# Roe/Wade



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

I once had the opportunity to question a pro-abortion woman who held firm beliefs in controlling her own body, when her mother bestowed that right upon her…


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

every situation isnt the same. i wouldnt have an abortion. but i dont believe its anyone elses business to make that choice for me. i hate to see safe abortion being banned. because abortions will still happen..just not legally. and thats sad for everyone.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I am certain there will always be choice. California, New York and likely a couple dozen others will offer that choice.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I thought Roe vs Wade was Georges Washington's last decision before crossing the Delaware?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> I thought Roe vs Wade was Georges Washington's last decision before crossing the Delaware?


Now that right there is funny. I don't care who you are


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

The doctrine of our church is that an abortion is merely a medical procedure we do not see abortion as a sin.

A few years ago, my daughter-in-law was pregnant. As her pregnancy continued the ultrasounds determined that the fetus she was carrying had no detectable brain. I felt that was a situation that called for an abortion. My daughter-in-law feels that abortion is wrong so she carried the fetus to term. Today my grandson has cerebral palsy and he grows bigger each week. He has no muscle control. He can not move his eyes or blink. The only communication he can do is if he is upset he cries.

The physical burden of caring for him it huge. Anywhere they go he must be loaded into a wheelchair. 

He will never learn to speak or even to lift his head. 

Eventually he will be too big for her to lift. 

The government kicked in the week after he was born and they started SSDI for him. So at least they get a small stipend every month to raise him. The wheelchair was paid for.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

bubba42 said:


> I once had the opportunity to question a pro-abortion woman who held firm beliefs in controlling her own body, when her mother bestowed that right upon her…


The interesting aspect of my first post is that none have given any views on specifically when the mother bestows the right to control an infant daughters body, on the infant daughter (as the infant clearly does not initially have any right to self protection, and following that logic, neither would the mother have initially had that right).

Some interesting aspects a few may be unaware of: The problem isn’t abortions as I and every Christian I personally know view it; rather it is defining when life begins (which should include consideration of some of the aspects mentioned), and thus at which point beyond that definition would such an act be infanticide. For example; as I understand from my Christian research and confirmed by some Jewish friends, traditional Jewish belief held that “life” wasn’t manifest until the infant drew its first breath (God breathing the ‘breath of life’ into the child). In most Christian traditions, the challenge in defining this stemmed from Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…”. “In the Islamic tradition, this point is generally recognized as 120 days after conception…” (Islam and the Beginning of Human Life | Bill of Health). These are fundamental aspects that define moral/ethical decision-points that have to be addressed based on the various worldviews.

As one can clearly see from the above, laws regarding abortion (from various faith worldviews) aren’t about control of someone else (or their body), rather they are literally about when the ensoulment of a human being occurs, and prevention of infanticide. Without defining the problem, such things as post birth abortions are legal in some states. Here is one example: Colorado Law Allows Post-Birth Abortion (Infanticide) - Up to 28 Days. I would also point out (as a father and grandfather), I personally believe the biological father should have a voice (I do not specify that it must be an equal voice). 

It is most unfortunate that the media doesn’t address this accurately, or pose the question I posed in the OP.

I think it helps “drive the point home” if we can actually see the results of potential ramifications of these decisions (Abortion Survivors Network). Clearly, based on the view of many, these young people did not have a right to protection at the time they were faced with an attempted abortion, and presumably they do now… so at some point, they were “granted” a right to self protection between their attempted abortions, and now.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body should have the right to decide what happens to my body.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

I agree.
While the government isn't supposed to be paying for any of this stuff, it has begun with the side door funding once again.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body should have the right to decide what happens to my body.


Take the religion out of it. Consider what is said about when the fetus is viable, or when it has a heartbeat, or brainwaves.

At what point does the law owe the unborn legal protection?


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> I agree.
> While the government isn't supposed to be paying for any of this stuff, it has begun with the side door funding once again.


Abortion should not be funded by government programs. This should be a decision between mother father and doctor. and covered by insurance if its medically needed. if its just a woman wanting one without medical neccesity, then she can pay for it privately.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522047133863530496


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Take the religion out of it. Consider what is said about when the fetus is viable, or when it has a heartbeat, or brainwaves.
> 
> At what point does the law owe the unborn legal protection?


My personal belief is a fetus that cant stay alive without the womans body is not a viable life. I dont particularly think the law owes legal protection to a thing that isnt able to be alive on its own.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

rbelfield said:


> all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body *should have the right to decide what happens to my body.*


Kinda egocentric there ain't we??? What makes you think anybody cares about your body... the question is what happens to the babies body. Most people tend to care about attacks on the defenseless.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

rbelfield said:


> My personal belief is a fetus that cant stay alive without the womans body is not a viable life. I dont particularly think the law owes legal protection to a thing that isnt able to be alive on its own.


That’s basically the direction Casey took after Roe’s invented trimester basis was shown to be faulty.

The viability metric fails without even having to dig too deeply. Even with the most conservative estimates of the advancement of viability, viability is now a full month earlier than it was in the era of Roe, just 50 years ago. Does the supposed right to an abortion disappear at some future date, or against a technological threshold? Can the right to free speech possibly have disappeared when we invented the internet?

But, even if we are talking about just the snapshot of what viability means today, it’s still not an objective standard. Does an unborn person living in the womb of a woman with good health insurance, or a woman living near a city with access to advanced perinatal care somehow achieve “personhood” earlier than an unborn baby living in the womb of a poor or rural mother?

