.

It's pointless to keep going in circles repeating the same things in multiple threads


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> The drama... and they say women are overly emotional. I've read on here how "liberals" are all about emotions and feelings, well they don't hold a candle to some conservatives.
> 
> How are you going to _do_ that? Just what are you currently doing to overturn Roe v. Wade? Do you have an attorney fighting in court? Or just whining about it on the internet? How's that working for you?
> 
> Are you going to give up your hobby and adopt older special needs kids? Or doesn't your conviction run that strong?


 I give to causes that are in the fight, including lobbying groups in D.C. 
I belong to groups who deal with several different aspects of the fight, including, but, not limited to adoption simplification. And, I support local foster programs. 

I am too old now, but, why should I give up my legal, safe hobby to impress some leftist tyrant? 

Any more snarky questions?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, that's only your opinion, and about half disagree.
> 
> It's pointless to keep going in circles repeating the same things in multiple threads


 And finally, we agree.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I give to causes that are in the fight, including lobbying groups in D.C.
> I belong to groups who deal with several different aspects of the fight, including, but, not limited to adoption simplification. And, I support local foster programs.
> 
> I am too old now, but, why should I give up my legal, safe hobby to impress some leftist tyrant?
> 
> Any more snarky questions?


Snarky? More like enough BS. This is done, stick a fork in it. You are not going to overturn Roe v. Wade, the most you will do is make it harder for a woman to get an abortion. That, in turn, will cause more second trimester abortions. Is that what you want? Think about it, put the emotion away and really think about it. There are women that will carry their pregnancy to term and keep the baby, there are woman that will put it up for adoption, and there are women who will abort. It will always be this way, and it has always been that way. It's a woman's choice. 

There's a reason why right to life was overturned, it's a violation of a women's civil rights. You are trying to exert control over my body, and I don't like it. 

I donate to Planned Parenthood, plus a food bank, and agencies that help those in need. Why don't you put your effort where it's really needed? Help kids that are already born.


----------



## kasilofhome

Making it harder is a positive result.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Making it harder is a *positive result*.


Actual data says that's a false perception. There are just as many abortions, and more of the mothers die


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Making it harder is a positive result.


You want more second trimester abortions? That's what making it harder is going to do.


----------



## gapeach

If people would just be responsible, there would be no need for abortions, certainly not the ridiculous number, I mean tragic amount of babies being killed now.:rain::awh:


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> If that's true you are the first of the pro unborn to not take the bait and believe the videos were the absolute truth. The rest of them ate it up like candy.


You might want to retract that statement as I am on record with stating that I don't care if they are staged. They are serving their purpose as FarmerGA has indicated and there is nothing that you can do to stop people from rethinking the whole dilemma.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Again, that's only your opinion, and about half disagree.
> 
> It's pointless to keep going in circles repeating the same things in multiple threads


LOL!!! - the why are you continuing???


----------



## gapeach

[SIZE=+1]*Planned Butcherhood: Ripping Organs from Babies with Beating Hearts*[/SIZE]
*The New American ^ * | 8/20/2015 | Selwyn Duke

Don't think that Americans are not taking a stand against the baby murders.
Gov Nikki Haley of SC ordered an investigation into the Planned Parenthoods in SC yesterday.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> If people would just be responsible, there would be no need for abortions, certainly not the ridiculous number, I mean tragic amount of babies being killed now.:rain::awh:


Using birth control is responsible but what if it fails? 

I wish I was as perfect as the rainbow and unicorn crowd. No mistakes, just perfect all the time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> *Ifpeople would just be responsible*, there would be no need for abortions, certainly not the ridiculous number, I mean tragic amount of babies being killed now.:rain::awh:


If Bull Frogs had wings they wouldn't have to hop, but let's just discuss what's real and not how things "should be"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> LOL!!! - the why are you continuing???


Someone has to try to keep things real.
It can't all be emotional rhetoric, silly icons and cartoons


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> [SIZE=+1]*Planned Butcherhood: Ripping Organs from Babies with Beating Hearts*[/SIZE]
> 
> *Don't think that Americans are not taking a stand* against the baby murders.
> Gov Nikki Haley of SC ordered an investigation into the Planned Parenthoods in SC yesterday.


In a few weeks this will be old news, and more states will find there were no violations
http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned...ht-over-antiabortion-groups-videos-1439850374



> Planned Parenthood Federation of America appears to be gaining traction in its efforts to push back against videos targeting it and state efforts to cut its funding.
> 
> The Center for Medical Progress, which released undercover videos that it says show Planned Parenthood illegally profits from the sale of fetal tissue to medical researchers, is now under investigation in two states over the videos.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> There is a difference between preventing the child, as you put it, through some form of conception prevention, and killing the child that has been created. Prior to conception, there is no unique human life involved. At the moment of conception that life is created. There is no "potential" anymore, that life is actual.


Got news for you..... In spite of your personal beliefs that egg is very much alive and very much unique.... Allowing it to die is every bit as immoral as a late term abortion... At least from the child who will never draw a breath point of view is concerned.


----------



## gapeach

Bearfootfarm said:


> In a few weeks this will be old news, and more states will find there were no violations
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/planned...ht-over-antiabortion-groups-videos-1439850374


Hah! you can read one sentence and that is all on WSJ.

*Four states find no violations of fetal-tissue laws, and Obama administration warns three others seeking to cut funding.*

In another year we won't have to worry about the Obama threats anymore.

This is so pitiful.....
Lemon said that "more than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock." Federal data confirms that *73 percent of African-American births in 2010 were out of wedlock. *
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...on-lemon-says-more-72-percent-african-americ/

Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions.​ According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion​ On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.​ This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. *Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."*​ A highly significant 1993 Howard University study showed that *African American women over age 50 were 4.7 times more likely to get breast cancer* if they had had any abortions compared to women who had not had any abortions.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html


This is so sad. Read about the incidence in breast cancer in women who have had abortions.
​


----------



## Lisa in WA

Only the crackpot websites link abortion and cancer. Hmmmm...I wonder why.


----------



## gapeach

*THE DEBATED BREAST CANCER RISK* 

Experts debate whether an abortion further increases risk by leaving the woman with more cancer-vulnerable breast tissue than she had before she became pregnant. This effect is known as the "independent link." 

The breasts grow considerably during pregnancy while under the influence of high levels of the hormone estrogen, a known carcinogen. Estrogen causes the woman's normal and cancer-vulnerable breast lobules to multiply. If she has an abortion, she's left with more places for cancers to start in her breasts. If she has a baby, then other pregnancy hormones mature her breast lobules into cancer-resistant lobules during the last months of pregnancy. She's left with more cancer-resistant tisue than she had before she became pregnant. 

Seventy-two epidemiological studies have been conducted since 1957; and 80% of these studies have shown that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer independently of the effect of delaying the birth of a first child. These epidemiological studies establish a correlation between abortion and increased breast cancer risk. Most of the recent epidemiological studies focus exclusively on the effect of the independent link, not the known risk of delaying the birth of a first child. 

An independent link is also supported by: 

1) Animal research [Russo & Russo Am J Pathology 1980]; 

2) The World Health Organization's acknowledgement that oral contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy containing estrogen and progestin are "Group 1 carcinogens." (Press Release #167, July 29, 2005); 

3) The established risk showing that a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation more than doubles breast cancer risk. The hormonal changes to the breasts are the same whether the woman has an abortion or a premature birth before 32 weeks gestation. [Melbye et al. Br J Cancer 1999; Hsieh et al. Lancet 1999; Vatten et al. Br J Cancer 2002; Innes and Byers Int J Cancer 2004] 

4) Plausible biological reasons why an abortion leaves a woman more susceptible to breast cancer.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm


----------



## Lisa in WA

gapeach said:


> Do you have proof of that?
> 
> 
> 
> I have read many times from a lot of years ago that there is a link between having an abortion and coming up with breast cancer later.


Not one reputable website including the American cancer association claims a link, in fact they deny there is a link.

You came up with the idea...you provide a link.


But of course...if you read it somewhere a long time ago...it must be true.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Using birth control is responsible but what if it fails?
> 
> I wish I was as perfect as the rainbow and unicorn crowd. No mistakes, just perfect all the time.


I'll let you in on a little secret.
The "rainbow and unicorn crowd" (yes, we know what that means, sadly) isn't perfect and knows it.
From what I can see, it's the part about *admitting* a mistake that seems to be what is lacking in society today.
You really can't be a part of that "crowd" if you haven't learned how to do that important task, because it's the very first step.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> Using birth control is responsible but what if it fails?
> 
> I wish I was as perfect as the rainbow and unicorn crowd. No mistakes, just perfect all the time.


Then their are many CHOICES

Become a parent 

Give the child up...heck you can even pick from waiting parents to be while the child grows inside of you

See choices...the pro choice don't consider.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Then their are many CHOICES
> 
> Become a parent
> 
> Give the child up...heck you can even pick from waiting parents to be while the child grows inside of you
> 
> See choices...the pro choice don't consider.


i think that adoption option has been fairy well exposed for what it is.... Bogged down in red tape and made extremely expensive keeping those children away from prospective parents. Enough so that there are a tremendous number of children wishing for parents to no avail. Not a good choice by any stretch.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> There is a difference between preventing the child, as you put it, through some form of conception prevention, and killing the child that has been created. Prior to conception, there is no unique human life involved. At the moment of conception that life is created. There is no "potential" anymore, that life is actual.


According to you. The egg is very much alive and carries its own unique dna to the womb where it awaits another unique living cell to combine with. Failure to bring those two very much living entities kills that life every bit as dead as a late term abortion.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, those issue of the difficulties with adoption do not impede the birth mother and hopefully the birth father.

It is really no issue.

Like my son. The mom gave birth.. and signed papers all done. Now, for the birth parents.. Now the cat and mouse and cost are only for the adoptive parents.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> If people would just be responsible, there would be no need for abortions, certainly not the ridiculous number, I mean tragic amount of babies being killed now.:rain::awh:


And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his backside..... When you find a frog with wings, that might be a good time to discuss humans not making mistakes.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Well, those issue of the difficulties with adoption do not impede the birth mother and hopefully the birth father.
> 
> It is really no issue.
> 
> Like my son. The mom gave birth.. and signed papers all done. Now, for the birth parents.. Now the cat and mouse and cost are only for the adoptive parents.


Well, it sounds like you have the solution well in hand.... Makes me wonder why there are umpteen thousand babies needing a home?


----------



## farmrbrown

Yvonne's hubby said:


> According to you. The egg is very much alive and carries its own unique dna to the womb where it awaits another unique living cell to combine with. Failure to bring those two very much living entities kills that life every bit as dead as a late term abortion.





That's an interesting viewpoint, not entirely invalid either, although biology may offer some pretty solid rebuttal. Technically, it is only half the DNA needed to be considered a separate human, the egg or sperm is an identical cell of the parent like a skin or blood cell that you lose daily. Those by themselves ARE living, but not a new and unique creation of a different being. 



Yvonne's hubby said:


> And if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his backside..... When you find a frog with wings, that might be a good time to discuss humans not making mistakes.



I don't think it's correct to say anyone is preaching perfection, rather the choice made AFTER a mistake is made. The opposing views are whether the choices are better or worse, or THE worst choice you could make.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> i think that adoption option has been fairy well exposed for what it is.... Bogged down in red tape and made extremely expensive keeping those children away from prospective parents. Enough so that there are a tremendous number of children wishing for parents to no avail. *Not a good choice by any stretch.*



A case in point. 
Adoption certainly may not be the BEST choice, but is it worse than death?


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> That's an interesting viewpoint, not entirely invalid either, although biology may offer some pretty solid rebuttal. Technically, it is only half the DNA needed to be considered a separate human, the egg or sperm is an identical cell of the parent like a skin or blood cell that you lose daily. Those by themselves ARE living, but not a new and unique creation of a different being.
> 
> * nope, they are not a finished product, but a product in the making if someone does not make a choice to prevent them completing their destiny. Looking at it from a purely moral point of view there is no difference in the outcome of that choice and the choice to terminate the pregnancy later in the natural process required to create that live baby.*
> 
> I don't think it's correct to say anyone is preaching perfection, rather the choice made AFTER a mistake is made. The opposing views are whether the choices are better or worse, or THE worst choice you could make.
> 
> * I agree that abortion is a poor choice, but it is no worse nor better than any other choice that ultimately keeps that child from running through a meadow chasing butterflys. *
> 
> 
> A case in point.
> Adoption certainly may not be the BEST choice, but is it worse than death?


Adoption is great.... If only it worked.... Hundreds of thousands of unwanted children never find loving parents to care for them. As to is it better than death? I don't see the issue... Once you choose to deny that child a right to live, it makes little difference to the child who has no comprehension of life... Whether it is terminated in the womb by denying its partner an audience or if it's terminated in the birth canal five minutes befor it could take its first breath.


----------



## kasilofhome

Those state as to the volume of children waiting to be adopted need to be broken down.

Reason being many of the children end up waiting to be adopted did not enter the system as babies but rather thru child protection service


Foster Care Facts	
Back to top ^



Children in Care
400,540 children are in the U.S. foster care system. Most children are placed temporarily in foster care due to parental abuse or neglect 

Age of Children in Foster Care
The median age of a child in foster care is 9 years old. 

