# Heard about that 10 year old girl who was raped and got pregnant but couldn't get an abortion in Ohio?



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The press jumped on it and wailed about how it was because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. It's looking like it never happened and was leftist disinformation (AKA lying). The only person who says it happened is a (surprise) woman abortion doctor. No such rape has been reported to the police and no investigation is happening, even though a doctor is required by law to report such cases. The local news where she lived knows nothing about it. One would think a rapist of a 10 year old girl would be big news in her area to warn other parents. But, no, nothing. Now the woman doctor refuses to answer any questions.

Jesse Watters: If this horrific story isn't accurate, it fits a dangerous pattern of disinformation - YouTube


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yep, seems it was nothing more than a made up Leftist lie. A lie that was spread by everyone from the lowest propaganda peddler to the POTUS.


----------



## doc- (Jun 26, 2015)

Multiple exmples of convenient lies in the news to raise the ire of the ignorant proletariate. The "horse whipping" by the border agent that never happened is the most recent.

OTOH-- as a hypothetical problem to invoke thought, this example does underscore the need for some allowances in any contemplated anti-abortion laws.


----------



## oldasrocks (Oct 27, 2006)

Maybe it is time for some of us to make up some lies?
I heard that current welfare receivers will be getting a 50% cut in benefits so they can fund the influx of illegals coming in.


----------



## romysbaskets (Aug 29, 2009)

Here goes....Well I am about to get both feet operated on for bunions and a bone coming off the joint...a plate and screw after fusing that area. Then I will be 20 again.


----------



## Pony (Jan 6, 2003)

poppy said:


> The press jumped on it and wailed about how it was because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. It's looking like it never happened and was leftist disinformation (AKA lying). The only person who says it happened is a (surprise) woman abortion doctor. No such rape has been reported to the police and no investigation is happening, even though a doctor is required by law to report such cases. The local news where she lived knows nothing about it. One would think a rapist of a 10 year old girl would be big news in her area to warn other parents. But, no, nothing. Now the woman doctor refuses to answer any questions.
> 
> Jesse Watters: If this horrific story isn't accurate, it fits a dangerous pattern of disinformation - YouTube


Quelle surprise...

NON.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Kind of off thread, but I just read this morning about a guy who is going to jail for impregnating a 13 year old girl on purpose. He admitted it, even told the girls mother, was convicted and is now going to jail. Now, what happens to that
poor girl? Especially if she lives in one of the states who have completely banned abortions.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> Kind of off thread, but I just read this morning about a guy who is going to jail for impregnating a 13 year old girl on purpose. He admitted it, even told the girls mother, was convicted and is now going to jail. Now, what happens to that
> poor girl? Especially if she lives in one of the states who have completely banned abortions.


Actually I think your post is very relevant to this thread. At least half of the states in the US have no problem with abortion, some even up until birth. If she lives in a state that protects the life of unborn children, she will simply have to go to a state that doesn't, to get an abortion, if that is her parents' choice.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

poppy said:


> The press jumped on it and wailed about how it was because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. It's looking like it never happened and was leftist disinformation (AKA lying). The only person who says it happened is a (surprise) woman abortion doctor. No such rape has been reported to the police and no investigation is happening, even though a doctor is required by law to report such cases. The local news where she lived knows nothing about it. One would think a rapist of a 10 year old girl would be big news in her area to warn other parents. But, no, nothing. Now the woman doctor refuses to answer any questions.
> 
> Jesse Watters: If this horrific story isn't accurate, it fits a dangerous pattern of disinformation - YouTube


Turns out it is true. Let's see if you admit that you were wrong. 








Arrest made in rape of Ohio girl that led to Indiana abortion drawing international attention


The man was arraigned in Ohio. The case has led to national attention in the abortion debate following the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade.



www.dispatch.com


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

So no leflist lie after all.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Ok they caught the rapist, and the family took the girl across an imaginary line on a map, and got the abortion. The state of Ohio exercised their rights, and so did the state of Indiana. 

The important question is, will they lock up the rapist for life? Or will they pat him on the head, and give him probation?


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

CC Pereira said:


> Actually I think your post is very relevant to this thread. At least half of the states in the US have no problem with abortion, some even up until birth. If she lives in a state that protects the life of unborn children, she will simply have to go to a state that doesn't, to get an abortion, if that is her parents' choice.


If she is pregnant, she is emancipated by law. She can make her own decision. Of course, someone will have to drive her.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

painterswife said:


> So no leflist lie after all.


That makes them 1-117.


----------



## Northof49 (Mar 3, 2018)

SLFarmMI said:


> Turns out it is true. Let's see if you admit that you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just because there is an arrest, doesn't make it true. Maybe another false Flag by FBI or another 3 letter agency protecting the deep state Demonrats. It sure wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

This is an issue that both sides refuse to compromise on. The Right wants to stop abortions altogether, no matter what. Sadly, they've seen exceptions become loopholes. Like when Michigan voters were asked to approve medical marijuana, so those in their final days could have some relief. But when passed, some doctors were passing out approvals for everything from acid reflux to hangnail. So, allowing a common sense exception like rape or medical emergency to protect the life of the mother, becomes an area of great abuse.
Likewise, Many pro-life folks are repulsed by the late term abortions, but the pro-choice folks won't give an inch. Even when a 8 month gestation abortion is quite rare, the Pro Choice side will not allow any limit on when an abortion can be performed.
While I don't have a dog in this hunt, I think if there were a 12 or 13 week limit, there would be a majority agreement.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> This is an issue that both sides refuse to compromise on. The Right wants to stop abortions altogether, no matter what. Sadly, they've seen exceptions become loopholes. Like when Michigan voters were asked to approve medical marijuana, so those in their final days could have some relief. But when passed, some doctors were passing out approvals for everything from acid reflux to hangnail. So, allowing a common sense exception like rape or medical emergency to protect the life of the mother, becomes an area of great abuse.
> Likewise, Many pro-life folks are repulsed by the late term abortions, but the pro-choice folks won't give an inch. Even when a 8 month gestation abortion is quite rare, the Pro Choice side will not allow any limit on when an abortion can be performed.
> While I don't have a dog in this hunt, I think if there were a 12 or 13 week limit, there would be a majority agreement.


I actually think that the extremes on both sides are what has turned the whole thing into a convoluted mess. They are so busy shouting down each other with name calling buzzwords and catchy phrases that the voices in the middle are left unheard.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> I actually think that the extremes on both sides are what has turned the whole thing into a convoluted mess. They are so busy shouting down each other with name calling buzzwords and catchy phrases that the voices in the middle are left unheard.


I agree that is usually the problem. I have always said I am fine with a limit of 14 to 16 weeks unless it is medically necessary.


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

poppy said:


> The press jumped on it and wailed about how it was because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. It's looking like it never happened and was leftist disinformation (AKA lying). The only person who says it happened is a (surprise) woman abortion doctor. No such rape has been reported to the police and no investigation is happening, even though a doctor is required by law to report such cases. The local news where she lived knows nothing about it. One would think a rapist of a 10 year old girl would be big news in her area to warn other parents. But, no, nothing. Now the woman doctor refuses to answer any questions.
> 
> Jesse Watters: If this horrific story isn't accurate, it fits a dangerous pattern of disinformation - YouTube


Me thinks you've pegged the wrong liar...Typical....  


An Ohio man was arrested on charges of raping a 10-year-old girl who later needed an abortion.
Ohio's Republican attorney general, David Yost, had dismissed the story as a likely "fabrication."
Following the alleged rapist's arraignment Wednesday, Yost celebrated the arrest.
An Ohio man was arrested Tuesday after confessing to raping a 10-year-old girl on at least two occasions, according to Columbus police, which led to the girl becoming impregnated and traveling to another state for an abortion. 
Following the Supreme Court's decision in June that revoked the nationwide right to an abortion, an Ohio law banning abortion past six weeks took effect. The law does not have an exception for rape. Dr. Caitlin Bernard told the Indianapolis Star that the girl was six weeks and three days pregnant when she took her on as a patient and performed the abortion.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Northof49 said:


> Just because there is an arrest, doesn't make it true. Maybe another false Flag by FBI or another 3 letter agency protecting the deep state Demonrats. It sure wouldn't be the first time.


That poor illegal immigrant, being framed by those evil democrats!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> Kind of off thread, but I just read this morning about a guy who is going to jail for impregnating a 13 year old girl on purpose. He admitted it, even told the girls mother, was convicted and is now going to jail. Now, what happens to that
> poor girl? Especially if she lives in one of the states who have completely banned abortions.


She has several good options. Have the baby, love it and keep it.
have the baby and put it up for adoption.
Have the baby and let the gypsies steal it.
have the baby, drop it off at the nearest police station.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

KC Rock said:


> Me thinks you've pegged the wrong liar...Typical....
> 
> 
> An Ohio man was arrested on charges of raping a 10-year-old girl who later needed an abortion.
> ...


” needed an abortion.” Hmmmmm, needed or wanted? And according to whom? A doctor? Her parents?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Speaking of extremists....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A pregnancy carried to term does too much damage to a 10 year olds physical health.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> A pregnancy carried to term does too much damage to a 10 year olds physical health.


According to whom? How much damage does an abortion do to a baby? Just saying.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> According to whom? How much damage does an abortion do to a baby? Just saying.


No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy that imperils their health.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy that imperils their health.


No doubt about that. That being said I know of no state that bans abortion that endangers a woman’s health/life. Do you?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> No doubt about that. That being said I know of no state that bans abortion that endangers a woman’s health/life. Do you?


That child could not get an abortion in the state she lives in.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Speaking of extremists....


Yup, murder is rather extreme. I don’t reccomend it to anyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> That child could not get an abortion in the state she lives in.


Apparently her health/life was not in peril. Just her parents desires.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Apparently her health/life was not in peril. Just her parents desires.


Carry a pregnancy at that age is perilous but some states don't care about the health of the person who is pregnant.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

Evons hubby said:


> Apparently her health/life was not in peril. Just her parents desires.


Have you given any thought to the trauma the child has been through already? Any? Having to carry the fetus of her rapist only continues that trauma. 

If you were a woman you might understand that.

And no, it is not healthy for an immature body to carry a pregnancy to birth.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Carry a pregnancy at that age is perilous but some states don't care about the health of the person who is pregnant.


Ohio does make exceptions when dealing with endangering the mother’s health. “Are there any exceptions? Yes, but it depends on the state. The Ohio and Tennessee laws make exceptions for the life of the mother or for risk of “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” This could include preeclampsia, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, premature rupture of membranes or inevitable miscarriage.”


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

robin416 said:


> Have you given any thought to the trauma the child has been through already? Any? Having to carry the fetus of her rapist only continues that trauma.
> 
> If you were a woman you might understand that.
> 
> And no, it is not healthy for an immature body to carry a pregnancy to birth.


So you think killing her baby will not add to her trauma? That’s going to be a helluva thing to deal with the rest of her life! If you were a caring person you might understand that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Apparently her health/life was not in peril. Just her parents desires.


Not immediate peril, but almost inevitable peril if allowed to go to term. Ohio's law requires immediate peril for an exception to the abortion ban. So they would have made her wait until much later and then let her get the abortion.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

It should have been the 10 year old's choice, but only after she was informed of the possibility of injury to her body and the current state of fetal development. A child should not be forced to carry a pregnancy she did not want, a pregnancy that was forced on her. A pregnancy that her body is not mature enough to accomodate. There is a reason maternal death rates were so high back in the days when child brides were common.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Not immediate peril, but almost inevitable peril if allowed to go to term. Ohio's law requires immediate peril for an exception to the abortion ban. So they would have made her wait until much later and then let her get the abortion.