Age	
Percentage

Younger than 1 year

6%

Age 1-5 years

32%

Age 6-10 years

21%

Age 11-15 years

23%

Age 16-18 years

18%

Over 18

2%


Race/Ethnicity
As a percentage, there are more children of color in the foster care system than in the general U.S. population. However, child abuse and neglect occur at about the same rate in all racial/ethnic groups.

Ethnicity

Out of Home Care

Black, Non-Hispanic

27%

White, Non-Hispanic

41%

Hispanic

21%

American Indian/Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic

2%

Asian/Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic

1%

Unknown

2%

Two or More Races, Non-Hispanic

5%



Gender 
Male

52%

Female

48%



Length of Stay
For the children in foster care on September 30, 2011, the average amount of time they had been in the system was 23.9 months. Fifty three percent of those leaving care that year had been away from home for a year or longer. Fifty two percent of the young people leaving the system were reunified with their birth parents or primary caregivers. 

Youth in Transition
Each year, an estimated 20,000 young people âage outâ of the U.S. foster care system. Many are only 18 years old and still need support and services. Several foster care alumni studies show that without a lifelong connection to a caring adult, these older youth are often left vulnerable to a host of adverse situations. 

Placements
In 2011, 47% of youth in care were living in a foster family home.
In 2011, 23% of youth living in foster were in kinship care. Kinship care refers to the care of children by relatives or, in some jurisdictions, close family friends. Relatives are the preferred resource for children who must be removed from their birth parents because it maintains the childrenâs connections with their families.

Adoptions
In 2011 49,866 youth in foster care were adopted. Of those youth, 54% were adopted by their foster parent(s). The âfoster parentâ category excludes anyone identified as a relative of the child. Thirty one percent of children adopted in FY 2011 were adopted by a relative. A ârelativeâ includes a step-parent or other relative of the child.
SOURCES:
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) FY 2011
Child Welfare Information Gateway


----------



## Bearfootfarm

https://www.yahoo.com/health/state-probes-find-zero-planned-parenthood-125533982837.html



> State Probes Find Zero Planned Parenthood Violations As Antiabortion Group Is Sued Over Undercover Videos





> Federal law *requires* that healthcare providers be reimbursed for their costs in the processing, storage, and shipment of fetal tissue samples to be used for medical research.





> &#8220;The investigation has concluded there was *no evidence* of this type of activity at these sites,&#8221; said the Indiana Department of Health in a statement, referring to the accusations that the three surgical abortion centers run by Planned Parenthood in the state were collecting fetal tissue without patients&#8217; consent and selling it for profit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/in...4-florida-planned-parenthood-clinics/34568188



> The Agency for Health Care Administration released its report Wednesday.
> 
> It says clinics in St. Petersburg, Fort Myers and Naples were performing second-trimester abortions when they were only licensed to perform first-trimester abortions.
> 
> The report also found that a Pembroke Pines clinic was not following its own procedures for the labeling and dating of the disposal of fetal remains.
> 
> Planned Parenthood released a statement saying the *licensing violations resulted from the AHCA changing its definitions* of gestational periods and that the centers *were operating in compliance with Florida law*.





> Similar investigations at Planned Parenthoods in a handful of states, including Massachusetts, Georgia, Indiana and South Dakota, have found *no evidence of wrongdoing*.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2015/08/ap-ppinvestigation.pdf



> Here&#8217;s a news item from the Associated Press: BOISE, Idaho (AP) &#8212; Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter says he will not launch an investigation against Planned Parenthood facilities in Idaho despite receiving a request from nearly 30 Republican state lawmakers.
> 
> In an Aug. 6 letter, Otter wrote that there are no grounds for a legal investigation because there is *no evidence* Planned Parenthood has violated any state or federal laws in Idaho.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> I'll let you in on a little secret.
> The "rainbow and unicorn crowd" (yes, we know what that means, sadly) isn't perfect and knows it.
> From what I can see, it's the part about *admitting* a mistake that seems to be what is lacking in society today.
> You really can't be a part of that "crowd" if you haven't learned how to do that important task, because it's the very first step.


Sorry, I have no idea what you're saying. Perhaps I haven't had enough coffee, care to explain?


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Then their are many CHOICES
> 
> Become a parent
> 
> Give the child up...heck you can even pick from waiting parents to be while the child grows inside of you
> 
> See choices...the pro choice don't consider.


That is exactly what pro choice is... the _choice_ to abort, carry to term and keep the baby, or carry to term and put the baby up for adoption. 

Dang, it's taken you (collective you) long enough to finally understand it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Thank you for providing the links that prove that there have been no Planned Parenthood violations to date, BearFootFarm.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for providing the links that prove that there have been no Planned Parenthood violations to date, BearFootFarm.


I suspect there will be many more similar results as the investigations go along.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Got news for you..... In spite of your personal beliefs that egg is very much alive and very much unique.... Allowing it to die is every bit as immoral as a late term abortion... At least from the child who will never draw a breath point of view is concerned.


 That egg is part of the mother, not unlike a skin cell. IF/when it is fertilized, it becomes its own entity.


----------



## gapeach

basketti said:


> Not one reputable website including the American cancer association claims a link, in fact they deny there is a link.
> 
> You came up with the idea...you provide a link.
> 
> 
> But of course...if you read it somewhere a long time ago...it must be true.



http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/The_Link.htm


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Snarky? More like enough BS. This is done, stick a fork in it. You are not going to overturn Roe v. Wade, the most you will do is make it harder for a woman to get an abortion. That, in turn, will cause more second trimester abortions. Is that what you want? Think about it, put the emotion away and really think about it. There are women that will carry their pregnancy to term and keep the baby, there are woman that will put it up for adoption, and there are women who will abort. It will always be this way, and it has always been that way. It's a woman's choice.
> 
> There's a reason why right to life was overturned, it's a violation of a women's civil rights. You are trying to exert control over my body, and I don't like it.
> 
> I donate to Planned Parenthood, plus a food bank, and agencies that help those in need. Why don't you put your effort where it's really needed? Help kids that are already born.


 I don't know if you missed it, or, ignored it, but, in my post, I enumerated several ways that I am currently helping the post born. 

I am concerned with the civil rights of the unborn. There should be no right to kill another human except in defense of life. Overturning Roe V. Wade would only kick the regulation of abortion back to the states. Some would make it illegal, many wouldn't. It is a difficult proposition, to over turn such a ruling, but, it is not unprecedented. 

Our best course of action is to enact a Constitutional amendment that enumerates, for the unborn, the right to life. This would make abortion for birth control purposes, unconstitutional, as it should be. 

This is going to be a multi-decade, perhaps, multi-generational fight. I will not withdraw from it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I don't know if you missed it, or, ignored it, but, in my post, I enumerated several ways that I am currently helping the post born.
> 
> I am concerned with the civil rights of the unborn. There should be no right to kill another human except in defense of life. Overturning Roe V. Wade would only kick the regulation of abortion back to the states. Some would make it illegal, many wouldn't. It is a difficult proposition, to over turn such a ruling, but, it is not unprecedented.
> 
> Our best course of action is to enact a Constitutional amendment that enumerates, for the unborn, the right to life. This would make abortion for birth control purposes, unconstitutional, as it should be.
> 
> This is going to be a multi-decade, perhaps, multi-generational fight. I will not withdraw from it.


The amount of abortions will not change, that's been historically proven. It will just mean a women has to travel to another state to have an abortion. It also means it could take longer to get an abortion and increase the amount of second trimester abortions. Is that what you want?

In my opinion, the money used to combat a legal Constitutional procedure would be better utilized by giving to the already born. But most conservatives don't care about the born, only the unborn. Please don't trot out the hackneyed outdated information that conservatives give more...


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> The amount of abortions will not change, that's been historically proven. It will just mean a women has to travel to another state to have an abortion. It also means it could take longer to get an abortion and increase the amount of second trimester abortions. Is that what you want?
> 
> In my opinion, the money used to combat a legal Constitutional procedure would be better utilized by giving to the already born. But most conservatives don't care about the born, only the unborn. Please don't trot out the hackneyed outdated information that conservatives give more...


 And if this were the 1850's you might insist that we should fund research into new farming practices and equipment rather than contributing to the Underground Railroad. It is the same argument, different century. So many parallels. 

The born have their lives protected by law now. The unborn do not.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> And if this were the 1850's you might insist that we should fund research into new farming practices and equipment rather than contributing to the Underground Railroad. It is the same argument, different century. So many parallels.
> 
> The born have their lives protected by law now. The unborn do not.


It's not the 1850s, and slavery is not abortion. The unborn had law protecting them until 1973, SCOTUS overturned that law due to the violation of the civil right of the mother. Over 40 years ago, nothing you are going to say on the internet is going to change that.

What is the definition of insanity? At least to Albert Einstein it is: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."


----------



## painterswife

No person, no rights. It is pretty simple.

You are wasting your time trying to get all abortion stopped. You should be fighting for laws with regards to viability and brain function. I bet however that won't meet your limited agenda of control over women.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> And if this were the 1850's you might insist that we should fund research into new farming practices and equipment rather than contributing to the Underground Railroad. It is the same argument, different century. So many parallels.
> 
> The born have their lives protected by law now. The unborn do not.


You are aware that part of the reason the unborn is not protected today is a result of that whole slavery/underground railroad thing... right? 14th amendment sets rights of personhood at the moment of birth.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> It's not the 1850s, and slavery is not abortion. The unborn had law protecting them until 1973, SCOTUS overturned that law due to the violation of the civil right of the mother. Over 40 years ago, nothing you are going to say on the internet is going to change that.
> 
> What is the definition of insanity? At least to Albert Einstein it is: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."


 The laws varied by states and the opinion of 7 men overturned those laws. It was much like the _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ decision on slavery (which, BTW was also the opinion of 7 men.)

As I have stated many times before. This is a multi-decade, perhaps multi-generational fight. It is important enough to continue.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are aware that part of the reason the unborn is not protected today is a result of that whole slavery/underground railroad thing... right? 14th amendment sets rights of personhood at the moment of birth.


 The 14th speaks to citizenship, not personhood. Unless you are trying to say that the former slaves weren't people until the government said they were? Anyway, that is why the ultimate goal is to add a Constitutional amendment that enumerates the rights of the unborn.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> The laws varied by states and the opinion of 7 men overturned those laws. It was much like the _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ decision on slavery (which, BTW was also the opinion of 7 men.)
> 
> As I have stated many times before. This is a multi-decade, perhaps multi-generational fight. It is important enough to continue.


And as I have stated many times before, "How is that working out for you?"


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> No person, no rights. It is pretty simple.
> 
> You are wasting your time trying to get all abortion stopped. You should be fighting for laws with regards to viability and brain function. I bet however that won't meet your limited agenda of control over women.


 The victories, you specify, are on the agenda, I am speaking of the ultimate goal. There are many many steps in that process. Those steps will include that of which you speak, except the straw man of having an agenda of control over women. That is silly on the face of it. That is no more valid that saying that a campaign against rape is an agenda of control over men.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> And as I have stated many times before, "How is that working out for you?"


 It continues and will until the goal is reached. If we were to falter at every setback, we wouldn't get anywhere.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> The victories, you specify, are on the agenda, I am speaking of the ultimate goal. There are many many steps in that process. Those steps will include that of which you speak, except the straw man of having an agenda of control over women. That is silly on the face of it. That is no more valid that saying that a campaign against rape is an agenda of control over men.


 And some states are already stopping at 20 weeks. So that is a start soon it will be even a shorter time, and then who knows maybe things will turn for the better and this killing will be stopped altogether.


----------



## Irish Pixie

arabian knight said:


> And some states are already stopping at 20 weeks. So that is a start soon it will be even a shorter time, and then who knows maybe things will turn for the better and this killing will be stopped altogether.


What does your crystal ball say about the upcoming winter? I sure hope it's not record breaking cold like the last two years.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> It continues and will until the goal is reached. If we were to falter at every setback, we wouldn't get anywhere.


You didn't answer my question, but that's OK. I know how it's going.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You didn't answer my question, but that's OK. I know how it's going.


 Sometimes I feel like an abolitionist after the Fugitive Slave Law was passed, but, I soldier on.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Sometimes I feel like an abolitionist after the Fugitive Slave Law was passed, but, I soldier on.


Still didn't... It's hard to admit you're spitting into the wind.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Still didn't... It's hard to admit you're spitting into the wind.


 I don't understand how you don't get what I said. (you likely do, but, would rather poke fun) I will say it AGAIN. This fight will take decades. In that time there will be victories and there will be defeats. I am not going to give up, even if the blood thirsty abortionists succeed in making it legal to abort after birth. The defeats only galvanize my resolve and encourage me to fight on. There is nothing, short of total illegalization of abortion, as a form of birth control, that will stop me from fighting, even then, there will still be the black market murderers to deal with.


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> And some states are already stopping at 20 weeks. So that is a start soon it will be even a shorter time, and then who knows maybe things will turn for the better and this killing will be stopped altogether.