Maybe maybe not. Better to wait things out instead of killing an innocent human don’t you think? We even allow convicted criminals a chance to wait and see before automatically carrying out the death penalty.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> It should have been the 10 year old's choice, but only after she was informed of the possibility of injury to her body and the current state of fetal development. A child should not be forced to carry a pregnancy she did not want, a pregnancy that was forced on her. A pregnancy that her body is not mature enough to accomodate. There is a reason maternal death rates were so high back in the days when child brides were common.


I doubt her parents would have granted her any choice in the matter either way.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> I doubt her parents would have granted her any choice in the matter either way.


Unless Ohio law has a different statute, she is still under her parent's medical jurisdiction. I would hope they would have listened to her concerns and acted in her best emotional and medical interest.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Unless Ohio law has a different statute, she is still under her parent's medical jurisdiction. I would hope they would have listened to her concerns and acted in her best emotional and medical interest.


Right, daddies pocketbook would never have been a consideration.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> Right, daddies pocketbook would never have been a consideration.


Her daddy or baby daddy?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Her daddy or baby daddy?


Baby daddy went to prison…. Leaving the costs on daddy as I understand it.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> No doubt about that. That being said I know of no state that bans abortion that endangers a woman’s health/life. Do you?


Idaho says they will not allow ANY abortions for ANY reason. No exceptions. Haven't yet, but won't take long.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> Idaho says they will not allow ANY abortions for ANY reason. No exceptions. Haven't yet, but won't take long.


makes things simple.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> Baby daddy went to prison…. Leaving the costs on daddy as I understand it.


Either way, her parents are responsible for any and all of her medical expenses, and would have been for the baby (if she had gone through with birth) which they would have been legal guardians of.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Evons hubby said:


> makes things simple.


Women have died from ectopic pregnancies and deceased fetuses left in the womb. Cases where the fetus is dead or will have no chance of living should not result in the death of the woman carrying such cargo.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Either way, her parents are responsible for any and all of her medical expenses, and would have been for the baby (if she had gone through with birth) which they would have been legal guardians of.


Yup. Which I’m certain held no weight with their decision to kill the baby young and cheap.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> Maybe maybe not. Better to wait things out instead of killing an innocent human don’t you think? We even allow convicted criminals a chance to wait and see before automatically carrying out the death penalty.


So it's better to ruin an innocent humans life (the 13 year old) and make her carry a rapists baby to term? And then think she will love it and keep it. AT 13!? The risks to her mental health and physical health don't matter? Only the unborn rapists baby. Got it. That situation (and the 10 year old) have got to be considered under exceptions. I care and think there should be a term limit on if/when it is allowed, but apparently you who believe that ONLY the rights of the "innocent unborn baby" should be considered above all else . Seriously, what planet are you from?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Women have died from ectopic pregnancies and deceased fetuses left in the womb. Cases where the fetus is dead or will have no chance of living should not result in the death of the woman carrying such cargo.


I agree there. I was merely commenting about the simplicity.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> So it's better to ruin an innocent humans life (the 13 year old) and make her carry a rapists baby to term? And then think she will love it and keep it. AT 13!? The risks to her mental health and physical health don't matter? Only the unborn rapists baby. Got it. That situation (and the 10 year old) have got to be considered under exceptions. I care and think there should be a term limit on if/when it is allowed, but apparently you who believe that ONLY the rights of the "innocent unborn baby" should be considered above all else . Seriously, what planet are you from?


The innocent baby should have the right to live…. And yes that right should supersede the mother’s right to not be inconvenienced…. I’m from earth… more specifically the USA where we believe in life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…..how about yourself?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I don't hold with the belief that the product of a rape should be permitted to cause serious damage to the health, physical and mental, of a child. 

At least things aren't like they were in the 60's where an unwed mother was either shunned, considered to be a "bad girl" or "loose woman" or sent off to a home until after the birth.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

Evons hubby said:


> The innocent baby should have the right to live…. And yes that right should supersede the mother’s right to not be inconvenienced…. I’m from earth… more specifically the USA where we believe in life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…..how about yourself?


You keep saying innocent baby. It's not a baby, it's not even a fetus. It's a zygote. A parasite until it's far enough along not to need to feed off it's human host. 

There's some science for you.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

robin416 said:


> You keep saying innocent baby. It's not a baby, it's not even a fetus. It's a zygote. A parasite until it's far enough along not to need to feed off it's human host.
> 
> There's some science for you.


That’s not science, that’s semantics. Ie word games. Different labels for different stages of development of the same very much alive human being.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> The innocent baby should have the right to live…. And yes that right should supersede the mother’s right to not be inconvenienced…. I’m from earth… more specifically the USA where we believe in life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…..how about yourself?


You only believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for those you choose. What about the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the CHILD that is forced to carry that pregnancy to term. 
I hardly think being pregnant is an "inconvenience" as you put it for someone who is also a CHILD.
Your attitude is a perfect example of why this has become such a flashpoint. You refuse to even consider anything but your own belief. Sad.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Better to wait things out instead of killing an innocent human don’t you think?


Nope. Not for a 10-year-old. If you wait until it's an immediate danger, it can be too late to save her.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Nope. Not for a 10-year-old. If you wait until it's an immediate danger, it can be too late to save her.


That’s why there is prenatal care.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> What about the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the CHILD that is forced to carry that pregnancy to term.


that child’s life is not at stake. Therein lies the issue.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Evon's hubby - seriously, you are not being realistic about that little 10 year old girl. You need to get real. 

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Evon's hubby - seriously, you are not being realistic about that little 10 year old girl. You need to get real.
> 
> .


I’m being honest and realistic. A sad situation for the lil girl for sure, but even worse for her baby.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Evons hubby said:


> I’m being honest and realistic. A sad situation for the lil girl for sure, but even worse for her baby.


You are being honest and realistic for yourself alone because the sexual abuse and pregnancies of little under-age girls is an attitude that you grew up with and you think it's normal and acceptable. I have a very long memory and I remember what you posted many years ago about a little girl who was a close relative of yours that you had some influence over, who had to endure just such a thing plus a damned shot gun marriage to her abuser who got her pregnant. You know exactly who and what I mean if there was any truth to your story back then. You thought such a horror story for that little girl-child was all okay. Is that young relative of yours still alive after all these years? Did any of her consequent babies survive?

Get a grip man, come away from the dark ages of rapist men treating little girls like animals and get REAL with the 21st century . 

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> You are being honest and realistic for yourself alone because the sexual abuse and pregnancies of little under-age girls is an attitude that you grew up with and you think it's normal and acceptable. I have a very long memory and I remember what you posted many years ago about a little girl who was a close relative of yours that you had some influence over, who had to endure just such a thing plus a damned shot gun marriage to her abuser who got her pregnant. You know exactly who and what I mean if there was any truth to your story back then. You thought such a horror story for that little girl-child was all okay. Is that young relative of yours still alive after all these years? Did any of her consequent babies survive?
> 
> Get a grip man, come away from the dark ages of rapist men treating little girls like animals and get REAL with the 21st century .
> 
> .


I do not recall any such post made by me, nor any such incident in my family. Feel free to dig through the archives and bring it forward if you wish. I have zero sympathy for rapists, (or murderers for that matter) never have. I do not however think we should punish the children for the sins of their father. That’s a bit too dark ages for me.


----------



## VBF (Apr 15, 2017)

Maybe this will bring about harsher punishments for child rapists.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

VBF said:


> Maybe this will bring about harsher punishments for child rapists.


I’ll be 100% behind the death penalty for those monsters!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Evons hubby said:


> I do not recall any such post made by me, nor any such incident in my family. Feel free to dig through the archives and bring it forward if you wish. I have zero sympathy for rapists, (or murderers for that matter) never have. *I do not however think we should punish the children for the sins of their father.* That’s a bit too dark ages for me.


Making a little girl endure a consequent pregnancy due to rape IS punishing that little girl for the sins of the fathers who would prefer to see the little living girl to die rather than to expunge the non-living thing attached to the inside of her womb.

The fathers care nothing about the lives and fates of their little daughters as long as a fertilized egg inside her is allowed to grow and continue the line of the fathers through the daughters.

Bah!! Extremely disturbing hypocrisy!

.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Making a little girl endure a consequent pregnancy due to rape IS punishing that little girl for the sins of the fathers who would prefer to see the little living girl to die rather than to expunge the non-living thing attached to the inside of her womb.
> 
> The fathers care nothing about the lives and fates of their little daughters as long as a fertilized egg inside her is allowed to grow and continue the line of the fathers through the daughters.
> 
> ...


Which ”nonliving” thing are you referring to?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Evons hubby said:


> Which ”nonliving” thing are you referring to?


Which is more important? The living, breathing, walking, thinking girl child or her eggs?

I think too many people are too concerned about the fate of the sperm that fertilizes the egg. That's what it's really all about, isn't it?

.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> That’s why there is prenatal care.


Prenatal care does not make a 10-year-old's body suited to carrying a baby.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Which is more important? The living, breathing, walking, thinking girl child or her eggs?
> 
> I think too many people are too concerned about the fate of the sperm that fertilizes the egg. That's what it's really all about, isn't it?
> 
> .


The living breathing girls life is very precious important and valuable. Her one egg not so much since it’s not been fertilized. However once conception has occurred we are dealing with two very much alive human beings. One slightly more developed than the other but of equal value. The source of the sperm is irrelative. In my mind it’s about giving every life the chance to grow, develop, and eventually carry on the life that began thousands if not millions of years ago.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Prenatal care does not make a 10-year-old's body suited to carrying a baby.


Perhaps not, but it’s great to detect potential problems and can save both baby and moms life many many times.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Perhaps not, but it’s great to detect potential problems and can save both baby and moms life many many times.


But not every time. You're just willing to risk the 10-year-old's life to save the baby, so obviously they're not equally valuable to you, the baby is more valuable.

I'm glad she got that scumbag's demon progeny shop-vac'ed out of her before she was harmed any more.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> But not every time. You're just willing to risk the 10-year-old's life to save the baby, so obviously they're not equally valuable to you, the baby is more valuable.
> 
> I'm glad she got that scumbag's demon progeny shop-vac'ed out of her before she was harmed any more.


I think you misread my post. Or I wasn’t clear enough. The idea behind proper prenatal care is to spot potential problems before they do real damage. Many lives are saved but not all. If a problem develops that threatens the mother then of course we opt to save the mother instead of losing her or most likely both. I’m glad your happy, Tis a very sad thing to me.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Paumon said:


> You are being honest and realistic for yourself alone because the sexual abuse and pregnancies of little under-age girls is an attitude that you grew up with and you think it's normal and acceptable. I have a very long memory and I remember what you posted many years ago about a little girl who was a close relative of yours that you had some influence over, who had to endure just such a thing plus a damned shot gun marriage to her abuser who got her pregnant. You know exactly who and what I mean if there was any truth to your story back then. You thought such a horror story for that little girl-child was all okay. Is that young relative of yours still alive after all these years? Did any of her consequent babies survive?
> 
> Get a grip man, come away from the dark ages of rapist men treating little girls like animals and get REAL with the 21st century .
> 
> .


I am probably wrong, but it might have been Big Rockpile that posted about something along that line.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

mreynolds said:


> If she is pregnant, she is emancipated by law. She can make her own decision. Of course, someone will have to drive her.