You cant be serious, abortions may become illegal, but they will still happen, just in different surroundings and without any regulations on the procedures. Just the way they were done before Roe v Wade cleaned up that nasty black market industry. I spose that will make you happy, out of sight out of mind and like that?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> I don't understand how you don't get what I said. (you likely do, but, would rather poke fun) I will say it AGAIN. This fight will take decades. In that time there will be victories and there will be defeats. I am not going to give up, even if the blood thirsty abortionists succeed in making it legal to abort after birth. The defeats only galvanize my resolve and encourage me to fight on. There is nothing, short of total illegalization of abortion, as a form of birth control, that will stop me from fighting, even then, *there will still be the black market murderers to deal with.*


Yep, just like it was before Roe v Wade.... dont ya just love having all those windmills to swing at?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I don't understand how you don't get what I said. (you likely do, but, would rather poke fun) I will say it AGAIN. This fight will take decades. In that time there will be victories and there will be defeats. I am not going to give up, even if the blood thirsty abortionists succeed in making it legal to abort after birth. The defeats only galvanize my resolve and encourage me to fight on. There is nothing, short of total illegalization of abortion, as a form of birth control, that will stop me from fighting, even then, there will still be the black market murderers to deal with.


I understand completely what you said, why you said it, and why you will continue to say it. You have to say _something_ other than that you're spinning your wheels trying to make something illegal that is a civil right to half of all Americans.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I don't understand how you don't get what I said. (you likely do, but, would rather poke fun) I will say it AGAIN. This fight will take decades. In that time there will be victories and there will be defeats. I am not going to give up, even if the blood thirsty abortionists succeed in making it legal to abort after birth. The defeats only galvanize my resolve and encourage me to fight on. There is nothing, short of total illegalization of abortion, as a form of birth control, that will stop me from fighting, even then, there will still be the black market murderers to deal with.


You send your fight backwards every time you imply that prochoice want to kill after birth.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> You send your fight backwards every time you imply that prochoice want to kill after birth.


Yeppers, no one that I have heard wants to remove the equal protection of the law promised in our Constitution once a child has been born. I am prochoice, and dont even want to see any woman choose an abortion for any reason... but its her choice, not mine.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> The 14th speaks to citizenship, not personhood. Unless you are trying to say that the former slaves weren't people until the government said they were? Anyway, that is why the ultimate goal is to add a Constitutional amendment that enumerates the rights of the unborn.


Actually the black slaves were not considered to be people, if you look at the Constitution.... they only were counted as 3/5ths of a person and had far fewer rights. Not to start another thread about slavery and all of its evils, but it was the northern states that pushed hard against having them counted as people at all! What we wound up with was a compromise. That nasty war would most likely have been avoided had the north not insisted on only counting them as 3/5ths a person, as that was what lead to the inbalance of power between the states in the house of representatives.

Good luck with your Constitutional amendment. Thats going to be a tough one to get passed and ratified.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I understand completely what you said, why you said it, and why you will continue to say it. You have to say _something_ other than that you're spinning your wheels trying to make something illegal that is a civil right to half of all Americans.


 It used to be a right that one person could own another. One day, it is my hope, that we will grow past the thought that is the right of one to kill another as a form of birth control. 

If I am spinning my wheels, they are mine to spin, are they not? If my wheels are spinning, there is little threat to your right to kill the unborn, correct? 

So, I ask, why waste so much time and energy fighting us?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually the black slaves were not considered to be people, if you look at the Constitution.... they only were counted as 3/5ths of a person and had far fewer rights. Not to start another thread about slavery and all of its evils, but it was the northern states that pushed hard against having them counted as people at all! What we wound up with was a compromise. That nasty war would most likely have been avoided had the north not insisted on only counting them as 3/5ths a person, as that was what lead to the inbalance of power between the states in the house of representatives.
> 
> Good luck with your Constitutional amendment. Thats going to be a tough one to get passed and ratified.


 They were counted as 3/5's for representative purposes only. But, that is irrelevant. Say that they weren't considered people, under the law. Does that mean that they weren't people?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> You send your fight backwards every time you imply that prochoice want to kill after birth.


 A few do, many of those few are employed in some of our universities. That gives their words more credence with some. It also gives them opportunity to influence young minds. Who knows where the next generation will draw the line, or, the generation after that? 

I am fighting to get that line moved back towards conception, they believe that the line should be moved beyond birth. Who is going to win?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> They were counted as 3/5's for representative purposes only. But, that is irrelevant. Say that they weren't considered people, under the law. Does that mean that they weren't people?


I would defer that question to the people who were there at that period of time. Me? Of course they were people.. and every last one of those people are long since dead. Which pretty much makes them irrelevant to todays discussion.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> A few do, many of those few are employed in some of our universities. That gives their words more credence with some. It also gives them opportunity to influence young minds. Who knows where the next generation will draw the line, or, the generation after that?
> 
> I am fighting to get that line moved back towards conception, they believe that the line should be moved beyond birth. Who is going to win?


There are no winners in this battle... only losers. Why do you not want to move the timeline back to the very beginning of the birth process? What makes your "choice" of morals any more valid that the next feller?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, just like it was before Roe v Wade.... dont ya just love having all those windmills to swing at?


 It, likely, won't be as widespread as it was prior to R V W, as the stigma of unwed pregnancy is largely gone. Again, just because it may still happen is not a reason to keep it legal. If that passed the smell test of justification there would be no laws against murder, rape, theft, slavery, etc.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There are no winners in this battle... only losers. Why do you not want to move the timeline back to the very beginning of the birth process?


 Because that is when the new human life comes into existence.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Because that is when the new human life comes into existence.


According to some, yes, but why is that idea superior to any one elses? Science? morality? religion? or just gut feelings?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What makes your "choice" of morals any more valid that the next feller?


 What makes the abolitionists choice of morals more valid that the slave holders? 

I would have to say defense of the defenseless.

But, morals are largely subjective.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> What makes the abolitionists choice of morals more valid that the slave holders? *Nothing*
> 
> I would have to say defense of the defenseless.*And the egg has defenses?*
> 
> But, morals are largely subjective.


Indeed! Morals are entirely subjective, they depend entirely upon the individual holding them.... one set is no more valid than another.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> According to some, yes, but why is that idea superior to any one elses? Science? morality? religion? or just gut feelings?


 It is living, it is human, it is its own entity. All facts.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Indeed! Morals are entirely subjective, they depend entirely upon the individual holding them.... one set is no more valid than another.



So, would you be, if the law were changed, for someone to come in and seize your neighbor and force him, and all of his descendants to work for no pay? You would not be involved one way or the other, with the seizing, or, the working. Would you defend that as a viable moral choice?


----------



## painterswife

They grow things in petri dishes now that are human and living . That does not mean they get rights unless they end up with a functioning thinking brain.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> It is living, it is human, it is its own entity. All facts.


Ok, I can go along with those "facts", along with many others. So unless I am mistaken you are making your judgment based on science then? I am just wanting to be clear here.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> It used to be a right that one person could own another. One day, it is my hope, that we will grow past the thought that is the right of one to kill another as a form of birth control.
> 
> If I am spinning my wheels, they are mine to spin, are they not? If my wheels are spinning, there is little threat to your right to kill the unborn, correct?
> 
> So, I ask, why waste so much time and energy fighting us?


I annoys/worries me that you (collective you) think so little of women that you'd remove the civil right to control our own body. If you'd do that, what's next? We must be pregnant, no birth control at all? We can't have jobs, or if we can, they must be "acceptable women jobs"? Take away our right to vote, own land, and hold public office? What else will you try to take away?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> So, would you be, if the law were changed, for someone to come in and seize your neighbor and force him, and all of his descendants to work for no pay? You would not be involved one way or the other, with the seizing, or, the working. Would you defend that as a viable moral choice?


If you want to discuss the morality of slavery I am all good with that, but we really should start a new thread for that topic. This one is more closely related to the subject of abortions.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> They grow things in petri dishes now that are human and living . That does not mean they get rights unless they end up with a functioning thinking brain.


 We all know that the laws are lacking in the area of unborn rights. That is why we are fighting.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> I annoys/worries me that you (collective you) think so little of women that you'd remove the civil right to control our own body. If you'd do that, what's next? We must be pregnant, no birth control at all? We can't have jobs, or if we can, they must be "acceptable women jobs"? Take away our right to vote, own land, and hold public office? What else will you try to take away?[/QUOTE
> 
> I am for business rights, but, I am not for the right of the business owner to shoot people who come into his store because they annoy him.
> 
> We are not talking about "your" body. We are talking about the separate, unborn, fully human life inside "your" body. I don't believe it is justifiable to kill that separate human as a form of birth control. I couldn't care less what you do with your body. I am only concerned with what you plan to do to the body of the unborn human.
> 
> Again, nobody says that illegalizing rape is trying to control men's bodies, just protect the potential victims of rape. On the same note, illegalizing abortion is not trying to control women's bodies, just protect the potential victims of abortion.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If you want to discuss the morality of slavery I am all good with that, but we really should start a new thread for that topic. This one is more closely related to the subject of abortions.


 It is an analogy that fits with your concept of one moral code being equal to another. If that is true, you must defend the practice illustrated in my analogy. Abortion is linked, in this context.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I annoys/worries me that you (collective you) think so little of women that you'd remove the civil right to control our own body. If you'd do that, what's next? We must be pregnant, no birth control at all? We can't have jobs, or if we can, they must be "acceptable women jobs"? Take away our right to vote, own land, and hold public office? What else will you try to take away?[/QUOTE
> 
> I am for business rights, but, I am not for the right of the business owner to shoot people who come into his store because they annoy him.
> 
> We are not talking about "your" body. We are talking about the separate, unborn, fully human life inside "your" body. I don't believe it is justifiable to kill that separate human as a form of birth control. I couldn't care less what you do with your body. I am only concerned with what you plan to do to the body of the unborn human.
> 
> Again, nobody says that illegalizing rape is trying to control men's bodies, just protect the potential victims of rape. On the same note, illegalizing abortion is not trying to control women's bodies, just protect the potential victims of abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that right to life legislation will violate my civil rights. If you're willing to do that what else are you willing to take from me?
> 
> There is no other way of looking at it, you _are_ talking about my body.
Click to expand...


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I annoys/worries me that you (collective you) think so little of women that you'd remove the civil right to control our own body. If you'd do that, what's next? We must be pregnant, no birth control at all? We can't have jobs, or if we can, they must be "acceptable women jobs"? Take away our right to vote, own land, and hold public office? What else will you try to take away?[/QUOTE
> 
> I am for business rights, but, I am not for the right of the business owner to shoot people who come into his store because they annoy him.
> 
> We are not talking about "your" body. We are talking about the separate, unborn, fully human life inside "your" body. I don't believe it is justifiable to kill that separate human as a form of birth control. I couldn't care less what you do with your body. I am only concerned with what you plan to do to the body of the unborn human.
> 
> Again, nobody says that illegalizing rape is trying to control men's bodies, just protect the potential victims of rape. On the same note, illegalizing abortion is not trying to control women's bodies, *just protect the potential victims of abortion.*
> 
> 
> 
> interesting, on this hand it says you want to protect potential victims, and yet on your other hand you have no qualms about letting those same victims die due to lack of fertilization?!
> Dead is Dead where I come from, little matter the cause.
> interesting indeed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> It is an analogy that fits with your concept of one moral code being equal to another. If that is true, you must defend the practice illustrated in my analogy. Abortion is linked, in this context.


All moral codes are equal, and valid only to the person who holds it. Your analogy is at best an interesting diversion from the topic at hand.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> interesting, on this hand it says you want to protect potential victims, and yet on your other hand you have no qualms about letting those same victims die due to lack of fertilization?!
> Dead is Dead where I come from, little matter the cause.
> interesting indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you understand the difference, but, if you wish to be obtuse, who am I to stop you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> All moral codes are equal, and valid only to the person who holds it. Your analogy is at best an interesting diversion from the topic at hand.


 So, if all moral codes are equal, were to we get off outlawing all of the stuff that is outlawed? Is that not inequality in action?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> So, if all moral codes are equal, were to we get off outlawing all of the stuff that is outlawed? Is that not inequality in action?


I am not understanding this completely, but if you are going where I think you are let me remind you there is a difference between laws and personal moral codes.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that right to life legislation will violate my civil rights. If you're willing to do that what else are you willing to take from me?
> 
> There is no other way of looking at it, you _are_ talking about my body.
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion rights violate the civil rights (I know, not, at this point, enumerated) of the unborn child. There is no other way of looking at that. And between right not to be inconvenienced, or, shunned, etc. and the right to live, the right to live wins.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not understanding this completely, but if you are going where I think you are let me remind you there is a difference between laws and personal moral codes.


 
Laws are the manifestation of someone's moral codes. If all moral codes are equal, then, it stands to reason that to enact any law gives one equal moral code precedence over others. Is that not inequality?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion rights violate the civil rights (I know, not, at this point, enumerated) of the unborn child. There is no other way of looking at that. And between right not to be inconvenienced, or, shunned, etc. and the right to live, the right to live wins.
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about right now. We can't discuss a hypothetical years from now as if it were fact, no one knows what will happen.
> 
> What is fact, right now, if you tried to force right to life legislation you'd violate the civil rights of at least half of all Americans.
> 
> What every women in America should worry about is if one civil right is violated what else can be taken away.
> 
> Why do you have no problem violating my civil rights?
Click to expand...


----------



## Patchouli

popscott said:


> It's called a "reality check". Please share some "sick picture" links so the pro-abortion folks can see what they are *fighting for.* Please include the one with the gloved hand holding an infant arm... Yep, just an arm... Sick indeed.