Different states have different laws regarding emancipation and abortion. If pregnant minors are considered emancipated in Ohio, and the abortion clinic she goes to does not require parental consent for minors to get abortions, then yes, she would be emancipated, and whether or not she gets an abortion would be her choice. As it is, she was already taken from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> A pregnancy carried to term does too much damage to a 10 year olds physical health.


I think you may for once, actually be right about this ... but I am not an OBGYN, so I can't say for sure. Abortion may not be necessary for a 10 year old girl, but I think going through with the pregnancy could cause permanent physical damage or even death ... and rape, pregnancy, birth, or abortion, could all cause psychological damage. It's not the unborn child's fault, but this is a conveniently well timed rare example of why an abortion could actually not only kill an unborn child, but maybe also save the life of a born child.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> That child could not get an abortion in the state she lives in.


In Ohio (where the girl lives), if her doctor had reason to believe that completing the pregnancy or giving birth could endanger the life of the pregnant girl, abortion (or cesarian, depending on how far along the girl was at that point) would be allowed, even if after the 6 week limit.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> I think you misread my post. Or I wasn’t clear enough. The idea behind proper prenatal care is to spot potential problems before they do real damage. Many lives are saved but not all. If a problem develops that threatens the mother then of course we opt to save the mother instead of losing her or most likely both. I’m glad your happy, Tis a very sad thing to me.


Nope, you just said the same thing again. You're willing to risk the little girl's life on the chance that the baby can be saved. The longer you wait to terminate the pregnancy, the more risk there is to the little girl. If you wait until it's immediately life threatening, you can terminate the pregnancy to _try_ to save her, but she may be permanently injured or killed anyway because you waited too long. You're apparently OK with that risk, but you're not the little girl. Most of us are more humane.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

robin416 said:


> You keep saying innocent baby. It's not a baby, it's not even a fetus. It's a zygote. A parasite until it's far enough along not to need to feed off it's human host.
> 
> There's some science for you.


Different stages of growth does not change the species of what grows. A human zygote grows into a human fetus, which grows into a human baby, which grows into a human child, which grows into a human adult. At all stages of growth, a human is a human, so long as the human lives in a human body, at any stage. There's some _real_ science for you.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> In Ohio (where the girl lives), if her doctor had reason to believe that completing the pregnancy or giving birth could endanger the life of the pregnant girl, abortion (or cesarian, depending on how far along the girl was at that point) would be allowed, even if after the 6 week limit.


Here's what the law says about the exception for medical emergencies:


> (F) "Medical emergency" means a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.


The way I read it, it does not allow for abortion simply because the pregnancy _could_ endanger the girl's life. It must be an immediate danger. If you can delay the abortion, then she doesn't qualify for the exception.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Different stages of growth does not change the species of what grows. A human zygote grows into a human fetus, which grows into a human baby, which grows into a human child, which grows into a human adult. At all stages of growth, a human is a human, so long as the human lives in a human body, at any stage. There's some _real_ science for you.


You can grow an ear in an petri dish and it is human but it is not a person. That is science. Confusing early fetal development with what it may become is not science.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Paumon said:


> Making a little girl endure a consequent pregnancy due to rape IS punishing that little girl for the sins of the fathers who would prefer to see the little living girl to die rather than to expunge the non-living thing attached to the inside of her womb.
> 
> The fathers care nothing about the lives and fates of their little daughters as long as a fertilized egg inside her is allowed to grow and continue the line of the fathers through the daughters.
> 
> ...


If the girl was pregnant, then she had another living person (not a non-living thing that doesn't grow) growing inside of her body. Dehumanizing a human at any stage of growth doesn't justify anything, but in rare cases (such as a child being raped or a tubal pregnancy), abortion (for a legit medical reason) kills an unborn child but may also save the life of a pregnant girl or woman.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You can grow an ear in an petri dish and it is human but it is not a person. That is science. Confusing early fetal development with what it may become is not science.


A human ear is part of a human person. A human zygote, fetus, child, or adult, is a whole human person ... unless the human person is deformed. What is so confusing about the fact that if allowed to grow and not killed first, a human zygote will (not may) become a human fetus, which will (not may) become a human baby, which will (not may) become a human child, which will (not may) become a human adult? There is no such thing as fluid genders, or fluid species. A human is a human at any stage of growth, period. Pretending otherwise is fantasy, not science.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> A human ear is part of a human person. A human zygote, fetus, child, or adult, is a whole human ... unless the person is deformed. What is so confusing about the fact that if allowed to grow and not killed first, a human zygote will (not may) become a human fetus, which will (not may) become a human baby, which will (not may) become a human child, which will (not may) become a human adult? There is no such thing as fluid genders, or fluid species. A human is a human at any stage of growth, period. Pretending otherwise is fantasy, not science.


Not a whole human. It might be but it is not. Still only human tissue with no brain and no higher brain activity until much later in the growth cycle. That is pure science.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Not a whole human. It might be but it is not. Still only human tissue with no brain and no higher brain activity until much later in the growth cycle. That is pure science.


True, a human ear is not a whole human ... a human zygote, fetus, baby, child, or adult, OTOH, is a whole human person, at different stages of growth. Pretending that fantasy is science, doesn't change the meaning of fantasy or science.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Science says a zygote is NOT a human. It IS human tissue, that is it. The definition of zygote is two cells, not a "small human being". Until it has a brain (for functioning) and a heartbeat, it is not a baby. 

The pregnant child (and someone 10 or 12 or 14 IS a child) is already a human. I don't understand how one can condone forcing someone who is a baby themselves to continue a pregnancy. And to say it is just an "inconvenience" for her just leaves me speechless. (Actually, I'm not, but can't post what I really think)


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> True, a human ear is not a whole human ... a human zygote, fetus, baby, child, or adult, OTOH, is a whole human person, at different stages of growth. Pretending that fantasy is science, doesn't change the meaning of fantasy or science.


Not a person because there is no higher brain activity. That is why we allow those diagnosed brain dead to be pulled off of life support. Science pure, science.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I've watched YH argue both sides of this issue for years. He is enjoying getting a rise out of folks. 

I prefer for people to discuss their actual beliefs instead of flip flopping depending on the discussion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

A human zygote IS a fertilized human egg, which IS a human person, at the beginning of his or her human life. No need to make up new definitions to justify abortion. A human zygote grows into a human fetus, which IS a human person, before birth. Once born, the fetus IS a human baby, which IS a human person. A pregnant child is also a human person. If going through with the pregnancy or giving birth causes permanent physical damage to the body of a pregnant child (which I would think it would), then that alone may be used in most states as justification for abortion, for the pregnant child.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> A human zygote IS a fertilized human egg, which IS a human person, at the beginning of his or her human life. No need to make up new definitions to justify abortion. A human zygote grows into a human fetus, which IS a human person, before birth. Once born, the fetus IS a human baby, which IS a human person. A pregnant child is also a human person. If going through with the pregnancy or giving birth causes permanent physical damage to the body of a pregnant child (which I would think it would), then that alone may be used in most states as justification for abortion, for the pregnant child.


Not a person for a large part of the pregnancy. You wishing it, to be, does not make it so. Science proves you wrong.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Not a person because there is no higher brain activity. That is why we allow those diagnosed brain dead to be pulled off of life support. Science pure, science.


I think you need to learn a lot more about science, before claiming that your fantasies are science. Brain activity does not determine whether or not an individual is a human person. If an adult human person gets shot in the head, which destroys most of his or her brain, causing him or her to have little to no brain activity, but the individual is still alive, whether or not that individual is on life support, do you think that means what was a human person is no longer a human person? What about women who have a mastectomy due to breast cancer? Does the loss of breasts make a woman no longer a woman? The reason why people who are on life support may be taken off life support and allowed to die has nothing to do with whether or not they are human people ... being put on life support does not mean losing one's humanity, and a woman without breasts or ovaries is still a woman.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I think you need to learn a lot more about science, before claiming that your fantasies are science.* Brain activity does not determine whether or not an individual is a human person*. If an adult human person gets shot in the head, which destroys most of his or her brain, causing him or her to have little to no brain activity, but the individual is still alive, whether or not that individual is on life support, do you think that means what was a human person is no longer a human person? What about women who have a mastectomy due to breast cancer? Does the loss of breasts make a woman no longer a woman? The reason why people who are on life support may be taken off life support and allowed to die has nothing to do with whether or not they are human people ... being put on life support does not mean losing one's humanity.


Actually, it does. Brain activity is what makes you a person. No brain activity and is is just a body, dead or alive.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Actually, it does. Brain activity is what makes you a person. No brain activity and is is just a body, dead or alive.


Opps... you forgot... 



painterswife said:


> Science pure, science


Whew... now I can relax... you need that to make it official.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Actually, it does. Brain activity is what makes you a person. No brain activity and is is just a body, dead or alive.


Actually, a human person is a human person, regardless of the stage of growth he or she is in, regardless of his or her brain activity, and regardless of what parts still work. If the body of a human person is alive, then the human person is still alive, and is still a human person. If one of your loved ones had an accident that caused his or her brain to no longer function well enough to live without life support, but there was a chance that the individual could regain their ability to live without life support, would you consider that individual to be a living human person? Would you give that person the chance to live or not? I think that dehumanizing a human person for any reason is just an easy way to justify murder. I understand that if there is no chance of living without life support, many people (including myself) would choose not to live the rest of their lives on life support ... but that doesn't make a human person on life support no longer a human person.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Actually, a human person is a human person, regardless of the stage of growth he or she is in, regardless of his or her brain activity, and regardless of what parts still work. If the body of a human person is alive, then the human person is still alive, and is still a human person. If one of your loved ones had an accident that caused his or her brain to no longer function well enough to live without life support, but there was a chance that the individual could regain their ability to live without life support, would you consider that individual to be a living human person? Would you give that person the chance to live or not? I think that dehumanizing a human person for any reason is just an easy way to justify murder. I understand that if there is no chance of living without life support, many people (including myself) would choose not to live the rest of their lives on life support ... but that doesn't make a human person on life support no longer a human person.


No dehumanizing. Still human tissue or a human body, just not a person. I don't love someone for their human leg, I love someone for their mind. Being alive is not the same as being a person. We can keep a body alive but it may never be a person.

A living human body with no brain activity is not a person. It might become a person but it is not a person.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You can grow an ear in an petri dish and it is human but it is not a person. That is science. Confusing early fetal development with what it may become is not science.


Not what it may become but what it is! An innocent human life!


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> No dehumanizing. Still human tissue or a human body, just not a person. I don't love someone for their human leg, I love someone for their mind. Being alive is not the same as being a person. We can keep a body alive but it may never be a person.
> 
> A living human body with no brain activity is not a person. It might become a person but it is not a person.





painterswife said:


> Science pure, science.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No dehumanizing. Still human tissue or a human body, just not a person. I don't love someone for their human leg, I love someone for their mind. Being alive is not the same as being a person. We can keep a body alive but it may never be a person.
> 
> A living human body with no brain activity is not a person. It might become a person but it is not a person.


Saying that a human person is not a human person is absolutely dehumanizing, regardless of how well or not well their human body parts function. A human person who loses part of their body (such as their leg, a finger, breasts, ovaries, toes, or even part of their brain) or the ability to use part of their body, is still a human person, as long as that human person still lives in a human body.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I've watched YH argue both sides of this issue for years. He is enjoying getting a rise out of folks.
> 
> I prefer for people to discuss their actual beliefs instead of flip flopping depending on the discussion.


I’ll admit to having argued the other side of this issue years ago but that was befor I thought things through on a much deeper level.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> *Saying that a human person is not a human person is absolutely dehumanizing,* regardless of how well or not well their human body parts function. A human person who loses part of their body (such as their leg, a finger, breasts, ovaries, toes, or even part of their brain) or the ability to use part of their body, is still a human person, as long as that human person still lives in a human body.


Nah. Can't have a person without a brain. Just a body no person. Still human just not a person.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Nah. Can't have a person without a brain. Just a body no person. Still human just not a person.


Are you saying our president is not a person?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Nah. Can't have a person without a brain. Just a body no person. Still human just not a person.





painterswife said:


> Science pure, science.


I can't keep helping you out all day @painterswife.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I've watched YH argue both sides of this issue for years. He is enjoying getting a rise out of folks.
> 
> I prefer for people to discuss their actual beliefs instead of flip flopping depending on the discussion.


Yeah, I figured he was trolling. Not getting a rise out me, though. It's kind of refreshing to see the extreme view argued. Whether he truly believes it or not, there are probably some who do but won't admit it.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Nah. Can't have a person without a brain. Just a body no person. Still human just not a person.


Some people believe that brain activity produces consciousness, and that there is no life before birth or after death. I assume you would be one of these people? I very much disagree with such beliefs. Other people (including myself) believe that consciousness produces brain activity, and that there is life before birth and after death. Have you never experienced an OBE, NDE, astral projection, ghosts, divine intervention, anything like that at all, ever? I get the impression that you, and many other pro-abortionists, are not religious or spiritual people, and do not believe in divinity, the human spirit, life before birth, or life after death.

A human person is a human person, no matter what the stage of growth, no matter what state any of the human person's body parts are in, as long as the human person lives in a human body, no matter how many times you attempt to dehumanize the human person, period.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

I don't care if the baby from this story was a person or not. It was trespassing. Good on that little girl for standing her ground and killing it in self defense!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Some people believe that brain activity produces consciousness, and that there is no life before birth or after death. I assume you would be one of these people? I very much disagree with such beliefs. Other people (including myself) believe that consciousness produces brain activity, and that there is life before birth and after death. Have you never experienced an OBE, astral projection, ghosts, divine intervention, anything like that at all, ever? I get the impression that you, and many other pro-abortionists, are not religious or spiritual people, and do not believe in divinity, the human spirit, life before birth, or life after death.
> 
> A human person is a human person, no matter what the stage of growth, no matter what state any of the human person's body parts are in, as long as the human person lives in a human body, no matter how many times you attempt to dehumanize the human person, period.


So now we get to the crux of the matter. Your beliefs. Guess what they don't matter. If you believe a piglet is a person is still does not matter. It is only a human body or tissue. It is not a person. No brain activity means no person.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> I don't care if the baby from this story was a person or not. It was trespassing. Good on that little girl for standing her ground and killing it in self defense!


Tsk tsk


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> So now we get to the crux of the matter. Your beliefs. Guess what they don't matter. If you believe a piglet is a person is still does not matter. It is only a human body or tissue. It is not a person. No brain activity means no person.





painterswife said:


> Science pure, science.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So now we get to the crux of the matter. Your beliefs. Guess what they don't matter. If you believe a piglet is a person is still does not matter. It is only a human body or tissue. It is not a person. No brain activity means no person.


I think that such matters as abortion could be simplified if people would agree on what qualifies as a human person, so that people could determine when the right to life begins. Determining such things may require people to address other related issues, such as religion, science, and personal beliefs. Guess what, such things do matter, just as all lives matter, not just the adult woman ones.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I'm so glad my loved ones understand that a human person is a human person, no matter what stage of growth one is in, no matter what state their body is in, or I wouldn't be still living in a human body right now. I have died multiple times, and was thankfully brought back, because people involved knew I was still a human person. On a separate occasion, I was in a coma for ten days, and I am so thankful that people around me knew that I was still a human person, with the same right to live as all other human people.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I think that such matters as abortion could be simplified if people would agree on what qualifies as a human person, so that people could determine when the right to life begins. Determining such things may require people to step into other related issues, such as religion, science, and personal beliefs. Guess what, such things do matter, just as all lives matter, not just the adult woman ones.


Legally we have already decided that a brain dead body does not have the right to life. Take your cues from that. You religious beliefs may have a bearing on what you due personally but they don't have a bearing on what another person does. We have legal rights that no person has a right to take parts of another person's body parts to support their right to life. Take that into account.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I'm so glad my loved ones understand that a human person is a human person, no matter what stage of growth one is in, no matter what state their body is in, or I wouldn't be still living in a human body right now. I have died multiple times, and was thankfully brought back, because people involved knew I was still a human person. I was in a coma for ten days, and I am so thankful that people around me knew that I was still a human person, with the same right to live as all other human people.


My loved ones love me as a person and understand the difference between tissue and a person. Being in a coma is not the same as being brain dead and your emotional rhetoric is missing the mark.
My family has dealt with the situation of it being a body and not a person and has felt no guilt what so ever in making a final decision.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> My loved ones love me as a person and understand the difference between tissue and a person. Being in a coma is not the same as being brain dead and your emotional rhetoric is missing the mark.
> My family has dealt with the situation of it being a body and not a person and has felt no guilt what so ever in making a final decision.


Many people feel no guilt for doing the most heinous things. The shrinks have a name for them.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> I think that such matters as abortion could be simplified if people would agree on what qualifies as a human person, so that people could determine when the right to life begins. Determining such things may require people to address other related issues, such as religion, science, and personal beliefs. Guess what, such things do matter, just as all lives matter, not just the adult woman ones.


I wouldn't disagree but I've noticed during conversation with you, you seem to believe that your opinion is the only correct opinion and the rest of us have to follow what you dictate. 

Are you prepared to step outside your personal and religous stance and consider science? To date, you've shown little interest.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Legally we have already decided that a brain dead body does not have the right to life. Take your cues from that. You religious beliefs may have a bearing on what you due personally but they don't have a bearing on what another person does. We have legal rights that no person has a right to take parts of another person's body parts to support their right to life. Take that into account.


Actually, there is no law that states that a human person is no longer a human person if they require life support to live, but there is a law about every human person having the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. All human people have the right to life, and need no one to give them that right. Hospitals are not required to provide any product or service for free, so someone can only live on life support for as long as someone (family, friends, insurance, NPOs, etc.) pays for the hospital products and services (such as life support), if there is nothing in the medical records (of the human person on life support) that prevents it. Take your cues from that.

All human people, at all stages of growth (zygote, fetus, baby, child, adult) during their entire lifetime, regardless of the condition of their human body, have the right to life.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Really, the crux of the matter is one's definition of "life". I always believed there had to be awareness/consciousness before one was considered "alive". If there is a human body devoid of brain activity and on life support it does not make one "alive". Which technically is what a zygote is until it has brain activity. It is on life support and therefore is not "living".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Actually, there is no law that states that a human person is no longer a human person if they require life support to live, but there is a law about every human person having the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. All human people have the right to life, and need no one to give them that right. Hospitals are not required to provide any product or service for free, so someone can only live on life support for as long as someone (family, friends, insurance, NPOs, etc.) pays for the hospital products and services (such as life support), if there is nothing in the medical records (of the human person on life support) that prevents it. Take your cues from that.
> 
> All human people, at all stages of growth (zygote, fetus, baby, child, adult) during their entire lifetime, regardless of the condition of their human body, have the right to life.


Are you aware that there have been many legal court cases on taking away life support from the brain dead?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> I wouldn't disagree but I've noticed during conversation with you, you seem to believe that your opinion is the only correct opinion and the rest of us have to follow what you dictate.
> 
> Are you prepared to step outside your personal and religous stance and consider science? To date, you've shown little interest.


I am absolutely willing to change any opinion or belief that is proven to be untrue. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. As to the science ... what specifically have I not shown interest in considering? My conclusions are based on both science and religion, but even if I completely removed religion from the scene, I think my conclusions regarding abortion would be the same.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> Really, the crux of the matter is one's definition of "life". I always believed there had to be awareness/consciousness before one was considered "alive". If there is a human body devoid of brain activity and on life support it does not make one "alive". Which technically is what a zygote is until it has brain activity. It is on life support and therefore is not "living".


Any zygote, fetus, baby, or child, who can grow into adulthood, is alive, regardless of the stage of growth during their life, the condition of their body, the state ofconsciousness, and whether or not the individual is aware of it. When I was in a coma, I was unconscious and unaware of anything, but I was still a living human person. The same could be said for a human person devoid of brain activity and on life support.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> Really, the crux of the matter is one's definition of "life". I always believed there had to be awareness/consciousness before one was considered "alive". If there is a human body devoid of brain activity and on life support it does not make one "alive". Which technically is what a zygote is until it has brain activity. It is on life support and therefore is not "living".


If it’s not living why get rid of it?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Are you aware that there have been many legal court cases on taking away life support from the brain dead?


That wouldn't surprise me at all. There are many court cases about many things. Some court cases actually matter, while others are just frivolous and irrelevant. In the case of life support though (which I do not believe would be frivolous or irrelevant), it is very likely that all cases are either about payment (to the hospital for life support services) or the patient's wishes (if indicated in their medical records).


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I agree with the SCOTUS decision to uphold the US Constitution by overturning Roe vs Wade, to allow each state to make its own laws regarding abortion (as it was supposed to be all along anyway). It seems that about half of the states will limit abortion to legit medical reasons, and the rest will not. I think that is fair for everyone. I think the case of the 10 year old girl being raped is very sad, and must be very difficult for the child and her parents.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> I am absolutely willing to change any opinion or belief that is proven to be untrue. Everyone is free to believe whatever they want. As to the science ... what specifically have I not shown interest in considering? My conclusions are based on both science and religion, but even if I completely removed religion from the scene, I think my conclusions regarding abortion would be the same.


That's my point. You indicated that everybody needed to look at both science and your religion but your opinions are fimly faith based. If you're not prepared to consider another opinion, why would you expect someone to consider yours? 

My other question relates to what religion rules these discussions? My faith is very different from yours but perhaps we could surmise that since my people were here first, ours should be the faith that governs these discussions.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> I agree with the SCOTUS decision to uphold the US Constitution by overturning Roe vs Wade, to allow each state to make its own laws regarding abortion (as it was supposed to be all along anyway).


If the republicans control the federal gov in a few years, would you not support a federal law limiting abortion?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So now we get to the crux of the matter. Your beliefs. Guess what they don't matter. If you believe a piglet is a person is still does not matter. It is only a human body or tissue. It is not a person. No brain activity means no person.


Guess what, your beliefs don't matter either. I think that a family member of someone who was in an accident and is alive, would have a different opinion from yours. If there is NO brain function...that person is dead. If the body is still alive, there is brain function. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> If the republicans control the federal gov in a few years, would you not support a federal law limiting abortion?


I certainly would not! It’s never been a federal matter. I might be in favor of regulations regarding the crossing of state lines.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> My loved ones love me as a person and understand the difference between tissue and a person. Being in a coma is not the same as being brain dead and your emotional rhetoric is missing the mark.
> My family has dealt with the situation of it being a body and not a person and has felt no guilt what so ever in making a final decision.


That's horrible!! No feelings of someone passing.
That, says a lot about you.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> I certainly would not! It’s never been a federal matter.