I am not sharing that stuff. I have had to work around medical waste before and yes it is gross especially when the incinerator goes out and it builds up a bit. I don't go taking pictures of it though and spreading it around on the internet for people who get off on seeing gross stuff.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> We're talking about right now. We can't discuss a hypothetical years from now as if it were fact, no one knows what will happen.
> 
> What is fact, right now, if you tried to force right to life legislation you'd violate the civil rights of at least half of all Americans.
> 
> What every women in America should worry about is if one civil right is violated what else can be taken away.
> 
> Why do you have no problem violating my civil rights?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that there should be a right to kill another human being for reasons of birth control, no more than I would agree with one shooting another in the head if he got in her way.
> 
> You do realize that a large portion of the pro-life movement, is female, correct? The slippery slope of "not being able to have a job" or, other such foolishness is very dry and textured as to not be slippery at all.
Click to expand...


----------



## Farmerga

This has been fun and all, but, the arguments have circled so much that I am getting dizzy and, being that it is Friday and I have things to do, I am going to bow out of this thread. You all have a nice weekend.


----------



## Patchouli

Farmerga said:


> Not even remotely what I said, but you know that. The choice begins and ends (in most cases) with the activity that may lead to pregnancy. If pregnancy results it is not just the woman's rights that have to be considered, but, also the child. If the pregnancy will kill the mother, and in turn the child, abortion is justified. *If the pregnancy has progressed to the point where the child is viable, and, complications dictate that the pregnancy must be terminated, every effort must be utilized to ensure that the child has a chance of survival. *If little more than temporary inconvenience and other external consequences occur, as a result of the pregnancy, the child's right to live should be given priority. After pregnancy, the mother has the choice to raise the baby, or, give it up to the state or for adoption. Lack of adoption parents and/or failure of the state to pull its head out of its butt, should not be considered in this argument as justification for the murder of the unborn.


You know I am sure your argument here sounds solid and rational and unassailable to you but it isn't. 

Babies born at the very earliest of possible viability cost a lot. From birth to months in NICU to the quite common long term medical issues they suffer from and the fact that many of them die by young adulthood due to those complications after childhoods of suffering. *

So you are asking a young woman who is not ready financially or emotionally to take on the monumental task of covering the costs and suffering through all of that because somehow you really think that is better? 

We have been over and over your adoption scenario a million times now and you flat refuse to face the facts. There are not enough homes for the children who need them now. Our Foster systems are IN TROUBLE. You keep trotting out this idea that all the children who need help are getting it and are all safe and snug in loving homes and that is a big stinking pile of horse manure. It's NOT TRUE. You will not find a family services agency anywhere in this country that is not currently over stretched. You won't find one that hasn't had kids fall through the cracks and get MURDERED by either their parents because there wasn't a foster home available or by a Foster parent because too many of them are only in it for the money and family services has to take what it can get. 

Suddenly dumping a million babies into an adoption system that is a mess and a foster system that is even worse is a recipe for a whole lot of abused and murdered children. Sex offender and you want a baby? Should be pretty easy to get in an overwhelmed system. I mean honestly if you force every drug addled woman to carry to full term she's quite likely to just sell that baby off. 

But you know save a fetus from a painless death at 6 weeks gestation just so it can be beat to death at 2 years old is so much better. 

* *'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms'
*http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/20/nathan-born-premature-life-death


----------



## Farmerga

Patchouli said:


> You know I am sure your argument here sounds solid and rational and unassailable to you but it isn't.
> 
> Babies born at the very earliest of possible viability cost a lot. From birth to months in NICU to the quite common long term medical issues they suffer from and the fact that many of them die by young adulthood due to those complications after childhoods of suffering. *
> 
> So you are asking a young woman who is not ready financially or emotionally to take on the monumental task of covering the costs and suffering through all of that because somehow you really think that is better?
> 
> We have been over and over your adoption scenario a million times now and you flat refuse to face the facts. There are not enough homes for the children who need them now. Our Foster systems are IN TROUBLE. You keep trotting out this idea that all the children who need help are getting it and are all safe and snug in loving homes and that is a big stinking pile of horse manure. It's NOT TRUE. You will not find a family services agency anywhere in this country that is not currently over stretched. You won't find one that hasn't had kids fall through the cracks and get MURDERED by either their parents because there wasn't a foster home available or by a Foster parent because too many of them are only in it for the money and family services has to take what it can get.
> 
> Suddenly dumping a million babies into an adoption system that is a mess and a foster system that is even worse is a recipe for a whole lot of abused and murdered children. Sex offender and you want a baby? Should be pretty easy to get in an overwhelmed system. I mean honestly if you force every drug addled woman to carry to full term she's quite likely to just sell that baby off.
> 
> But you know save a fetus from a painless death at 6 weeks gestation just so it can be beat to death at 2 years old is so much better.
> 
> * *'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms'
> *http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/20/nathan-born-premature-life-death


 Ok, have to respond to this drivel, then I am done. So, to sum up, in your opinion, the current system is not good enough, so, we should kill the excess. That is the simple, cold fact. We sent men to the freekin Moon!! I think we could figure out how to care for the extra children that would result from ending the genocide of the unborn.


----------



## Patchouli

Farmerga said:


> Ok, have to respond to this drivel, then I am done. So, to sum up, in your opinion, the current system is not good enough, so, we should kill the excess. That is the simple, cold fact. We sent men to the freekin Moon!! I think we could figure out how to care for the extra children that would result from ending the genocide of the unborn.



And your response is instead of painlessly killing a fetus at 6 weeks we should let them be born and live a few years in misery until they are beaten to death or succumb to their medical issues or are sold for drugs or are raised by parents who can not mentally or financially support them so that 14 years later they are popping out the next million. Because that is a kindness. 

It's really pretty simple if we can't come up with a plan to take care of the ones we have now in need what possible basis do you have for your assumption we will magically come up with a plan for a million more? That makes no sense.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Ok, have to respond to this drivel, then I am done. So, to sum up, in your opinion, the current system is not good enough, so, we should kill the excess. That is the simple, cold fact. We sent men to the freekin Moon!! I think we could figure out how to care for the extra children that would result from ending the genocide of the unborn.


One would think so, but the facts show us otherwise. We cannot take care of the ones we have now in a decent manner, what makes you think dumping another several hundred thousand a year into the works is going to improve anything? Do we not have enough of these unwanted in our prison systems already?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree that there should be a right to kill another human being for reasons of birth control, no more than I would agree with one shooting another in the head if he got in her way.
> 
> You do realize that a large portion of the pro-life movement, is female, correct? The slippery slope of "not being able to have a job" or, other such foolishness is very dry and textured as to not be slippery at all.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the slippery slope is losing more civil rights if right to life legislation is allowed. If some women are too naive (or short sighted) to realize that, I'm not.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Ok, have to respond to this drivel, then I am done. So, to sum up, in your opinion, the current system is not good enough, so, we should kill the excess. That is the simple, cold fact. We sent men to the freekin Moon!! I think we could figure out how to care for the extra children that would result from ending the genocide of the unborn.


Until that happens you have to accept there are many who prefer a much more practical solution that has proven itself effective for thousands of years


----------



## gapeach

Well, we have apparently cared for all of those immigrant babies and small children who came into the USA last year through Mexico from Central America. Who knows where they are now? If we can take children and babies from other countries, then why can we not take care of our own whose lives are being snuffed out daily and hourly?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Laws are the manifestation of someone's moral codes. If all moral codes are equal, then, it stands to reason that to enact any law gives one equal moral code precedence over others. Is that not inequality?


I disagree, laws are a whole different critter than ones personal moral codes. Some laws may have a base derived from someone's morality but those are pretty scarce. Most of our laws are based on preventing others from inflicting harm upon the rest of us. Some are based upon keeping us from harming ourselves,,,, those go against my personal moral code. People really should mind their own business and quit meddling with others.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> Well, we have apparently cared for all of those immigrant babies and small children who came into the USA last year through Mexico from Central America. Who knows where they are now? If we can take children and babies from other countries, then why can we not take care of our own whose lives are being snuffed out daily and hourly?


The vast majority of those immigrants were young adults who came here willing to work and take care of themselves.... Something our own poverty stricken don't seem to be able to manage due to government interference. Our poor are paid enough to get by for being poor. That reduces their incentive to improve their lot in life and perpetuates the problem.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> This has been fun and all, but, the arguments have circled so much that I am getting dizzy and, being that it is Friday and I have things to do, I am going to bow out of this thread. You all have a nice weekend.


The discussion does get off track at times, mostly due to some not willing to stay on track when presented with facts they are not comfortable with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> Well, we have apparently cared for all of those immigrant babies and small children who came into the USA last year through Mexico from Central America. Who knows where they are now? If we can take children and babies from other countries, then why can we not take care of our own whose lives are being snuffed out daily and hourly?


There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, counting adults and children.

If abortions weren't legal there would be an additional 16 million people, comprised of mostly minorities from poor backgrounds.

We aren't exactly "taking care" of all of them, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, counting adults and children.
> 
> If abortions weren't legal there would be an additional 16 million people, comprised of mostly minorities from poor backgrounds.
> 
> We aren't exactly "taking care" of all of them, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


I don't see how there would be 16 million extra people since it's been argued here most of those killed babies would die a terrible death in just a few years, therefore it's better to mercy kill them in the womb.


----------



## Evons hubby

dixiegal62 said:


> I don't see how there would be 16 million extra people since it's been argued here most of those killed babies would die a terrible death in just a few years, therefore it's better to mercy kill them in the womb.


Some here have stated something like 30 million abortions have taken place over the last 40 years. I am not going to dispute that claim because it sounds about right numerically. Had those abortion not taken place and around half of those children had been killed before adulthood.... That leaves around 15-16 million that would still be with us. There are other people to be considered than just the abortees... Their mothers, fathers, siblings.... All of whom lives will be affected.


----------



## dixiegal62

So many lives ended.... makes me wonder if any of them could have been the one to change the world for the better.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Farmerga said:


> Ok, have to respond to this drivel, then I am done. So, to sum up, in your opinion, the current system is not good enough, so, we should kill the excess. That is the simple, cold fact. We sent men to the freekin Moon!! I think we could figure out how to care for the extra children that would result from ending the genocide of the unborn.


_Got called overseas and have been out of the loop for a few days._ 

"Drivel" was unfair and you know it. At least, you should. 
Patchouli is right that there are hardships in our foster/orphan care system. Calling her well rationed thoughts on the matter "drivel" do your argument, and our (if I dare call it such) side any good. We'll never change the minds that are already made up. It's those who are reading, who's minds are not yet made up, that you still have a hope of swaying, and distilling a well reasoned post as drivel will not sway them the way you hope. 

You are addressing a dichotomy of impact when they want to compare the suffering of the foster care system to the legalized murder that is "abortion". 

Plenty of children suffer though bad parenting, more through poverty, and even more, still, through the socially inferred suffering of not having a flat screen TV at home. What we are trying to stop, though, is killing them before they've even had a chance. It's too easy to derail a conversation with straw men and red herrings, and that side will take every chance they can to do so, because, they, dare I say, actually believe in the practice. In their mind, it is righteous because it is legal. 

They believe that you are the one being unreasonable, and they have four decades of societal acceptance working to mitigate the foul taste of this reality that you're still, somehow, aware enough to taste. Never forget that. 

Children in the foster system may have challenges, and live with things, in rare but reported instances, that we consider horrific, but they're LIVING with it. That is the focus. 

I doubt that many would want to have exchanged me seats in my teens. If I hadn't grown up in college town where girls older than me were willing to share the dorm room mom and dad had paid for to hook up with an artistic high school student, and share a pan of ramen with a homeless kid with nothing to eat, then I would have probably ended up as an acid-soaked, meth-smoking statistic. I did alright, because that is His way. These arguments about overburdened foster-care systems, and financial burdens, and "choice" are just diversions and, in the loneliness of the dark, they know it. 

Children are being mudered, and these fishermen and scarecrow builders are not your audience. Remember that.


----------



## Evons hubby

dixiegal62 said:


> So many lives ended.... makes me wonder if any of them could have been the one to change the world for the better.


Or the next Adolf hitler, or sadam Hussein, or Obama?


----------



## Evons hubby

An embryo is not a child.... While having all things in place it may very well become a child.... So will that egg that just dropped into position to be fertilized.... So where is the outage when that egg is not allowed to become a child? Doesn't that life matter? Far more children are snuffed out of their chance at life that way than will ever be aborted. Where's the outrage, where are the demonstrators? Where are the parades and fundraisers to save those lives? You will hear more crickets in the dead of winter than anyone complaining about millions of lives being snuffed out every day by simply not doing your part to ensure they live.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

J.T.M. said:


> This ^^^^^ I watched about 3 mins. of the first one and that was all I needed to see.
> 
> My wifes first attempt at photo shopping


It's a shame they weren't aborted, huh?


----------



## Patchouli

gapeach said:


> Well, we have apparently cared for all of those immigrant babies and small children who came into the USA last year through Mexico from Central America. Who knows where they are now? If we can take children and babies from other countries, then why can we not take care of our own whose lives are being snuffed out daily and hourly?


The ones who stayed mainly went to family members already here in the US who wanted them to come. So no real comparison there at all. 68,000 unaccompanied children came in but only 1,400 mothers and children remain in federal facilities the rest were all matched up with families or sent home.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Children in the foster system may have challenges, and live with things, in rare but reported instances, that we consider horrific, but they're LIVING with it. That is the focus.
> 
> I doubt that many would want to have exchanged me seats in my teens. If I hadn't grown up in college town where girls older than me were willing to share the dorm room mom and dad had paid for to hook up with an artistic high school student, and share a pan of ramen with a homeless kid with nothing to eat, then I would have probably ended up as an acid-soaked, meth-smoking statistic. I did alright, because that is His way. These arguments about overburdened foster-care systems, and financial burdens, and "choice" are just diversions and, in the loneliness of the dark, they know it.
> 
> Children are being mudered, and these fishermen and scarecrow builders are not your audience. Remember that.


I can't speak for anyone else here but I personally truly am coming from a place of compassion. Your idea and my idea of what is compassionate is obviously very different but I can say in the loneliness of the dark what worries me is the thought of little children being beaten to death. Going hungry, being stressed so badly from before they are born straight on through their childhoods to the point they never have lives because they fall prey to mental illness, suicide, drugs, alcohol or prostitution. That most assuredly keeps me up at night. 

The thing that bothers me the most in these discussions is that both sides get painted in the end as heartless monsters. And I think most are genuinely kind hearted people who love children. We just focus on different things. Some of us put our main focus on quality of life for the children who are here right now who are in need. Some of us put our focus on potential lives snuffed out. To you it is more important that children have some small chance at life even if the cost is a lot of suffering. 

Hopefully what we all agree on is that we would like to see less abortions. If we could start from where we agree then maybe we could build something together to reduce the need for abortion on every front. That means making sure unintended pregnancies never happen and that means free/cheap birth control and sterilization. When they do make sure the mother has every possible resource available to her and the sure hope that she will be able to give her child a decent life. 

That also means working with the adoption system and the DHS systems. We need more people as foster parents. We need enough funding so that DHS can do it's job properly. We need well run orphanages. We need to get the money out of adoption. Brokers selling kids for outrageous prices need to be weeded out. The system needs to be streamlined and the courts need to be less onerous. We need a better system to match children with parents. We also need people who will take in a young mother and help her keep her child.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> I can't speak for anyone else here but I personally truly am coming from a place of compassion. Your idea and my idea of what is compassionate is obviously very different but I can say in the loneliness of the dark what worries me is the thought of little children being beaten to death. Going hungry, being stressed so badly from before they are born straight on through their childhoods to the point they never have lives because they fall prey to mental illness, suicide, drugs, alcohol or prostitution. That most assuredly keeps me up at night.
> 
> The thing that bothers me the most in these discussions is that both sides get painted in the end as heartless monsters. And I think most are genuinely kind hearted people who love children. We just focus on different things. Some of us put our main focus on quality of life for the children who are here right now who are in need. Some of us put our focus on potential lives snuffed out. To you it is more important that children have some small chance at life even if the cost is a lot of suffering.
> 
> Hopefully what we all agree on is that we would like to see less abortions. If we could start from where we agree then maybe we could build something together to reduce the need for abortion on every front. That means making sure unintended pregnancies never happen and that means free/cheap birth control and sterilization. When they do make sure the mother has every possible resource available to her and the sure hope that she will be able to give her child a decent life.
> 
> That also means working with the adoption system and the DHS systems. We need more people as foster parents. We need enough funding so that DHS can do it's job properly. We need well run orphanages. We need to get the money out of adoption. Brokers selling kids for outrageous prices need to be weeded out. The system needs to be streamlined and the courts need to be less onerous. We need a better system to match children with parents. We also need people who will take in a young mother and help her keep her child.


I agree with every well thought out word!


----------



## gapeach

[SIZE=+1]*Defending Planned Parenthood, LA Times Relays 'Abortion Is 3 Pct. of Its Services' Myth*[/SIZE]
*newsbusters.org ^ * | 8/22/2015 | Tom Blumer 


Earlier today, I noted that Los Angeles Times reporter Maria L. La Ganga compared the heroic undercover work done by investigators at the Center for Medical Progress to the 2004 efforts of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. She meant it as a negative, claiming that the Swift Vets' assertions about Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's service in Vietnam and his antiwar activities after he returned home are "considered by many one of the ugliest, most unfair attacks in recent political memory." She even claimed â knowingly engaging in falsehood, in my opinion â that "the Swift boat claims were later discredited." Sorry, ma'am. The Swift Vets' truths stand tall to this today. 
Though the Times Seattle bureau chief doesn't reference it in her writeup, an Associated Press chart contained therein relays a falsehood Planned Parenthood routinely promotes. This one claims that "Abortion is 3 percent of Planned Parenthood Services":

_(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ..._
_
_
_And they do lie. the so-called womenâs health provider- Planned Parenthood doesnât even do mammograms. This, despite a flat-out lie by Obama that they do âmillions a yearâ that Candy Crowley let go unchallenged._


----------



## Irish Pixie

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/planned-parenthood-and-mammograms/

Women can&#8217;t walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and get a mammogram on the spot. The clinics don&#8217;t have mammography equipment. Planned Parenthood performs gynecological exams, including breast exams, and refers women to other facilities to have mammograms performed, much like women are referred to radiological centers by their gynecologists or primary care physicians.
According to Planned Parenthood, its medical staff performed 747,607 &#8220;breast exams/breast care&#8221; in 2010, the most recent statistics available. As for cervical cancer screenings, as the president mentioned, it performed 769,769 Pap tests.
In addition to mammogram referrals, the group says it helps low-income patients find grants and assistance to pay for mammograms, such as through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, which is for women at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania also has a Breast Health Care Fund, which helps patients obtain mammograms. Individual clinics also may occasionally sponsor no-cost mammogram events &#8212; for instance, on Oct. 19, Planned Parenthood of Nassau County, N.Y., plans to sponsor free mammograms at a mammography van at the health center. In south-central New York, a state program parks its mobile van outside two Planned Parenthood clinics.
*In a statement sent to FactCheck.org, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, said that &#8220;Planned Parenthood does help women nationwide get access to mammograms,&#8221; as part of the health care services it provides to nearly 3 million persons each year. &#8220;Women rely on Planned Parenthood for referrals for and financial help with mammograms and specialized diagnostic follow-up tests (like ultrasounds and biopsies) when indicated by age, history and/or clinical breast exam.&#8221;
Nucatola said that &#8220;for many women,&#8221; Planned Parenthood is their only health care provider and* *&#8220;thus the only way they will get a referral for a mammogram.&#8221;*


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Some here have stated something like 30 million abortions have taken place over the last 40 years. I am not going to dispute that claim because it sounds about right numerically. Had those abortion not taken place and around half of those children had been killed before adulthood.... That leaves around 15-16 million that would still be with us. There are other people to be considered than just the abortees... Their mothers, fathers, siblings.... All of whom lives will be affected.


Yes, the women should be given the power of God to deal with this problem, they know best....


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/planned-parenthood-and-mammograms/
> 
> Women canât walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and get a mammogram on the spot. The clinics donât have mammography equipment. Planned Parenthood performs gynecological exams, including breast exams, and refers women to other facilities to have mammograms performed, much like women are referred to radiological centers by their gynecologists or primary care physicians.
> According to Planned Parenthood, its medical staff performed 747,607 âbreast exams/breast careâ in 2010, the most recent statistics available. As for cervical cancer screenings, as the president mentioned, it performed 769,769 Pap tests.
> In addition to mammogram referrals, the group says it helps low-income patients find grants and assistance to pay for mammograms, such as through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, which is for women at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level. Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania also has a Breast Health Care Fund, which helps patients obtain mammograms. Individual clinics also may occasionally sponsor no-cost mammogram events â for instance, on Oct. 19, Planned Parenthood of Nassau County, N.Y., plans to sponsor free mammograms at a mammography van at the health center. In south-central New York, a state program parks its mobile van outside two Planned Parenthood clinics.
> *In a statement sent to FactCheck.org, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, said that âPlanned Parenthood does help women nationwide get access to mammograms,â as part of the health care services it provides to nearly 3 million persons each year. âWomen rely on Planned Parenthood for referrals for and financial help with mammograms and specialized diagnostic follow-up tests (like ultrasounds and biopsies) when indicated by age, history and/or clinical breast exam.â
> Nucatola said that âfor many women,â Planned Parenthood is their only health care provider and* *âthus the only way they will get a referral for a mammogram.â*



Yes, they have over 800 facilities nationwide, worth over $54 million, mostly debt free.
Yet not one mammogram machine, clearly not a big priority for them.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5014/1936/7155/PPFA_Audited_FS_FY2014.PDF


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, they have over 800 facilities nationwide, worth over $54 million, mostly debt free.
> Yet not one mammogram machine, clearly not a big priority for them.
> 
> http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5014/1936/7155/PPFA_Audited_FS_FY2014.PDF


My primary care physician's office doesn't do x-rays, mammograms, cat scans, ultrasounds, and a variety of other testing. They send you to another facility. It makes no sense for each office, clinic, etc... have all the machines to do every type of test.


----------



## gapeach

Women do not have to go to Planned Parenthood to get a referral for a free mammogram.

*Free and Low-Cost Mammograms In the 50 States (And D.C. and Puerto Rico!)*


By admin, on October 3rd, 2011
http://myhealthcafe.com/free-and-low-cost-mammograms-in-the-50-states-and-d-c-and-puerto-rico

We have had free mammograms in Georgia since 2008 when Gov Sonny Perdue signed the law. Every Friday the County Health Depts give free mammograms.

What Obama said was still a lie and Candy Crowley let him get away with it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> Women do not have to go to Planned Parenthood to get a referral for a free mammogram.
> 
> *Free and Low-Cost Mammograms In the 50 States (And D.C. and Puerto Rico!)*
> 
> 
> By admin, on October 3rd, 2011
> http://myhealthcafe.com/free-and-low-cost-mammograms-in-the-50-states-and-d-c-and-puerto-rico
> 
> We have had free mammograms in Georgia since 2008 when Gov Sonny Perdue signed the law. Every Friday the County Health Depts give free mammograms.
> 
> What Obama said was still a lie and Candy Crowley let him get away with it.


That's nice if you live in GA, but not all states offer free mammograms. If you're referred through PP they help find grants and financial assistance to pay for the procedure.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Yes, the women should be given the power of God to deal with this problem, they know best....


Exactly.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> Women do not have to go to Planned Parenthood to get a referral for a free mammogram.
> 
> *Free and Low-Cost Mammograms In the 50 States (And D.C. and Puerto Rico!)*
> 
> 
> By admin, on October 3rd, 2011
> http://myhealthcafe.com/free-and-low-cost-mammograms-in-the-50-states-and-d-c-and-puerto-rico
> 
> We have had free mammograms in Georgia since 2008 when Gov Sonny Perdue signed the law. Every Friday the County Health Depts give free mammograms.
> 
> What Obama said was still a lie and Candy Crowley let him get away with it.


So you've succeeded in proving BO lies
Big Whoop!


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> My primary care physician's office doesn't do x-rays, mammograms, cat scans, ultrasounds, and a variety of other testing. They send you to another facility. It makes no sense for each office, clinic, etc... have all the machines to do every type of test.


No it doesn't make sense.
Then again, as a man wanting a physical, I would not be led to a PP facility.
But if PP is specifically for women's health, as advertised, does it make sense that they wouldn't have a necessary item like that anywhere in their budget?

Ironically, you CAN get an abortion though, no problem, the equipment is there and payroll budgeted for it.
As I said, can we agree on their priorities or is that subject taboo?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> No it doesn't make sense.
> Then again, as a man wanting a physical, I would not be led to a PP facility.
> But if PP is specifically for women's health, as advertised, does it make sense that they wouldn't have a necessary item like that anywhere in their budget?


Obviously not. Mammograms are available at other facilities.

The majority of what PP does is distribute contraceptives, test and treat STDs, and cancer screening. It's not ironic because PP offers abortions as part of what they do. They don't offer mammograms but will refer and help find financial aid in paying for them.

PP doesn't treat just women:

"Planned Parenthood offers services for men including screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, counseling and testing for HIV, condoms, and counseling and referrals for free or low-cost vasectomy."


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Obviously not. Mammograms are available at other facilities.


Other PP facilities?
Do they refer women to "other facilities" for abortions?
After all it's only 4% of their budget, right?

You may be correct, I don't really know the # of women wanting mammograms and the available labs that do it versus the # of women wanting abortions and those available facilities.
It's simply a question that is relevant to PP's stated position.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> PP doesn't treat just women:
> 
> "Planned Parenthood offers services for men including screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, counseling and testing for HIV, condoms, and counseling and referrals for free or low-cost vasectomy."


Good to know, however I won't be needing any of those services, lol.
Thank......uh....you-know-who.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Other PP facilities?
> Do they refer women to "other facilities" for abortions?
> After all it's only 4% of their budget, right?
> 
> You may be correct, I don't really know the # of women wanting mammograms and the available labs that do it versus the # of women wanting abortions and those available facilities.
> It's simply a question that is relevant to PP's stated position.


No clue. It doesn't interest me enough to do the research that you (collective you) will ignore anyway.


----------



## Tiempo

Not all PPs provide abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Good to know, however I won't be needing any of those services, lol.
> Thank......uh....you-know-who.


No big deal, just correcting your misinformation. lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> No it doesn't make sense.
> Then again, as a man wanting a physical, I would not be led to a PP facility.
> But if PP is specifically for women's health, as advertised, does it make sense that they wouldn't have a necessary item like that anywhere in their budget?
> 
> Ironically, you CAN get an abortion though, no problem, the equipment is there and payroll budgeted for it.
> As I said, *can we agree on their priorities* or is that subject taboo?