But you believe it should be a state matter? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? You believe murder should be up to the states to allow or not allow?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> That's horrible!! No feelings of someone passing.
> That, says a lot about you.


That's not what she said. She said no guilt. Your characterization is horribly unkind to someone who lost a loved one.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

wr said:


> That's my point. You indicated that everybody needed to look at both science and your religion but your opinions are fimly faith based. If you're not prepared to consider another opinion, why would you expect someone to consider yours?
> 
> My other question relates to what religion rules these discussions? My faith is very different from yours but perhaps we could surmise that since my people were here first, ours should be the faith that governs these discussions.


Who was there before your people?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> That's my point. You indicated that everybody needed to look at both science and your religion but your opinions are fimly faith based. If you're not prepared to consider another opinion, why would you expect someone to consider yours?
> 
> My other question relates to what religion rules these discussions? My faith is very different from yours but perhaps we could surmise that since my people were here first, ours should be the faith that governs these discussions.


I did not indicate that anyone else do anything. I said 'my conclusions are based on both science and religion' (not just religion, or just my own religion). I also said that 'I am absolutely willing to change any opinion or belief that is proven untrue', which would require me to consider the beliefs and opinions of others.

I never said that any particular religion or no religion is right or wrong, and certainly not that any particular religion should rule any discussion. Who is your people? Where were they first (here on this forum, in America, or on Earth)? I don't think any religion should govern or rule over anything, but I do believe in religious freedom. If your religion plays a part in your beliefs and opinions, that's totally okay. If not, that's okay too. If my religion plays a part in my beliefs and opinions, that too, is totally okay. If not, that's okay too.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> But you believe it should be a state matter? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? You believe murder should be up to the states to allow or not allow?


Yup, each state deals with murder in their own way. As it should be.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

ryanthomas said:


> That's not what she said. She said no guilt. Your characterization is horribly unkind to someone who lost a loved one.


No, it's not. It's horribly unkind. She said they had....
NO guilt in terminating a human life.
That, is horribly unkind.
You seem to think your opinion matters, it doesn't. Not one bit.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> That's not what she said. She said no guilt. Your characterization is horribly unkind to someone who lost a loved one.


I think it was no guilt about killing them.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> If the republicans control the federal gov in a few years, would you not support a federal law limiting abortion?


I don't think this is a federal issue. I also think it would be unfair to allow or disallow abortion in every state, because no matter which way it went (allowed or disallowed), about half of the people in the US would not get what they want, and would not have the choice to go to another state, or to participate in changing laws in their own state, to get what they want. It is up to the people of each state to decide for themselves what laws they will make regarding abortion.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Yup, each state deals with murder in their own way. As it should be.


If California adopts a law allowing murder of babies up to a year after birth, would you shrug and say, "That's their right"?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> If California adopts a law allowing murder of babies up to a year after birth, would you shrug and say, "That's their right"?


Yup, it’s their right. Cept for that thing about life Liberty and pursuit of happiness.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Yup


How about if CA allows murdering of other people's children? Still their right?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> I don't think this is a federal issue. I also think it would be unfair to allow or disallow abortion in every state, because no matter which way it went (allowed or disallowed), about half of the people in the US would not get what they want, and would not have the choice to go to another state, or to participate in changing laws in their own state, to get what they want. It is up to the people of each state to decide for themselves what laws they will make regarding abortion.


I don't think it's a federal issue either, but your arguments are incoherent. If it's murder, what does fairness have to do with it? What is it about a state that is so meaningful? Why not each county?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> How about if CA allows murdering of other people's children? Still their right?


See above


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> See above


Glad to get you on the record as supporting the murder of children, since it's none of your business if it's not in your state.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> If the republicans control the federal gov in a few years, would you not support a federal law limiting abortion?


I wouldn't. That would be as unconstitutional as Roe was.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Glad to get you on the record as supporting the murder of children, since it's none of your business if it's not in your state.


Close…. But no cigar…. There is that life Liberty and pursuit of happiness thing.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> I don't think it's a federal issue either, but your arguments are incoherent. If it's murder, what does fairness have to do with it? What is it about a state that is so meaningful? Why not each county?


I may not agree with everything others do, but I do believe in individual freedom. Different people have different beliefs and opinions, so each country, state, county, and city, has its own laws for the people that live there. It seems that Americans are about equally divided regarding the topic of abortion. Each side believes they are correct, and the other side is incorrect. In order for everyone to be as equally free as possible, everyone needs to have a choice. 2-50 choices is way better than only 1 choice, especially if individual freedom matters.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> But you believe it should be a state matter? Isn't that kind of arbitrary?


Nothing arbitrary about it... it's following the Constitution of the United States. I'm truly not being a smart a$$ here but I don't understand why so many can't grasp that fact.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> If California adopts a law allowing murder of babies up to a year after birth, would you shrug and say, "That's their right"?


That's a farcical argument. No state anywhere at any time has determined that murder after birth is legal... nor will they. Come on... you're usually better than that.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Evons hubby said:


> I’ll admit to having argued the other side of this issue years ago but that was befor I thought things through on a much deeper level.


So let me get this straight. 

It was alright when you were a younger person still out sowing your wild oats but it isn't now that you aren't able to sow any oats.

You are taking the Neveda approach, I got mine...........

That is sad.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> How about if CA allows murdering of other people's children? Still their right?


You're getting almost to the bottom of the rabbit hole now.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

nchobbyfarm said:


> So let me get this straight.
> 
> It was alright when you were a younger person still out sowing your wild oats but it isn't now that you aren't able to sow any oats.
> 
> ...


Nope, it’s about having had time to think.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Glad to get you on the record as supporting the murder of children, since it's none of your business if it's not in your state.


O.K. You landed at the bottom of the rabbit hole... and started digging it deeper.


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

You all are finally getting to the meat of the abortion debate. The supreme court could have helped by legally defining when an unborn child has rights under the law. Sorry, but it isn't science that matters, it's the law.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NEPA said:


> You all are finally getting to the meat of the abortion debate. The supreme court could have helped by legally defining when an unborn child has rights under the law. Sorry, but it isn't science that matters, it's the law.


But the court isn’t suppose to make the law, just to ensure the law conforms to the constitution.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

nchobbyfarm said:


> So let me get this straight.
> 
> It was alright when you were a younger person still out sowing your wild oats but it isn't now that you aren't able to sow any oats.
> 
> ...


What's truly sad is that so many stop learning, growing and evolving when they get older... I guess the brain cells get to where they can't handle it anymore.


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> But the court isn’t suppose to make the law, just to ensure the law conforms to the constitution.


Then our esteemed elected officials need to define it. Then the supreme court will weigh in. In any case, I believe that's the question we must answer. I hope nobody believes murder is righteous. Abortion is a sad, sad thing that is sometimes medically necessary. The pro-choice people are correct IF the fetus has no rights. The pro-life people are correct if life begins at conception, AND that life has rights under the law.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

NEPA said:


> Then our esteemed elected officials need to define it...


It's not going to happen. The elected officials are in a no-win situation, and they need the political division. You only have to look at the hundreds (thousands?) of posts here on this forum to see that this will never be a settled issue... until we have a civil war... then the victors will decide.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> In order for everyone to be as equally free as possible, everyone needs to have a choice.


Hmmm....


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Close…. But no cigar…. There is that life Liberty and pursuit of happiness thing.


But the fed gov has no role in protecting life?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

NEPA said:


> Then our esteemed elected officials need to define it. Then the supreme court will weigh in. In any case, I believe that's the question we must answer. I hope nobody believes murder is righteous. Abortion is a sad, sad thing that is sometimes medically necessary. The pro-choice people are correct IF the fetus has no rights. The pro-life people are correct if life begins at conception, AND that life has rights under the law.


Actually life doesn’t begin at conception, it began many thousands of years ago. Conception is the point a new individual is created from the parent life and begins its journey to continue the life process.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Nothing arbitrary about it... it's following the Constitution of the United States. I'm truly not being a smart a$$ here but I don't understand why so many can't grasp that fact.


The constitution says nothing about abortion laws. Therefore, it leaves it up to the states. That doesn't mean the states are required to make laws about it for their whole state.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> That's a farcical argument. No state anywhere at any time has determined that murder after birth is legal... nor will they. Come on... you're usually better than that.


Of course it is. It's in response to another farcical argument. If you haven't been following, you might have missed that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> But the fed gov has no role in protecting life?


Read our constitution. It’s quite illuminating. You will soon learn that the federal government is there to govern and protect the states while the states are to govern the people.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Read our constitution. It’s quite illuminating.


You've reach the end of your illogical rope. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. According to you, CA can allow murder because it's not a fed issue.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> You've reach the end of your illogical rope. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. According to you, CA can allow murder because it's not a fed issue.


Nope, again I recommend you take a look at our constitution.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Hmmm....


Unborn children should have as much of a right to life as everyone else, but they are unable to protect themselves from being killed. If a pregnant woman is unwilling to protect the life of her unborn child, then I see nothing wrong with others (such as the man who impregnated her if not by rape, and even each state) making the choice to do it for her. I don't agree with abortion unless there is a legit medical reason for it, but I also believe in individual freedom. Maintaining as much freedom as possible for as many as possible is much easier to do when there are multiple choices (for each of the 50 states) vs only 1 choice (for all states).


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> The constitution says nothing about abortion laws. Therefore, it leaves it up to the states.


Exactly... any function not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government becomes a state issue by default.



> That doesn't mean the states are required to make laws about it for their whole state.


The states _may _make laws for their own governance... as long as said laws do not violate the Constitution. Man, I just did lessons on this with my 'tweener grandkids a couple of weeks ago... they got it pretty quickly.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I should be able to force someone to give me bone marrow or part of a kidney.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I should be able to force someone to give me bone marrow or part of a kidney.


Why?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I should be able to force someone to give me bone marrow or part of a kidney.


This is America, not China.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If you can force a woman to carry a fetus it is the same thing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> If you can force a woman to carry a fetus it is the same thing.


Not even close.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> You've reach the end of your illogical rope. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. According to you, CA can allow murder because it's not a fed issue.


Your attempted point is moot... Murder is codified illegal and defined in 18 U.S. Code Sec. 1111.

For further reading... and hopefully understanding, try these:

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 756; Pub. L. 98–473, title II, § 1004, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2138; Pub. L. 99–646, § 87(c)(4), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3623; Pub. L. 99–654, § 3(a)(4), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3663; Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, § 7025, Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4397; Pub. L. 103–322, title VI, § 60003(a)(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1969; Pub. L. 108–21, title I, § 102, Apr. 30, 2003, 117 Stat. 652.)


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> This is America, not China.


It seems to be a conflict of ethics to calmly sit by and let someone with a strong will to live, die while hollering about the rights of a fetus.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> It seems to be a conflict of ethics to calmly sit by and let someone with a strong will to live, die while hollering about the rights of a fetus.


And for whatever reason you think a fetus has no strong will to live?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> If you can force a woman to carry a fetus it is the same thing.


That song keeps popping into my mind:

Nowhere to run to baby... nowhere to hide

wonder why?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Unless rape is involved, conception is not forced, but naturally results in pregnancy, which is not forced, but naturally results in birth, which is not forced.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Unless rape is involved, conception is not forced, but naturally results in pregnancy, which is not forced, but naturally results in birth, which is not forced.