Why would anyone agree, unless you mean 97% of their "priorities" are something other than abortions.

Mammogram machines are highly specialized, and are generally done in a specialist's facility.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would anyone agree, unless you mean 97% of their "priorities" are something other than abortions.
> 
> Mammogram machines are highly specialized, and are generally done in a specialist's facility.



And done as an outpatient procedure.......like most abortions.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> No it doesn't make sense.
> Then again, *as a man wanting a physical, I would not be led to a PP facility.*
> But if PP is specifically for women's health, as advertised, does it make sense that they wouldn't have a necessary item like that anywhere in their budget?
> 
> Ironically, you CAN get an abortion though, no problem, the equipment is there and payroll budgeted for it.
> As I said, can we agree on their priorities or is that subject taboo?





Irish Pixie said:


> No big deal, just correcting your misinformation. lol.



No ma'am, I am not misinformed.
I have no need of their facilities although your reference to a GP led to my statement in bold above.





Irish Pixie said:


> No clue. It doesn't interest me enough to do the research that you (collective you) will ignore anyway.


I surmised that already.



Tiempo said:


> Not all PPs provide abortions.



I believe that. I also believe that NONE of them do mammograms.
Again, priorities, hmmmmmmm.:hrm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> And done as an outpatient procedure.......like most abortions.


That's an irrelevant bit of trivia

They are done by radiology specialists and abortions are done by surgeons.

You're just zeroing in on a buzzword you stole from Kasilofhome to derail the discussion


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> I believe that. I also believe that NONE of them do mammograms.
> Again, priorities, hmmmmmmm.:hrm:


Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. Do you want them to? If so, contact them directly. 

Of course you gave misinformation, and I corrected you. PP does handle men's contraceptives and other healthcare. 

"Then again, as a man wanting a physical, I would not be led to a PP facility."


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. Do you want them to? If so, contact them directly.
> 
> Of course you gave misinformation, and I corrected you. PP does handle men's contraceptives and other healthcare.
> 
> "Then again, as a man wanting a physical, I would not be led to a PP facility."


No ma'am.
My "misinformation" as you call it, I believe is correct. Ask a man if you don't believe me.
"Hey Charlie, you need a vasectomy and a shot for that VD you have, you going to Planned Parenthood for it?"

What you listed as "other healthcare" I have no need of, nor would seek at my primary care facility.
You may be correct, I admit, that other men may need such care, but I would question how many men in fact are provided services by PP.
I may contact them and suggest they eliminate their budget for men and put that towards mammograms for women though.
You reckon, they would implement that suggestion?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> No ma'am.
> What you listed as "other healthcare" I have no need of, nor would seek at my primary care facility.
> You may be correct, I admit, that other men may need such care, but I would question how many men in fact are provided services by PP.
> I may contact them and suggest they eliminate their budget for men and put that towards mammograms for women though.
> You reckon, they would implement that suggestion?


Question all you like...


----------



## gapeach

*Planned Parenthood Uses Celebrities, Paid Canvassers in Massive Push to Save Obamacare*

 Steven Ertelt Dec 9, 2013 | 1:49PM Washington, DC 

The Planned Parenthood abortion business stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries financially from the success of Obamacare, which funds abortions and is funding the abortion giant directly.

With millions of Americans losing health insurance under Obamacare and support for its repeal at an all-time high, Planned Parenthood is relying on a campaign including top celebrities and a massive public relations push to &#8220;save&#8221; Obamacare. Meanwhile, the abortion company is taking to Craig&#8217;s List to hire canvassers to go door-to-door to promote Obamacare.
From a report on the hiring of canvassers:


Knock, knock, who&#8217;s there? Obamacare! This is no joke. Very soon your dinner may be interrupted by a representative from a new outreach campaign educating the public about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it&#8217;s commonly known.
&#8220;Community Connect, LLC&#8221; has been posting ads on Craig&#8217;s List seeking Canvassers to work 5 hour shifts for 12 dollars per hour and team leaders for 15 per hour&#8230;and they state they&#8217;re working with the Planned Parenthood National office.

These corporate filings show that Community Connect LLC is not merely &#8220;working with&#8221; Planned Parenthood, as they claim, but rather they&#8217;re being entirely managed by Planned Parenthood itself.
Where does planned parenthood get it funding to form an LLC and launch a door to door campaign promoting Obamacare? Well, according to FactCheck.org Planned Parenthood receives two federal governments sources, the Title X Family planning program and Medicaid.
hour&#8230;and they state they&#8217;re working with the Planned Parenthood National office.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/09/p...ave-obamacare/


This article is a yr and 1/2 old but the info is still the same. No wonder the left likes PP so much and you can see how beneficial they are to the current administration.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's an irrelevant bit of trivia
> 
> They are done by radiology specialists and abortions are done by surgeons.
> 
> You're just zeroing in on a buzzword you stole from Kasilofhome to derail the discussion


No BF.
I have no idea what "buzzword" K used, and I am not a thief.
I would appreciate a retraction of that insult.


----------



## Patchouli

*Services for Men*








Before you hook up with anyone, hook up with us. Planned Parenthood isn't just here to provide reproductive services to women, we also provide prevention care to men.

We know going to the doctor's office isn't something a man looks forward to, but a man's sexual health is important for his health and the health of his partner.

Planned Parenthood is here to provide physical exams that include cancer screenings, STD testing and treatment, vaccinations, the evaluation and treatment of urinary tract infections and much more. For uncircumsized men, we are here for you to help with you the issues that are unique to you.

As reproductive health care experts, we are here to answer your questions and help you get the care you want for an affordable price. In addition to reproductive health care, we also offer primary care at three of our health centers; we can take care of that cough, infection, skin irritation, and ear ache too. 

We take most insurance plans, provide discounted cash pricing and also have Title X federally funded services available to those who qualify.

To make an appointment or find out which of our 11 locations has walk-in availability, call 602.277.PLAN (7526) in Phoenix, 520.408.PLAN (7526) in Tucson, and toll-free 855.207.PLAN (7526) anywhere in Arizona.

Here are some of the services we offer our male patients:


STD testing and treatment
Colon Cancer Screenings
Vaccinations
Jock itch exam and treatement
Routine physical exams
Testicular cancer screenings
Prostate cancer screenings
Urinary tract infections
 P.S. We are a great place to get condoms!

- See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...alth-center/services-men#sthash.F5vRdLcO.dpuf


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> *Planned Parenthood Uses Celebrities, Paid Canvassers in Massive Push to Save Obamacare*
> 
> Steven Ertelt Dec 9, 2013 | 1:49PM Washington, DC
> 
> The Planned Parenthood abortion business stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries financially from the success of Obamacare, which funds abortions and is funding the abortion giant directly.
> 
> With millions of Americans losing health insurance under Obamacare and support for its repeal at an all-time high, Planned Parenthood is relying on a campaign including top celebrities and a massive public relations push to &#8220;save&#8221; Obamacare. Meanwhile, the abortion company is taking to Craig&#8217;s List to hire canvassers to go door-to-door to promote Obamacare.
> From a report on the hiring of canvassers:
> 
> 
> Knock, knock, who&#8217;s there? Obamacare! This is no joke. Very soon your dinner may be interrupted by a representative from a new outreach campaign educating the public about the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it&#8217;s commonly known.
> &#8220;Community Connect, LLC&#8221; has been posting ads on Craig&#8217;s List seeking Canvassers to work 5 hour shifts for 12 dollars per hour and team leaders for 15 per hour&#8230;and they state they&#8217;re working with the Planned Parenthood National office.
> http://www.lifenews.com/2013/12/09/...canvassers-in-massive-push-to-save-obamacare/
> 
> *This article is a yr and 1/2 old but the info is still the same*. No wonder the left likes PP so much and you can see how beneficial they are to the current administration.


What info? Beneficial to the current administration? He's not running again, is he? He's a lame duck.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Question all you like...


Thank you.
I presume that my questions should be directed elsewhere though, right?
I've noticed you don't answer the uncomfortable ones.


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> No ma'am.
> My "misinformation" as you call it, I believe is correct. Ask a man if you don't believe me.
> "Hey Charlie, you need a vasectomy and a shot for that VD you have, you going to Planned Parenthood for it?"
> 
> What you listed as "other healthcare" I have no need of, nor would seek at my primary care facility.
> You may be correct, I admit, that other men may need such care, but I would question how many men in fact are provided services by PP.
> I may contact them and suggest they eliminate their budget for men and put that towards mammograms for women though.
> You reckon, they would implement that suggestion?


Just because you don't think you would ever use those services doesn't mean there aren't plenty of other men who do. If the need did not exist I am quite sure PP would not be providing those services. And yes, I had a male friend once that did indeed ask me if he should go to PP to take care of his STD problem.


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> What info? Beneficial to the current administration? He's not running again, is he? He's a lame duck.


Obamacare, his legacy, is still floundering.


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> No ma'am.
> My "misinformation" as you call it, I believe is correct. Ask a man if you don't believe me.
> "Hey Charlie, you need a vasectomy and a shot for that VD you have, you going to Planned Parenthood for it?"
> 
> What you listed as "other healthcare" I have no need of, nor would seek at my primary care facility.
> You may be correct, I admit, that other men may need such care, but I would question how many men in fact are provided services by PP.
> I may contact them and suggest they eliminate their budget for men and put that towards mammograms for women though.
> You reckon, they would implement that suggestion?


What you believe is irrelevant as PP does offer services for men. Please see Patchouli's excellent post on the topic.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> Obamacare, his legacy, is still floundering.


I'm not an Obama fan but I know that his legacy is not "floundering."

Could you be influenced by your clear hatred of the man?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> Thank you.
> I presume that my questions should be directed elsewhere though, right?
> I've noticed you don't answer the uncomfortable ones.


You mean like why doesn't PP do mammograms? How would I know?


----------



## Evons hubby

Irish Pixie said:


> What info? Beneficial to the current administration? He's not running again, is he? He's a lame duck.


Being a lame duck didn't stop him the last two elections!


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> You mean like why doesn't PP do mammograms? How would I know?


How would you know?
By reading the posts on this thread.
It can't be the money, I posted their budget.
It can't be because they don't provide women's healthcare, we all know that.

*Because it is NOT one of their priorities.*
But we DO know what one of their great priorities is, don't we?
That wasn't hard at all.


----------



## painterswife

farmrbrown said:


> How would you know?
> By reading the posts on this thread.
> It can't be the money, I posted their budget.
> It can't be because they don't provide women's healthcare, we all know that.
> 
> *Because it is NOT one of their priorities.*
> But we DO know what one of their great priorities is, don't we?
> That wasn't hard at all.


Very few clinics do mammograms. A mammogram machine is expensive and needs to be constantly working to pay for itself. That is why your local doctor or clinic sends you to the hospital or the one or two larger clinics that handle mammograms.

Mammogram technicians that read more than 15 patients a day provide more reliable readings and results. Therefore it is not recommended that most doctors or clinics provide them.

Now do you have another bush to beat that actual would make a difference in women's heath care?


----------



## Irish Pixie

farmrbrown said:


> How would you know?
> By reading the posts on this thread.
> It can't be the money, I posted their budget.
> It can't be because they don't provide women's healthcare, we all know that.
> 
> *Because it is NOT one of their priorities.*
> But we DO know what one of their great priorities is, don't we?
> That wasn't hard at all.


Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. How do you not understand that? I have no idea WHY PP doesn't do mammograms, they just don't. 

*It's. not. one. of. their. priorities.* Feel better?


----------



## SLFarmMI

Shine said:


> Yes, the women should be given the power of God to deal with this problem, they know best....


Oh no, you should have that job. After all you, as a stranger, are so much more qualified to make decisions than the actual woman involved. :smack 

News flash -- I am fully capable, as are the rest of the world's women, of looking at a situation in my life and making the right decision for me. We don't need you, or any other outsider, to make the decision for us.


----------



## Nevada

SLFarmMI said:


> News flash -- I am fully capable, as are the rest of the world's women, of looking at a situation in my life and making the right decision for me. We don't need you, or any other outsider, to make the decision for us.


Interesting how the same people who want laws to prevent women from making decisions about whether to keep a child are the same people who want government out of our lives. I can't imagine a more personal and sensitive decision than that of having an abortion. Do they really want to turn that decision over to government?


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Interesting how the same people who want laws to prevent women from making decisions about whether to keep a child are the same people who want government out of our lives. I can't imagine a more personal and sensitive decision than that of having an abortion. Do they really want to turn that decision over to government?


naw, they want to make that decision themselves, regardless of what the woman wants.... Meddling.... If you are a meddler it's what you do.


----------



## Shine

SLFarmMI said:


> Oh no, you should have that job. After all you, as a stranger, are so much more qualified to make decisions than the actual woman involved. :smack
> 
> News flash -- I am fully capable, as are the rest of the world's women, of looking at a situation in my life and making the right decision for me. We don't need you, or any other outsider, to make the decision for us.


Yeah, I am certain you fully consider ALL of your actions and the ALL of the repercussions of whatever choice you make. Yup... certain.


----------



## Shine

If the only options are to Kill an unwanted unborn baby that you *caused *to come to fruition or suffer for nine months with that child and hand it off to another who would parent that child - which do you think I would recommend? 

Naaa... abortion is much more simple...


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> If the only options are to Kill an unwanted unborn baby that you *caused *to come to fruition or suffer for nine months with that child and hand it off to another who would parent that child - which do you think I would recommend?
> 
> Naaa... abortion is much more simple...


its good to see yer getting the idea.


----------



## Shine

I am really happy that I am a man and never have to make this decision, I would not be able to live with myself...


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> I am really happy that I am a man and never have to make this decision, I would not be able to live with myself...


It does appear to be a tough decision, makes me wonder why so many seem to want to make it for someone other than themselves. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> Obamacare, his legacy, is still floundering.


None of us had anything to do with that, so I don't understand why you think it's important


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> How would you know?
> *By reading the posts on this thread.*
> It can't be the money, I posted their budget.
> It can't be because they don't provide women's healthcare, we all know that.
> 
> *Because it is NOT one of their priorities.*
> But we DO know what one of their great priorities is, don't we?
> That wasn't hard at all.


If you were truly reading the posts, you'd realize your questions have been answered more than once, but you just keep repeating them


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Yeah, I am certain you fully consider ALL of your actions and the ALL of the repercussions of whatever choice you make. Yup... certain.



I actually find your comment somewhat condescending. 

I, as a woman, who was given the choice of remaining married to my kids father or having the abortion he demanded, considered ALL of my options and ALL of the possible repercussions before making my decision. 

You ASSUME that those who are pro life are pro abortion and you are misinformed. My choice turns 26 next month.

You would like to dictate how women live their lives but would you be just as comfortable with a law that requires all men have a vasectomy after they sired their second child? That should significantly reduce the number of abortions.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It does appear to be a tough decision, makes me wonder why so many seem to want to make it for someone other than themselves. :shrug:


I have always stood with those that have little to no voice in their worlds... I would like to think that it would always be thus...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I have always stood with those that have little to no voice in their worlds... I would like to think that it would always be thus...


It seems to me you would prefer to take away the mother's voice and force her to do what you want.

You don't get to do that


----------



## susieneddy

......


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It seems to me you would prefer to take away the mother's voice and force her to do what you want.
> 
> You don't get to do that


That would be your opinion. You get to have that no matter how far off of the mark you might be...


----------



## SLFarmMI

Shine said:


> That would be your opinion. You get to have that no matter how far off of the mark you might be...


When you advocate making abortion illegal and unobtainable, that is precisely what you are doing. Forcing a woman to have no other option but to continue an unwanted pregnancy is indeed removing her voice and forcing her to do what you want. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


----------



## Shine

SLFarmMI said:


> When you advocate making abortion illegal and unobtainable, that is precisely what you are doing. Forcing a woman to have no other option but to continue an unwanted pregnancy is indeed removing her voice and forcing her to do what you want. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


So, in your opinion, the killing is necessary?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> So, in your opinion, the killing is necessary?


Only in cases where the woman chooses not to go through the entire pregnancy.... Very similar to the women who choose to not fertilize her egg upon ovulation in order to avoid going through a full term pregnancy. Either everyone gets to make their own choices or they do not.... No one can have it both ways.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Only in cases where the woman chooses not to go through the entire pregnancy.... Very similar to the women who choose to not fertilize her egg upon ovulation in order to avoid going through a full term pregnancy. Either everyone gets to make their own choices or they do not.... No one can have it both ways.


So, I will take that as your "Yes" ->?

"Very similar to the women who choose to not fertilize her egg upon ovulation in order to avoid going through a full term pregnancy." 

- Wow, that sounds like a person who tries to be responsible... Go Figure...


----------



## gapeach

Bearfootfarm said:


> It seems to me you would prefer to take away the mother's voice and force her to do what you want.
> 
> You don't get to do that


Seriously, is a woman who has an abortion a mother? If she has other children, she is mother to them but the child she aborted?
It seems to me she gives that right up if she chooses to have him/her done away with.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Shine said:


> So, in your opinion, the killing is necessary?


I can and will only speak for myself. Yes, having an abortion was absolutely the correct decision and I have no regrets.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> So, I will take that as your "Yes" ->?
> 
> "Very similar to the women who choose to not fertilize her egg upon ovulation in order to avoid going through a full term pregnancy."
> 
> - Wow, that sounds like a person who tries to be responsible... Go Figure...


Yes it does, in both cases.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> Seriously, is a woman who has an abortion a mother? If she has other children, she is mother to them but the child she aborted?
> It seems to me she gives that right up if she chooses to have him/her done away with.


Speaking only for myself, nope, not even close. My birth "mother" aborted my older sister before I was borne and abandoned my two older brothers and myself when I turned three with out ever looking back. She was nobodies mother... Not even to the two kids she had after she abandoned us. Again this in no way disparages other women who have had abortions in any way... I have known several excellent mothers who have had abortions.


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes it does, in both cases.


That is not even remotely the same thing. Some women still have eggs up to 55 years old. We sure don't want to fertilize old eggs for many reasons, mostly danger to the mother and to the baby for many different health reasons.


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> I have always stood with those that have little to no voice in their worlds... I would like to think that it would always be thus...



And yet,


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> And yet,



OK - :shrug: - help me out here...


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> That is not even remotely the same thing. Some women still have eggs up to 55 years old. We sure don't want to fertilize old eggs for many reasons, mostly danger to the mother and to the baby for many different health reasons.


They are exactly the same thing. Both women choose to avoid a full term pregnancy and have a child to take care of at that point in their lives.
Now you seem to want to place an age limit on when they can have a baby too! How about you make your choices and let others make theirs. Would that be so horrible?


----------



## Shine

didn't make sense - deleted


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> didn't make sense - deleted


it made perfect sense. I was just going to give you cudos for finally seeing the lite.


----------



## Shine

...no, one chose not to get pregnant, the other chose to do away with what would have been a child... One of these choices I support. So, my misunderstanding did not make sense.


----------



## popscott

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/18/...d-is-breaking-the-law-to-sell-aborted-babies/

Congress Expands Investigation Into Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...les/114/Letters/20150807PlannedParenthood.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...e.house.gov/files/114/Letters/20150807ABR.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...e.gov/files/114/Letters/20150807Novogenix.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...gov/files/114/Letters/20150807StemExpress.pdf


http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001EWyz...Yio8XBvb7uMM5eziiAWrr2V6NPzT4NdOszoJwkCPrwQ==

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/17/...to-planned-parenthood-selling-aborted-babies/

Congress Investigates Obama Adminâs Connection to Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...4-JC-JJ-to-Richards-PP-Planned-Parenthood.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...-JC-JJ-to-Burwell-HHS-Planned-Parenthood1.pdf


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/18/...d-is-breaking-the-law-to-sell-aborted-babies/
> 
> Congress Expands Investigation Into Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies
> 
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...les/114/Letters/20150807PlannedParenthood.pdf
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...e.house.gov/files/114/Letters/20150807ABR.pdf
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...e.gov/files/114/Letters/20150807Novogenix.pdf
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...gov/files/114/Letters/20150807StemExpress.pdf
> 
> 
> http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001EWyz...Yio8XBvb7uMM5eziiAWrr2V6NPzT4NdOszoJwkCPrwQ==
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/17/...to-planned-parenthood-selling-aborted-babies/
> 
> Congress Investigates Obama Adminâs Connection to Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies
> 
> https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...4-JC-JJ-to-Richards-PP-Planned-Parenthood.pdf
> https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...-JC-JJ-to-Burwell-HHS-Planned-Parenthood1.pdf


Old news. Most of your links have already been discussed on this thread.


----------



## arabian knight

I am sure glad there was protests held this weekend al over the country against this murdering group called pp. 100's turned out just in the city north of me.
Glad to see more and more are standing up and speaking out against pp. About time this comes to the front and gets on the news of what is happening to the yet to be born.


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> They are exactly the same thing. Both women choose to avoid a full term pregnancy and have a child to take care of at that point in their lives.
> Now you seem to want to place an age limit on when they can have a baby too! How about you make your choices and let others make theirs. Would that be so horrible?


I'm not saying that the Govt. get involved, period. When people know the risks of having babies at a late age and they do it anyway, that is their business. They know what the risks are with a high risk pregnancy. Both of my D'sIL were over 40 when they carried a child, each their only one. Neither had the blood tests for defects because neither believes in abortion and said they would take whatever God gave them. I had nothing to do with their decisions but am very proud of both of them. They were normal babies but one very premature.


----------



## popscott

Maybe you should take time to actual read them then, and find out that Congress has had its feather ruffled enough to actually see if PP has done something wrong. Instead of relying on your biased "Old news"


----------



## gapeach

arabian knight said:


> I am sure glad there was protests held this weekend al over the country against this murdering group called pp. 100's turned out just in the city north of me.
> Glad to see more and more are standing up and speaking out against pp. About time this comes to the front and gets on the news of what is happening to the yet to be born.


Thank the Good Lord some news agencies have the guts to report it.


----------



## arabian knight

And even our local one covered it. Good deal.


----------



## gapeach

Irish Pixie said:


> Old news. Most of your links have already been discussed on this thread.


Not everybody stays on these threads 24-7. It gets very boring after a while with the same people parroting the pro PP answers that you can get off the internet at any time, how to reply to pro-life people.
Some people have never read some of these discussions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> Not everybody stays on these threads 24-7. It gets very boring after a while with the same people parroting the pro PP answers that you can get off the internet at any time, how to reply to pro-life people.
> Some people have never read some of these discussions.


It's boring when the same group of pro unborn parrot lies and half truths too. 

I simply said that most of the information was old and had already been discussed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> Maybe you should take time to actual read them then, and find out that Congress has had its feather ruffled enough to actually see if PP has done something wrong. Instead of relying on your biased "Old news"


I did. I even commented about them.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> ...no, one chose not to get pregnant, the other chose to do away with what would have been a child... One of these choices I support. So, my misunderstanding did not make sense.


Both women most likely made the same choice to not have a child. For whatever reason one woman's choice of birth control failed. That includes numerous options from abstinence, barriers, pills, potions, spermicides or various combinations of the above. She had made exactly the same choice to be responsible and not bring a child into the world. Now she has one remaining responsible choice.... An abortion. Which some would deny her and force her to take the pregnancy to full term very much against her choice... What makes them so very much wiser than the woman with a fertilized egg in her womb?


----------



## popscott

Irish Pixie said:


> I did. I even commented about them.


Please explain how a letter (the OP) from Jim Esquea, assistant secretary for legislation at HHS to Sens. Joni Ernst and Roy Blunt seals the outcome on an investigation that has only started.

Let me guess...not a smidgeon of corruption....hmmm...where have we heard that before?


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> Please explain how a letter (the OP) from Jim Esquea, assistant secretary for legislation at HHS to Sens. Joni Ernst and Roy Blunt seals the outcome on an investigation that has only started.


Where did I say there was an outcome?

ETA to your edited post: I wait until the information is all in before making a decision.


----------



## popscott

irish pixie said:


> where did i say there was an outcome?
> 
> Eta to your edited post: I wait until the information is all in before making a decision.



really... do you think the Congressional investigation will be on "violations to date" or have you made a decision because links have been submitted that prove it so.



irish pixie said:


> thank you for providing the links that prove that there have been no planned parenthood violations to date, bearfootfarm.


As to my edited post... That is a MMofA thing...


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> ...no, one chose not to get pregnant, the other chose to do away with what would have been a child... One of these choices I support. So, my misunderstanding did not make sense.



And both women were backed into a corner. I had family support to help with child care while I spent 28 days in hospital, covered my expenses while I was off work and child care when I went back to work. 

My folks have bought a lot of winter coats, boots and groceries that the kids father should have. 

What happens to those who don't have that kind of support? Do they let the other kids dimly go cold, hungry and babysit themselves or shall we mock them as welfare queens? 

Are you in favour of my mandatory vasectomy program as well? I think that would cut down on unwanted pregnancies by quite a bit.


----------



## Evons hubby

wr said:


> Are you in favour of my mandatory vasectomy program as well? I think that would cut down on unwanted pregnancies by quite a bit.


I doubt it, unless you snip every male on the planet.


----------



## wr

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I doubt it, unless you snip every male on the planet.



I doubt it too but it seems logical that responsibility for unwanted pregnancies extends a little further than sexually promiscuous women.

I also think there would be a huge outcry over someone telling them what they have to do with their bodies.


----------



## Shine

wr said:


> And both women were backed into a corner. I had family support to help with child care while I spent 28 days in hospital, covered my expenses while I was off work and child care when I went back to work.
> 
> My folks have bought a lot of winter coats, boots and groceries that the kids father should have.
> 
> What happens to those who don't have that kind of support? Do they let the other kids dimly go cold, hungry and babysit themselves or shall we mock them as welfare queens?
> 
> Are you in favour of my mandatory vasectomy program as well? I think that would cut down on unwanted pregnancies by quite a bit.


Well, I feel for those in the situations that you described, but, would it have been better if those children were never brought to bear? I would like to see trustable birth control methods for both parties, so far all we have is those methods that seem fallible. I have been cold, I have been hungry, I tend to think that it was a good thing that my mom did not choose abortion. I wonder how many others might feel this way, but... alas, those that were aborted have no voice to offer an opinion. Were they really "better off"?


----------



## Evons hubby

wr said:


> I doubt it too but it seems logical that responsibility for unwanted pregnancies extends a little further than sexually promiscuous women.


I know that is true. My kid sister had three unwanted pregnancies in three years time, having slept with each father only once. She was on the pill and the fathers had used condoms. She was a living baby factory!