Pregnancy is forced. Taking away a woman choice. That is a kind of rape.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

CC Pereira said:


> Unborn children should have as much of a right to life as everyone else, but they are unable to protect themselves from being killed. If a pregnant woman is unwilling to protect the life of her unborn child, then I see nothing wrong with others (such as the man who impregnated her if not by rape, and even each state) making the choice to do it for her. I don't agree with abortion unless there is a legit medical reason for it, but I also believe in individual freedom. Maintaining as much freedom as possible for as many as possible is much easier to do when there are multiple choices (for each of the 50 states) vs only 1 choice (for all states).


So, believing in individual freedom would make you pro-choice. You can't have it both ways, no abortions but you can have one if your state says it is ok. Pro-choice is not anti baby or pro murder.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> It seems to be a conflict of ethics to calmly sit by and let someone with a strong will to live, die while hollering about the rights of a fetus.


All living creatures have a strong will to live (it's called instinct), regardless of anyone's ethics or place of residence.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Pregnancy is forced. Taking away a woman choice. That is a kind of rape.


What could you possibly be saying?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Pregnancy is forced. Taking away a woman choice. That is a kind of rape.


Rape is the act of one person forcing another person to have sex. Pregnancy is the natural result of conception, which is not forced, if not caused by rape.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Forcing someone to remain pregnant under your terms is raping someone of their choice.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> So, believing in individual freedom would make you pro-choice. You can't have it both ways, no abortions but you can have one if your state says it is ok. Pro-choice is not anti baby or pro murder.


My body my choice, if it is only my body that I am making a choice for. Once that choice involves another living individual, there is a choice to be made for two individuals with the right to live.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

BadOregon said:


> So, believing in individual freedom would make you pro-choice. You can't have it both ways, no abortions but you can have one if your state says it is ok. Pro-choice is not anti baby or pro murder.


Religious, moral and legal implication often diverge.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Forcing someone to remain pregnant under your terms is *raping someone of their choice*.


Guess one could say that... if it were an actual thing?????


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Maintaining as much freedom as possible for as many as possible is much easier to do when there are multiple choices (for each of the 50 states) vs only 1 choice (for all states).


Why not 350 million choices? More is better, right?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> The states _may _make laws for their own governance... as long as said laws do not violate the Constitution. Man, I just did lessons on this with my 'tweener grandkids a couple of weeks ago... they got it pretty quickly.


Yes, they may, but don't have to. That's my point. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to. Why can't the law vary within a state? The answer: it can, if the state chooses to allow it.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Your attempted point is moot... Murder is codified illegal and defined in 18 U.S. Code Sec. 1111.


So murder is a federal issue? Seems that WAS my point....


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Yes, they may, but don't have to. That's my point. Just because they can doesn't mean they have to. Why can't the law vary within a state? The answer: it can, if the state chooses to allow it.





ryanthomas said:


> So murder is a federal issue? Seems that WAS my point....


Sorry... all I can see is you talking in circles trying to justify something. What you are trying to justify is as yet unknown.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

The federal legal definition of murder is 'the unlawful killing of a human being with malice'. The state legal definition of murder is different in different states. There are also multiple degrees of murder, and each has different definitions.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Sorry... all I can see is you talking in circles trying to justify something. What you are trying to justify is as yet unknown.


You are seeing something that isn't there.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> You are seeing something that isn't there.


Wouldn't be the first time


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Nope, again I recommend you take a look at our constitution.


I've read it many times. Care to point me to the specific part that reconciles your irreconcilable views?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Start with the first ten amendments… the tenth in particular. Then go to article One section eight.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Start with the first ten amendments… the tenth in particular. Then go to article One section eight.


Those don't reconcile your previous statements, but I've gotten bored with your inconsistencies so I'll drop it and move on to another fun question: which is more important, adhering to the constitution or stopping the murder of babies?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

This discussion would not be needed in this case if the federal government (all parties) had done their Constitutional duty of enforcing the immigration laws of this country.

If you want different laws, pass them through congress. Until then, enforce the laws. 

PERIOD.

This predator should never have been in this country.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Those don't reconcile your previous statements, but I've gotten bored with your inconsistencies so I'll drop it and move on to another fun question: which is more important, adhering to the constitution or stopping the murder of babies?


No reason to not have both. I’d say they are both extremely important.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

CC Pereira said:


> Different states have different laws regarding emancipation and abortion. If pregnant minors are considered emancipated in Ohio, and the abortion clinic she goes to does not require parental consent for minors to get abortions, then yes, she would be emancipated, and whether or not she gets an abortion would be her choice. As it is, she was already taken from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion.


You bring up a great point. Since the SCOTUS ruling, things may have changed in that regard. Before the ruling, it was a national standard.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> You bring up a great point. Since the SCOTUS ruling, things may have changed in that regard. Before the ruling, it was a national standard.


The Constitution calls for very few national standards.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> And for whatever reason you think a fetus has no strong will to live?


Is that actually what I said? I believe I said that the two statements made by another member were ethically conflicting.

If the fetus also has a strong will to live, I find it even more shocking that some want them all born regardless of circumstances but don’t care if they could be saved from death later on.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Is that actually what I said? I believe I said that the two statements made by another member were ethically conflicting.
> 
> If the fetus also has a strong will to live, I find it even more shocking that some want them all born regardless of circumstances but don’t care if they could be saved from death later on.


I’m all for saving innocent lives regardless of their age. Those few that commit heinous crimes not so much.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

If someone feels the need to dismember someone after a rape, I would suggest the rapist.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> If someone feels the need to dismember someone after a rape, I would suggest the rapist.


Slowly.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> No reason to not have both. I’d say they are both extremely important.


But is one more important than the other? It's an opinion so there's no wrong answer. I'm just curious.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> If someone feels the need to dismember someone after a rape, I would suggest the rapist.


That's a good choice. Also a good choice to prevent the victim from being torn up from the inside out.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> That's a good choice. Also a good choice to prevent the victim from being torn up from the inside out.


Of which victim do you speak?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> But is one more important than the other? It's an opinion so there's no wrong answer. I'm just curious.


I think they are equally important, and by adhering to our constitution the slaughter can be stopped.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> Of which victim do you speak?


In this case, the 10-year-old girl who was incubating that illegal Guatemalan's demon baby.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> In this case, the 10-year-old girl who was incubating that illegal Guatemalan's demon baby.


Illegal guatemalan ill go along with, demon? Not so much, and Remember half of that baby was hers.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> In this case, the 10-year-old girl who was incubating that illegal Guatemalan's demon baby.


So, the baby is a demon because the father is evil?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> So, the baby is a demon because the father is evil?


So it seems to some.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> I think they are equally important, and by adhering to our constitution the slaughter can be stopped.


Sorry, I guess there is a wrong answer. J/k, I'm not saying you're wrong about that, but inconsistent with your previous position staked out yesterday:


ryanthomas said:


> But you believe it should be a state matter? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? You believe murder should be up to the states to allow or not allow?





Evons hubby said:


> Yup, each state deals with murder in their own way. As it should be.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I am on board with killing as punishment for rape, just not who is generally killed in the name of rape. Take the sicko rapist, strip him naked and let fire ants have their fill and then cut his extremities off one at a time over several days if you wish. Sell tickets, put it on TV. Leave any innocent children produced alone.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> So, the baby is a demon because the father is evil?


Nah, that's just my spin on it. The baby is a demon (figuratively speaking) because it would have likely killed or maimed her several months from now if not killed first.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> I am on board with killing as punishment for rape, just not who is generally killed in the name of rape. Take the sicko rapist, strip him naked and let fire ants have their fill and then cut his extremities off one at a time over several days if you wish. Sell tickets, put it on TV. Leave any innocent children produced alone.


So that's two of you who believe the 10-year-old should not have the option to terminate a pregnancy produced by rape? At least you're willing to admit it. I'm sure there are a few more.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> Nah, that's just my spin on it. The baby is a demon (figuratively speaking) because it would have likely killed or maimed her several months from now not killed first.


Not likely, but, it that is a real possibility, in this case, there are ways to prevent that without killing the baby.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> So that's two of you who believe the 10-year-old should not have the option to terminate a pregnancy produced by rape? At least you're willing to admit it. I'm sure there are a few more.


If her life is truly in danger and there is no way around it, yes, it is logical to end the pregnancy through abortion, but, to kill the baby simply for the sins of the father is cruel and uncivilized.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Farmerga said:


> Not likely, but, it that is a real possibility, in this case, there are ways to prevent that without killing the baby.


Extremely likely. A 10-year-old body is not suited to carrying a baby. Even if she is able to carry it anywhere close to term, she almost certainly cannot deliver it naturally, necessitating a C-section. That's not a minor risk for a child and will likely affect her body for the rest of her life.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

ryanthomas said:


> Extremely likely. A 10-year-old body is not suited to carrying a baby. Even if she is able to carry it anywhere close to term, she almost certainly cannot deliver it naturally, necessitating a C-section. That's not a minor risk for a child and will likely affect her body for the rest of her life.


It would largely depend on the 10yo.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Extremely likely. A 10-year-old body is not suited to carrying a baby. Even if she is able to carry it anywhere close to term, she almost certainly cannot deliver it naturally, necessitating a C-section. That's not a minor risk for a child and will likely affect her body for the rest of her life.


Apparently the doctors didn’t think so or she could have had the abortion in her home state.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Sorry, I guess there is a wrong answer. J/k, I'm not saying you're wrong about that, but inconsistent with your previous position staked out yesterday:


Which state allows murder of a born innocent person?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Apparently the doctors didn’t think so or she could have had the abortion in her home state.


False. The Ohio law requires IMMEDIATE danger for an exception to the abortion ban. She was not in immediate danger yet. According to the news today, they tried to get an exception due to the future danger, but the court said no because it wasn't immediate danger. So they went to Indiana.



Farmerga said:


> It would largely depend on the 10yo.


True, if the 10-year-old is built like a 20-year-old, she'd probably be OK. A child that is able to conceive is probably slightly more built for it than those who aren't, but almost zero 10-year-olds are built to carry a baby even among those who can conceive.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Which state allows murder of a born innocent person?


None do, but you said they should be allowed to.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> None do, but you said they should be allowed to.


They are.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> True, if the 10-year-old is built like a 20-year-old, she'd probably be OK. A child that is able to conceive is probably slightly more built for it than those who aren't, but almost zero 10-year-olds are built to carry a baby even among those who can conceive.


and we know this how?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> False. The Ohio law requires IMMEDIATE danger for an exception to the abortion ban. She was not in immediate danger yet. According to the news today, they tried to get an exception due to the future danger, but the court said no because it wasn't immediate danger. So they went to Indiana.


This is what I found…
“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." There are no exceptions for cases of rape and incest or fatal fetal anomalies.
What constitutes a medical emergency is not clear and left to "the physician's reasonable medical judgment."”

please note the risk of substantial and irreversible impairment part.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Which state allows murder of a born innocent person?





ryanthomas said:


> None do, but you said they should be allowed to.





Evons hubby said:


> They are.


As it should be, according to you.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> and we know this how?


Medical experience.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> This is what I found…
> “Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." There are no exceptions for cases of rape and incest or fatal fetal anomalies.
> What constitutes a medical emergency is not clear and left to "the physician's reasonable medical judgment."”
> 
> please note the risk of substantial and irreversible impairment part.





> (F) "Medical emergency" means a condition that in the physician's good faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so complicates the woman's pregnancy as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to avoid a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman that delay in the performance or inducement of the abortion would create.


Requires a need for immediate abortion. If delaying abortion is an option, no abortion is allowed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Requires a need for immediate abortion. If delaying abortion is an option, no abortion is allowed.


As it should be.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> As it should be.


That's a fine opinion to hold. I disagree. But I was only pointing out that the abortion could not have been done in Ohio due to a likely future danger from continuing the pregnancy, as you seemed to suggest earlier.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> That's a fine opinion to hold. I was just pointing out that the abortion could not have been done in Ohio due to a likely future danger from continuing the pregnancy, as you seemed to suggest earlier.


Apparently the doctors saw no Danger present. Problems can develop in any pregnancy but there’s no danger just because there’s a pregnancy. Had a threat been present she could have had the abortion in Ohio.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

i feel like all the arguing back and forth about this, has caused everyone to forget...THE GIRL WAS 10!!!! how could anyone expect a 10 year old girl to have a baby? i have 10 year old grandsons. They are not parental material! this just sickens me that anyone would think a 10 year old who was raped should be forced to carry a baby to term.


----------



## robin416 (Dec 29, 2019)

For those that truly want to be educated what happens when a child of ten is pregnant and carries a child to term, read this: https://www.livescience.com/19584-10-year-birth.html


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> Apparently the doctors saw no Danger present. Problems can develop in any pregnancy but there’s no danger just because there’s a pregnancy. Had a threat been present she could have had the abortion in Ohio.


Nope, there you go obfuscating again. They didn't see an immediate danger. They did see a 10-year-old girl who would be in danger if the pregnancy proceeded to term. A pregnancy in a 10-year-old is always risky later on.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

rbelfield said:


> i feel like all the arguing back and forth about this, has caused everyone to forget...THE GIRL WAS 10!!!! how could anyone expect a 10 year old girl to have a baby? i have 10 year old grandsons. They are not parental material! this just sickens me that anyone would think a 10 year old who was raped should be forced to carry a baby to term.


Not everyone...notice most of the normally loud pro-life crowd went silent after they learned the story was true. Only a couple are arguing the 10-year-old should have continued the pregnancy. One doesn't really believe the crazy things he says.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Nope, there you go obfuscating again. They didn't see an immediate danger. They did see a 10-year-old girl who would be in danger if the pregnancy proceeded to term. A pregnancy in a 10-year-old is always risky later on.


If they saw no immediate danger there most likely wasn’t one. If one presented itself later it would be safely dealt with then. (possibly without harm to mother or child) That’s the beauty of living in the twenty first century in a first world country. No need to kill an innocent child just because their may be problems later. According to your article a csection would solve the most common problems associated with giving birth at such a young age.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> If they saw no immediate danger there most likely wasn’t one. If one presented itself later it would be safely dealt with then. That’s the beauty of living in the twenty first century in a first world country. No need to kill an innocent child just because their may be problems later. According to your article a csection would solve the most common problems associated with giving birth at such a young age.


I'll say it once again, not that it'll get through your rose colored glasses: if they wait until there is an immediate danger, it can be too late to save her. Then both girl and baby can die. Fortunately, it's not your decision to make.

I posted no article, but C-sections aren't without risk. Women die from C-sections more than from natural birth. They can also cause complications that last the rest of the girl's life. Forcing her to carry the baby and have a C-section is not just a minor inconvenience.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Please stop calling people trolls. That gets threads shut down. I would appreciate 8f you would remove that from your posts.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Please stop calling people trolls. That gets threads shut down. I would appreciate 8f you would remove that from your posts.


Thanks for the heads up. Done. There's probably not much value in this thread at this point anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> if they wait until there is an immediate danger, it can be too late to save her. Then both girl and baby can die. Fortunately, it's not your decision to make.
> 
> I posted no article, but C-sections aren't without risk. Women die from C-sections more than from natural birth. They can also cause complications that last the rest of the girl's life. Forcing her to carry the baby and have a C-section is not just a minor inconvenience.


again with the “might maybe what if’s”. I notice you ignore “most likely the mother can be saved and often the baby too”.
I was one of those risky c sections…. So were my three brothers and one sister. My other sister died while being aborted.

sorry, it was robin that posted the article.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> again with the “might maybe what if’s”. I notice you ignore “most likely the mother can be saved and often the baby too”.


Yes, my preference goes to the child rape victim's life and well being. She shouldn't be required to face any additional risk. "Most likely she can be saved" ain't good enough.

No offense, but I couldn't care less about your personal history. It's not relevant to the little girl this is about.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> again with the “might maybe what if’s”. I notice you ignore “most likely the mother can be saved and often the baby too”.
> I was one of those risky c sections…. So were my three brothers and one sister. My other sister died while being aborted.
> 
> sorry, it was robin that posted the article.


Saved? More than likely her and the child would both end up with health problems . It could effect the health of future children that are wanted with someone she loves. She or her parents get to decide what is best for her wellbeing above that of a fetus.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Saved? More than likely her and the child would both end up with health problems . It could effect the health of future children that are wanted with someone she loves. She or her parents get to decide what is best for her wellbeing above that of a fetus.


I presume you have links to supporting data on these health problems?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> I presume you have links to supporting data on these health problems?


They would be wasted on you. Others have provided and you don't seem to want to consider those.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Evons hubby said:


> again with the “might maybe what if’s”. I notice you ignore “most likely the mother can be saved and often the baby too”.
> I was one of those risky c sections…. So were my three brothers and one sister. My other sister died while being aborted.
> 
> sorry, it was robin that posted the article.


A 10 year old girl should not endure the risks of either a vaginal or C-section delivery for a choice she did not make.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> They would be wasted on you. Others have provided and you don't seem to want to consider those.


Actually, no, no one has provided any stats…. Just personal opinions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> A 10 year old girl should not endure the risks of either a vaginal or C-section delivery for a choice she did not make.


So, just kill the child and all will be well?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> If you can force a woman to carry a fetus it is the same thing.


Lame excuse...


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> So, just kill the child and all will be well?


No, all will not be well. She's still been raped, and killing the baby doesn't undo that. Nobody says it fixes everything. But it fixes one set of problems, and she's better off than being forced to endure more risks.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

There is something seriously wrong with anyone who believes a pregnant 10 year old rape victim should be forced/coerced/convinced to carry that pregnancy to term. Would you feel the same if it were your daughter or granddaughter?


----------



## spambedamned (11 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> Kind of off thread, but I just read this morning about a guy who is going to jail for impregnating a 13 year old girl on purpose. He admitted it, even told the girls mother, was convicted and is now going to jail. Now, what happens to that
> poor girl? Especially if she lives in one of the states who have completely banned abortions.


 What happens to the rapist? Oh, little or nothing. What should happen to a known rapist? Snip, snip! 


muleskinner2 said:


> Ok they caught the rapist, and the family took the girl across an imaginary line on a map, and got the abortion. The state of Ohio exercised their rights, and so did the state of Indiana.
> 
> The important question is, will they lock up the rapist for life? Or will they pat him on the head, and give him probation?


 What really needs to happen to these guys is a little snipping. "OH, no!" Yes, DNA had to be present, so no denial who he is. Snip, snip! Don't want to be snipped? Then don't rape children!


Evons hubby said:


> She has several good options. Have the baby, love it and keep it.
> have the baby and put it up for adoption.
> Have the baby and let the gypsies steal it.
> have the baby, drop it off at the nearest police station.


No, let the 10 year old have the child, and let it kill her in the process. 


Evons hubby said:


> So, just kill the child and all will be well?


 Or let the child inside her kill her?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

spambedamned said:


> What happens to the rapist? Oh, little or nothing. What should happen to a known rapist? Snip, snip!
> What really needs to happen to these guys is a little snipping. "OH, no!" Yes, DNA had to be present, so no denial who he is. Snip, snip! Don't want to be snipped? Then don't rape children!
> No, let the 10 year old have the child, and let it kill her in the process.
> Or let the child inside her kill her?


Ohio allows for abortion in cases where the pregnancy actually endangers the health of the mother. 
as to snipping…. I recommend snipping the jugular vein.


----------



## spambedamned (11 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> Ohio allows for abortion in cases where the pregnancy actually endangers the health of the mother.
> as to snipping…. I recommend snipping the jugular vein.


I really like the snipping of the man parts, because that sends a strong message to those who think they can get away with their abuse of children and others.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

spambedamned said:


> I really like the snipping of the man parts, because that sends a strong message to those who think they can get away with their abuse of children and others.


Sure, as long as he bleeds out.


----------



## spambedamned (11 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> Sure, as long as he bleeds out.


I have no objection to him bleeding out. I believe that rape is as much a power thing as anything, and the loss of part of those parts is important. I know it is not 100% a measure to prevent rape, but how much pride do men have for their parts?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

spambedamned said:


> I have no objection to him bleeding out. I believe that rape is as much a power thing as anything, and the loss of part of those parts is important. I know it is not 100% a measure to prevent rape, but how much pride do men have for their parts?


Not much apparently, considering where they like to put them! I mean really, a woman has like twelve square feet of beautiful smooth skin…. Where do men want to play? In that few square inches reserved for the dumping of toxic wastes!


----------



## spambedamned (11 mo ago)

Evons hubby said:


> Not much apparently, considering where they like to put them! I mean really, a woman has like twelve square feet of beautiful smooth skin…. Where to men want to play? In that few square inches reserved for the dumping of toxic wastes!


I am all about pushing for snipping as part of proven rape. DNA is key.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The law in Ohio allows abortion only if there is a diagnosed medical condition. It does not allow for the prevention of a future medical condition or emergency.

"The ban allows for physicians to perform an abortion if the procedure is to prevent a someone’s death or bodily impairment, which is defined as any “medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and reversible impairment of a major bodily function.” This includes pre-eclampsia, “inevitable” abortion and premature rupture of the membranes. It could also be diabetes or multiple sclerosis but it can’t be anything related to mental health."









Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has six-week abortion ban put into effect - Ohio Capital Journal


The following article was originally published on News5Cleveland.com and is published in the Ohio Capital Journal under a content-sharing agreement. Unlike other OCJ articles, it is not available for free republication by other news outlets as it is owned by WEWS in Cleveland. Shortly after Roe...




ohiocapitaljournal.com


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> The law in Ohio allows abortion only if there is a diagnosed medical condition. It does not allow for the prevention of a future medical condition or emergency.
> 
> "The ban allows for physicians to perform an abortion if the procedure is to prevent a someone’s death or bodily impairment, which is defined as any “medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and reversible impairment of a major bodily function.” This includes pre-eclampsia, “inevitable” abortion and premature rupture of the membranes. It could also be diabetes or multiple sclerosis but it can’t be anything related to mental health."
> 
> ...


Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The last I read, changes to the law are being considered because of this case. I can't find a link except an article in the local "pay to read" newspaper.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

homesteadforty said:


> ryanthomas said:
> 
> 
> > If the republicans control the federal gov in a few years, would you not support a federal law limiting abortion?
> ...


No it wouldn’t. That’s like comparing apples and lamas. What made Roe unconstitutional was that an activist court penned in a right that did not exist in the constitution, thereby circumventing the legislature, which the constitution says is responsible for establishing the rules on such matters.

A federal law supporting or limiting abortion would, potentially, be exactly as constitutional as one banning making liquor- the constitutionality of that is certainly debatable, but is not the same as a court creating legislation from whole cloth.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> A federal law supporting or limiting abortion would, potentially, be exactly as constitutional as one banning making liquor-


agreed, they would both be unconstitutional. Those matters are reserved to the states or to the people respectively.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

If an unborn baby is a person, then a ban on murdering unborn persons would likely be constitutional under the equal protection clause of 14th amendment: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [...] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

If an unborn baby is a person, then outlawing murder of born persons but not murder of unborn persons is denying the unborn persons equal protection of the laws.