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Well, I feel for those in the situations that you described, but, would it have been better if those children were never brought to bear? I would like to see trustable birth control methods for both parties, so far all we have is those methods that seem fallible. I have been cold, I have been hungry, I tend to think that it was a good thing that my mom did not choose abortion. I wonder how many others might feel this way, but... alas, those that were aborted have no voice to offer an opinion. Were they really "better off"?


I have a hunch those aborted baby's are no worse off than any of those whose mothers took steps to prevent their conception... They simply never knew they existed.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have a hunch those aborted baby's are no worse off than any of those whose mothers took steps to prevent their conception... They simply never knew they existed.



Is that a "Good" thing?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> Seriously, is a woman who has an abortion a mother? If she has other children, she is mother to them but the child she aborted?
> It seems to me she gives that right up if she chooses to have him/her done away with.


If she's not a mother, then it's not a baby, since only mothers have babies.

If you want to play word games, the rules have to apply equally, so think it through carefully before you start


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> I am sure glad there was protests held this weekend al over the country against this murdering group called pp. 100's turned out just in the city north of me.
> Glad to see more and more are standing up and speaking out against pp. About time this comes to the front and gets on the news of what is happening to the yet to be born.


So a few people wasted a couple of hours one Saturday.
The majority still want abortions to remain legal, and the protests are pretty much over already


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> Maybe you should take time to actual read them then, and find out that Congress has had its feather ruffled enough to actually see if PP has done something wrong. Instead of relying on your biased "Old news"


They have done nothing wrong, and Congress is only getting involved for the free publicity. It's all politics. 

Reposting links won't change that since you evidently didn't notice them the first time around.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> Not everybody stays on these threads 24-7. It gets very boring after a while with the same people parroting the pro PP answers that you can get off the internet at any time, how to reply to pro-life people.
> Some people have never read some of these discussions.


If they are interested in the discussion it's a simple matter to take the time to read the entire thread. Ignorance is no excuse when the threads are not gone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Is that a "Good" thing?


It's neither good nor bad.
It's just reality, and it's not your decision to make, since it's not your life


----------



## popscott

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have done nothing wrong, and Congress is only getting involved for the free publicity. It's all politics.
> 
> Reposting links won't change that since you evidently didn't notice them the first time around.



As I posted to Irish Pixie and I will post to you..

The OP """""Esquea, assistant secretary for legislation at HHS, wrote in a letter to Sens. Joni Ernst and Roy Blunt,""""""" does not stand as the final outcome.
""""In an Aug. 6 letter, Otter wrote that there are no grounds for a legal investigation because there is no evidence Planned Parenthood has violated any state or federal laws in Idaho.""""" only covers at the most Idaho. 
âââââThey have done nothing wrongââââââ.... You and I won't know that until the Congressional Investigation is OVER. You've proven nothing that exonerates Planned Parenthood. *Absolutely Nothing .*

I've seen these weird Alinsky tactics used repeatedlyâ¦ Looks like rules 4, 8, 9, 10, and definitely 11.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I've seen these weird Alinsky tactics used repeatedly


I see mindless rhetoric and vague allegtions used repeatedly also.

Several states have completed investigations with no evidence found, just like all the former investigations. Links to those reports were posted

Many keep claiming the videos show "proof" so why have no charges been filed based on that "proof"?

Taking the HHS letter *out of context* doesn't help your cause.
They could only reply in reference to the clinics with which they had dealt

No one has claimed it was supposed to mean all clinics everywhere



> *You've proven nothing* that exonerates Planned Parenthood.


Actually I've posted links to several investigations that found nothing.
It's your side that has failed to offer any real proof so far

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ations-planned-parenthood-20.html#post7528684


----------



## farmrbrown




----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Insert silly picture


Just minutes ago on another thread you chided me for saying the same phrases
popscott used, but I see you not only let his comments ride to take another shot at me, but "liked" them as well, even after I posted links to real data

Isn't that a little (or a lot) hypocritical?


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> really... do you think the Congressional investigation will be on "violations to date" or have you made a decision because links have been submitted that prove it so.
> 
> As to my edited post... That is a MMofA thing...


I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please explain.


----------



## popscott

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't understand what you're trying to say. Please explain.


Which one... The investigation or the edit?


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> Which one... The investigation or the edit?


Both. I never indicated that any type of conclusion had been made, by me or Congress, yet you seem to indicate I have. Can you explain?


----------



## popscott

Irish Pixie said:


> Both. I never indicated that any type of conclusion had been made, by me or Congress, yet you seem to indicate I have. Can you explain?


Explain it yourself ....... post #390


----------



## Evons hubby

popscott said:


> You've proven nothing that exonerates Planned Parenthood. *Absolutely Nothing .*


And no one has provided a single shred of evidence against them either. Thus far all I have seen are accusations based on some very questionable videos.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> *Explain* it yourself ....... post #390


Post #390:


> Thank you for providing the links that prove that there have been no Planned Parenthood violations to date, BearFootFarm.


That's a statement based on the fact that *after investigations*, no evidence of any crimes has been found. 

It's simple English and should require no further explanation but here's the Reader's Digest version:

Nothing illegal has been *proven*


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> Post #390:
> 
> 
> That's a statement based on the fact that *after investigations*, no evidence of any crimes has been found.
> 
> It's simple English and should require no further explanation but here's the Reader's Digest version:
> 
> Nothing illegal has been *proven*


well in the interest of accuracy I think slander might have been proven. It has been made very obvious if not proven.


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> Explain it yourself ....... post #390


Big sigh. This quote: "Thank you for providing the links that prove that there have been no Planned Parenthood violations *to date*, BearFootFarm."?

That means there had been no violations as of August 21, 2015. Do you understand now? Dang.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see mindless rhetoric and vague allegtions used repeatedly also.
> 
> Several states have completed investigations with no evidence found, just like all the former investigations. Links to those reports were posted
> 
> Many keep claiming the videos show "proof" so why have no charges been filed based on that "proof"?
> 
> Taking the HHS letter *out of context* doesn't help your cause.
> They could only reply in reference to the clinics with which they had dealt
> 
> No one has claimed it was supposed to mean all clinics everywhere
> 
> 
> Actually I've posted links to several investigations that found nothing.
> It's your side that has failed to offer any real proof so far
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ations-planned-parenthood-20.html#post7528684


Context means nothing, BFF. Nothing!! Well, unless you want to be thought of as knowledgeable and credible that is.


----------



## popscott

Irish Pixie said:


> Big sigh. This quote: "Thank you for providing the links that prove that there have been no Planned Parenthood violations *to date*, BearFootFarm."?
> 
> That means there had been no violations as of August 21, 2015. Do you understand now? Dang.


Is that the conclusion Congress has come up with?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Context means nothing, BFF. Nothing!! Well, unless you want to be thought of as knowledgeable and credible that is.


Yeah, it's pretty obvious some don't really read much before they start posting.

It's most evident from the repetitious questioning and recycling of old arguments that were already disproven.


----------



## gapeach

This is what Planned Parenthood does.



Is Planned Parenthood laying out taxpayer money to hire shock troops? Weâve seen this before in other leftist causes, like Black Lives Matter, where they pay protesters to go into the streets to push their agenda. The people behind the ad, âGrassroots Campaignsâ,* push progressive causes and have pimped for the DNC. *
If you suddenly start seeing people protesting on behalf of Planned Parenthood, donât be surprised. But do ask if they got cut their checksâ¦
http://www.weaselzippers.us/230131-...s-being-sought-to-defend-reproductive-rights/

https://www.facebook.com/grassrootscampaignsinc/info?tab=page_info

The Saul Alinsky method for organizing, yes indeed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

popscott said:


> Is that the conclusion Congress has come up with?


As far as I know they're still evaluating the information they requested from the agencies. Why?


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> This is what Planned Parenthood does.
> 
> 
> 
> Is Planned Parenthood laying out taxpayer money to hire shock troops? Weâve seen this before in other leftist causes, like Black Lives Matter, where they pay protesters to go into the streets to push their agenda. The people behind the ad, âGrassroots Campaignsâ,* push progressive causes and have pimped for the DNC. *
> If you suddenly start seeing people protesting on behalf of Planned Parenthood, donât be surprised. But do ask if they got cut their checksâ¦
> http://www.weaselzippers.us/230131-...s-being-sought-to-defend-reproductive-rights/
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/grassrootscampaignsinc/info?tab=page_info
> 
> The Saul Alinsky method for organizing, yes indeed.


I know when I see the words "weaselzippers" in a url I can trust that sucker to have nothing but the truth. :facepalm:

When you post sites that have nothing but half truths and inneundo it casts doubt on your credibility. Just sayin'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> Is that the conclusion Congress has come up with?


Congress isn't really *doing* any investigations

They "call for" investigations, to make it *appear* they are doing something


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> This is what Planned Parenthood does.
> 
> 
> 
> Is Planned Parenthood laying out taxpayer money to hire shock troops? Weâve seen this before in other leftist causes, like Black Lives Matter, where they pay protesters to go into the streets to push their agenda. The people behind the ad, âGrassroots Campaignsâ,* push progressive causes and have pimped for the DNC. *
> If you suddenly start seeing people protesting on behalf of Planned Parenthood, donât be surprised. But do ask if they got cut their checksâ¦
> http://www.weaselzippers.us/230131-...s-being-sought-to-defend-reproductive-rights/
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/grassrootscampaignsinc/info?tab=page_info
> 
> *The Saul Alinsky method for organizing, yes indeed*.


More lame allegations and more parroted rhetoric
Maybe those protesting *against* PP are being paid too.


----------



## gapeach

Now we know why so many people are pushing Planned Parenthood 24-7.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> Now we know why so many people are pushing Planned Parenthood 24-7.


Because they are pro choice and believe Planned Parenthood helps people that need its medical care?

Or something else?


----------



## popscott

Bearfootfarm said:


> Congress isn't really *doing* any investigations
> 
> They "call for" investigations, to make it *appear* they are doing something



They are doing a good job at "appearing"... Again here they are.... But PLEASE....don't bother reading them... AGAIN.

Congress Investigates Obama Adminâs Connection to Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies

https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...4-JC-JJ-to-Richards-PP-Planned-Parenthood.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-cont...-JC-JJ-to-Burwell-HHS-Planned-Parenthood1.pdf

Congress Expands Investigation Into Planned Parenthood Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...les/114/Letters/20150807PlannedParenthood.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...e.house.gov/files/114/Letters/20150807ABR.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...e.gov/files/114/Letters/20150807Novogenix.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...gov/files/114/Letters/20150807StemExpress.pdf


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## popscott

Bearfootfarm said:


> More lame allegations and more parroted rhetoric
> Maybe those protesting *against* PP are being paid too.


Bearfootfarm, Irish Pixie...

Please provide me with a link that shows that the House Oversight Committee has exonerated Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> *Now we know *why so many people are pushing Planned Parenthood 24-7.


No, you don't "know" that, any more than you "know" PP has done anything illegal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Insert silly picture


Anyone could print that.

It hardly equals "proof" of anything since one side is admittedly not above telling lies to push the agenda

It's rather convenient the phone number is missing, so there's no way to confirm it's legitimacy


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> Bearfootfarm, Irish Pixie...
> 
> Please provide me with a link that shows that the House Oversight Committee has exonerated Planned Parenthood of any wrong doing.


It's the accuser's job to prove guilt, not the other way around.

I've already posted links to several completed investigations that found no crimes.

It's your turn to show something other than more witchhunts and vague allegations


----------



## popscott

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's the accuser's job to prove guilt, not the other way around.
> 
> I've already posted links to several completed investigations that found no crimes.
> 
> It's your turn to show something other than more witchhunts and vague allegations


That is my point...

I cannot and you cannot provide any House Oversight Committee link because the investigations are ongoing. 
You are putting the cart before the horse.
Again and again and againâ¦. We scream hands up donât shoot before the facts are in.


----------



## gapeach

* &#10022; STAND UP FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS! &#10022; $11-$15/hour (south station) *

compensation: *$11-$15/hour*
employment type: *full-time*
non-profit organization

Apply Online Now:

or by Phone:
617-338-7882

Click here to read more about Grassroots Campaigns and our work.  *Keywords: campaign jobs, student, politics, non profit, college, rights, equality, environment, women, gender, progressive, movement, organize, grassroots, campaign, canvass, activism/activist, student, summer, fundraise(ing), nonprofit, field, summer jobs, part time jobs, green jobs, politico, field campaigns, help wanted,ENDA, gay rights, LGBT rights, discrimination*
*http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/npo/5178900303.html*

 


Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
do NOT contact us with unsolicited services or offers
OK to highlight this job opening for persons with disabilities
http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/npo/5178900303.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ab...-in-response-to-attacks-on-planned-parenthood

so if you need a job, here you go......


----------



## Bearfootfarm

popscott said:


> That is my point...
> 
> I cannot and you cannot provide any House Oversight Committee link because the investigations are ongoing.
> You are putting the cart before the horse.
> Again and again and againâ¦. We scream hands up donât shoot before the facts are in.


You're the one basing everything on vague allegations.

The "investigations" by Congress are for show.

Any real criminal investigations would be done by the individual state's Atty Generals, or the FBI

All the completed investigations have found nothing, and there's no reason to think others will


----------



## Patchouli

arabian knight said:


>



Not sure what the point is here? You don't think everyone out there hires a few people to manage volunteers for whatever grassroots campaigns they are running? That's just common practice across the board Left, Right or Middle.


----------