Technically, SCOTUS could just do it by taking up a lawsuit against a state that allows abortion. And it would make a lot more sense than the reasoning in Roe using the same clause. But I don't think SCOTUS will go that far. They want to leave it to the legislature to either do or not do.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No dehumanizing. Still human tissue or a human body, just not a person. I don't love someone for their human leg, I love someone for their mind.
> 
> 
> So, when one's mind is gone, you don't love them any more!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I love who they were and what they meant to me.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I've come to the conclusion that nature made a huge mistake when it designed the human female body to come into estrus once a month instead of only once a year like it is with most other animals. It sure would make things a whole lot less complicated and troublesome for women and easier for them to organize their family planning if all women knew the only time they could get pregnant is during one month in summer and then deliver their babies in the spring.

.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

Could you imagine how chaotic and congested hospitals would be if all babies were born right about the same time each year?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Evons hubby said:


> I’ll be 100% behind the death penalty for those monsters!


Thats a human life your talking about.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Danaus29 said:


> Could you imagine how chaotic and congested hospitals would be if all babies were born right about the same time each year?


I did think about that, but in fact it wouldn't have to be chaotic at all. Society would need to organize itself to have thousands (?) of fully staffed and operational birthing resorts (kind of like vacation resorts and retreats) open everywhere once a year to accept all pregnant women for delivery. The women who allow themselves to get pregnant in any given year could book in advance to go stay at a birthing resort for their delivery. There could be many highly profitable and useful, practical industries built up around such birthing resorts.

.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

spambedamned said:


> What happens to the rapist? Oh, little or nothing. What should happen to a known rapist? Snip, snip!


That's to little too late. Rapists and pedophiles should be hung, and the body burned. We are fast becoming a third world country, so we should use punishments that third world criminals understand.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> Thats a human life your talking about.


Sparing every murderer, rapist, and pedophile, from the death penalty, is the reason our prisons are over flowing and violent crime is increasing. It's time to take out the trash.


----------



## spambedamned (11 mo ago)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sparing every murderer, rapist, and pedophile, from the death penalty, is the reason our prisons are over flowing and violent crime is increasing. It's time to take out the trash.


I imagine that this is why our prisons are so full, while in other places they just put them to death.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I've come to the conclusion that nature made a huge mistake when it designed the human female body to come into estrus once a month instead of only once a year like it is with most other animals. It sure would make things a whole lot less complicated and troublesome for women and easier for them to organize their family planning if all women knew the only time they could get pregnant is during one month in summer and then deliver their babies in the spring.
> 
> .


You don't seem to be aware of some basic biological concepts. These animals you speak of, outside of canines which hit once or twice a year, for three weeks at a time, most come in every two to three weeks until they get bred and settled. Even if they only breed a certain time of year, you are talking multiple estrous cycles over a two or three month period in most cases. There are a lot of animals that are induced ovulators, so the females must be forcibly mated, which induces their estrous. A few have delayed implantation, egg is released after forced mating, fertilized, doesn't grow until day length and body condition parameters are met.

Nature, AKA God, doesn't make mistakes. Mistakes are generally rooted in individual perception. Given the human animal's propensity for travel, having more long distance endurance than any other animal, our breeding design is probably the most successful that we could have as a species. Tying estrous cycles to day length would probably have caused us to fail across many habitats. Success and adaptability across varying habitats is one of the hallmarks of our species. I can only see the intra-male competition that arises from seasonal estrous in mammals as being calamitous to our species as well. A battle royale survival of the fittest coming once a year is not conducive to collective knowledge and technological advancement, other hallmarks of our species. Every once in a while the big brained old guy survived a calamity, with some breeding aged females, and that made us smarter as a species. Seasonal estrous would have made us have big horns to butt each other with, but once a year our historians, philosophers and mathematicians would have been shoved off a cliff.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't know about other women but a once a year cycle and once-a-year period would have been a great thing. Less downtime with cramps and the crap feelings that go with the hormonal swings, less worry about pregnancy. I expect that menopause would have been a whole lot easier as well.

Yes, I expect hospitals would have to schedule surgeries with the yearly birth month in mind. There might be a few other things to take into account but I think it would be worth not having to worry about birth control for both men and women.

In fact, I bet the productivity of women in the workplace and science would skyrocket.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> If an unborn baby is a person, then a ban on murdering unborn persons would likely be constitutional under the equal protection clause of 14th amendment: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [...] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
> 
> If an unborn baby is a person, then outlawing murder of born persons but not murder of unborn persons is denying the unborn persons equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Technically, SCOTUS could just do it by taking up a lawsuit against a state that allows abortion. And it would make a lot more sense than the reasoning in Roe using the same clause. But I don't think SCOTUS will go that far. They want to leave it to the legislature to either do or not do.


Good point ... I'm still thinking this one over ...


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

barnbilder said:


> You don't seem to be aware of some basic biological concepts. These animals you speak of, outside of canines which hit once or twice a year, for three weeks at a time, most come in every two to three weeks until they get bred and settled. Even if they only breed a certain time of year, you are talking multiple estrous cycles over a two or three month period in most cases. There are a lot of animals that are induced ovulators, so the females must be forcibly mated, which induces their estrous. A few have delayed implantation, egg is released after forced mating, fertilized, doesn't grow until day length and body condition parameters are met.
> 
> Nature, AKA God, doesn't make mistakes. Mistakes are generally rooted in individual perception. Given the human animal's propensity for travel, having more long distance endurance than any other animal, our breeding design is probably the most successful that we could have as a species. Tying estrous cycles to day length would probably have caused us to fail across many habitats. Success and adaptability across varying habitats is one of the hallmarks of our species. I can only see the intra-male competition that arises from seasonal estrous in mammals as being calamitous to our species as well. A battle royale survival of the fittest coming once a year is not conducive to collective knowledge and technological advancement, other hallmarks of our species. Every once in a while the big brained old guy survived a calamity, with some breeding aged females, and that made us smarter as a species. Seasonal estrous would have made us have big horns to butt each other with, but once a year our historians, philosophers and mathematicians would have been shoved off a cliff.


If once a year were the norm, humans would have died out thousands of years ago. Medical care has only reached the point where it is more science than superstition in the last fifty years or so. The real world is a messy uncoordinated place. Trying to understand it all, or change it will only drive you crazy. On the other hand, they might name a holiday after you.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Good point ... I'm still thinking this one over ...


It would certainly go against your desire for more than one choice.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> It would certainly go against your desire for more than one choice.


Such a topic as abortion is certainly not an easy one, especially when constitutional, federal, and state laws, as well as so many people with so many opinions, and the desire for individual freedom for all people equally, are all taken into account. Ultimately, I agree with the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe vs Wade, because doing so upholds the US Constitution, by allowing each state to make its own laws regarding abortion (which is not specifically addressed in the US Constitution, so the 10th amendment would apply). I think murder (the intentional killing of anyone) should be illegal in all states ... although I also support the right of anyone to defend / protect themselves to prevent themselves or another from being murdered. IMO, abortion is murder, unless it is done for a legit medical reason, to save the life of a pregnant girl or woman.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Do you type that out every time or do you copy and paste it?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> Sparing every murderer, rapist, and pedophile, from the death penalty, is the reason our prisons are over flowing and violent crime is increasing. It's time to take out the trash.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> Thats a human life your talking about.


A very guilty human.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I don't know about other women but a once a year cycle and once-a-year period would have been a great thing. Less downtime with cramps and the crap feelings that go with the hormonal swings, less worry about pregnancy. I expect that menopause would have been a whole lot easier as well.
> 
> Yes, I expect hospitals would have to schedule surgeries with the yearly birth month in mind. There might be a few other things to take into account but I think it would be worth not having to worry about birth control for both men and women.
> 
> In fact, I bet the productivity of women in the workplace and science would skyrocket.


Well yeah, considering that would have driven us extinct about a half a million years before you were born it would have been totally worth it.

Menopause is not an evolutionary consideration, you are designed to be dead before that occurs.

Animals that have once yearly cycles, tend to breed multiple times per day, for several days, if not weeks. A period would not be part of the equation in such an arrangement, typically, from a design standpoint. Even in the rare case of animals with yearly estrous, there is not really a "birth month" it is generally a three month period. Often works out to more of a five month period factoring in latitudes. Our trans-hemispheric travels would see births all over the year, probably rapidly morphing into a biannual estrous.

Oh, and from a design standpoint, a ten year old girl is probably in better shape to give birth than the majority of women that give birth these days. Healthier weight, still decent skeletal flexibility, better muscle tone, and cardiovascular health than the ancient twenty and thirty year olds that we still have plugging along these days.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I've come to the conclusion that nature made a huge mistake when it designed the human female body to come into estrus once a month instead of only once a year like it is with most other animals. It sure would make things a whole lot less complicated and troublesome for women and easier for them to organize their family planning if all women knew the only time they could get pregnant is during one month in summer and then deliver their babies in the spring.
> 
> .


I agree, or maybe God should have but a button on her that is hard to reach


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> I agree, or maybe God should have but a button on her that is hard to reach


It's not that hard to reach if you know what you're doing...oh wait, that's a different button.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Buy a hundred heifers, weaning age, same breeding and within a hundred pounds of each other. Put fifty in a pen that will hold them in and bulls out. Leave them for three years. Get you a bull, middle of the road calving ease EPDs. Dump him in the pen with the other fifty. Let them breed as they will. When the three years is up put that bull in the pen with the four year old open heifers. Keep data on the first calf heifers in both groups. Now half of that secong group aren't going to settle, so you will have to compare as a percentage, how many young calving heifers had problems and required assistance compared to the old, over-finished heifers in the second group. Now consider why we spend so much on things like fertility clinics, and obstetric care. Giving birth is a bodily function, requires no medical care. If complications arise, sure, but there shouldn't be many complications involved with something that has been going on for millions of years without medical intervention of any kind.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Something sure has you pissed off at everything


You noticed that too?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Well I was about to go buy 100 heifers and a bull, but my wife talked me out of it.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

barnbilder said:


> Giving birth is a bodily function, requires no medical care. If complications arise, sure, but there shouldn't be many complications involved with something that has been going on for millions of years without medical intervention of any kind.


Pregnancy and childbirth are very hard on a woman. Even now some women and/or babies die in the process.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Danaus29 said:


> Pregnancy and childbirth are very hard on a woman. Even now some women and/or babies die in the process.


Some are struck by lightning too.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Danaus29 said:


> Pregnancy and childbirth are very hard on a woman. Even now some women and/or babies die in the process.


Are you suggesting that human women are not livestock?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Are you suggesting that human women are not livestock?


There are those who beleive that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Well I was about to go buy 100 heifers and a bull, but my wife talked me out of it.


Is that code for something?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Is that code for something?


No, I just got inspired by this thread to do a science project. It required a several year commitment, though. The wife was right, my attention span is too short for that.

Now I gotta see a man about a horse....


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Are you suggesting that human women are not livestock?


Well there are certain people who have been believing and treating women like they're just livestock commodities to breed on and those people can't get past that belief system after thousands of years of it. You know, like insisting that women have no rights over what they can do with their own bodies and making laws to TRY to enforce that women must be like good, well trained little begging doggies who behave themselves for their masters.

.


----------