Viability may look like a reasonable standard, based on a knee-jerk gut feeling, but it’s a ridiculous standard by which to attempt to define when abortion changes from being the removal of a cellular growth to being the killing of a human being.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> My personal belief is a fetus that cant stay alive without the womans body is not a viable life. I dont particularly think the law owes legal protection to a thing that isnt able to be alive on its own.


To put a time on it, you are saying 24 or 25 weeks.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> My personal belief is a fetus that cant stay alive without the womans body is not a viable life. I dont particularly think the law owes legal protection to a thing that isnt able to be alive on its own.


How long can a untended newborn live?


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

rbelfield said:


> all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body should have the right to decide what happens to my body.


I understand, but for many, religious law establishes the boundaries of their ethical beliefs. Aside from that, I thought I did a pretty good job at the end of breaking it down to a purely secular perspective in the final paragraph, not to mention the secular perspective of my original post. So, when did a woman, any woman, inherit the right to control her own body, from her mother (who had the original right to abort the child who now controls her own body)?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I'm just glad that with so many abortion proponents taking a very hardcore stance against insurrections that they will peaceably abide with court decisions.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

rbelfield said:


> all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body should have the right to decide what happens to my body.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

colourfastt said:


> View attachment 109868


Can you explain to the rest of the class why that is such a stupid cartoon? I see some hands up, but I really would like to hear from you.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Catch up Mr. Fast.
No rights have been removed. 
The states have them.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

rbelfield said:


> *My personal belief is a fetus that cant stay alive without the womans body is not a viable life.* I dont particularly think the law owes legal protection to a thing that isnt able to be alive on its own.


Agreed, but I would add (for clarity) that it's viability without extraordinary support measures. (Then again, I'm the grandchild who cared for my grandmother for the last 3 years of her life (and moved 1,100 miles to do so), and had to be the one to tell the hospital personnel to disconnect her life-support equipment (ventilator, feeding tube, etc.).)


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

colourfastt said:


> View attachment 109868


My original post: “I once had the opportunity to question a pro-abortion woman who held firm beliefs in controlling her own body, when her mother bestowed that right upon her…”.

So, in a purely secular fashion, when did these young people who survived failed abortions, gain their right to control their own bodies, which they clearly did not originally have? (https://abortionsurvivors.org)? Or since they clearly did not originally have this “right” and were attempted to be eliminated, do they still forgo the rights your meme implies (also asked in a secular perspective in the last paragraph of my second post)?


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

HDRider said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522047133863530496


Awsome!! Thanks for sharing (I ditched twitter years ago).


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

bubba42 said:


> Awsome!! Thanks for sharing (I ditched twitter years ago).


I find it immensely entertaining, and very informative. I have been on for over 10 years, but just now started paying attention. Elon lured me in.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

i dont obsess over the issue. i know my heart and what i would do. i dont google and read tons about abortion. i also feel like im probably in the majority..most people just know their own heart. and in my heart, its not anyone elses business what decisions i make about my body. and yes. its my body...not just a grow tank for another being.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> i dont obsess over the issue. i know my heart and what i would do. i dont google and read tons about abortion. i also feel like im probably in the majority..most people just know their own heart. and in my heart, its not anyone elses business what decisions i make about my body. and yes. its my body...not just a grow tank for another being.


Luckily for all of us some choose to deal with the issue of law.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

What rights does a fetus have under the constitution?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Like abortion, the word fetus isn't mentioned in the consitution.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Like abortion, the word fetus isn't mentioned in the consitution.


So it has no rights to life under the constitution?


----------



## Digitalis (Aug 20, 2021)

bubba42 said:


> ... and confirmed by some Jewish friends, traditional Jewish belief held that “life” wasn’t manifest until the infant drew its first breath (God breathing the ‘breath of life’ into the child). ...


You're friends are confused. Traditional Jewish belief says an unborn baby is considered a partial life and demands protection. The only valid reason to end this partial life is if that is required to save the mother.









Abortion in Jewish Law - aish.com


The traditional Jewish view does not fit conveniently into the major "camps" in the current debate.




aish.com


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

Digitalis said:


> You're friends are confused. Traditional Jewish belief says an unborn baby is considered a partial life and demands protection. The only valid reason to end this partial life is if that is required to save the mother.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks - they were “modern” (he would say). One I served with in the military for years. He would take my Christmas/Easter duties, and I would take his during his holidays.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Which of my children or grandkids does someone have the right to lop off their arms and legs, cut off their head, crush their torso, and vacuum up? The little blue eyed blond cutie who grew up to supervise a meat packing plant? The birth mom was clear if Roe v Wade had happened 3 weeks sooner he would have been dismembered and killed. The dark eyed one who has long sacrificed financial security to teach the poor kids to read and write? The one that took in a teen mom and put her through high school, helping her with daycare, etc? 

Those worried about the rights of the women: if you are not willing to do that to the babies once they are born, why do you think she has the right to hire someone to do it to them before they pop out?

I support the woman's right to not have sex unless she wants to do so. I support the woman's right to access birth control. But good grief, how can I as a woman support your right to dismember and vacuum up babies? If you are in an abusive situation, leave it. If you were raped or are a victim of incest, report it and I will stand with you through the pregnancy and to full placement of the baby. But gals, if you are just EMBARRASSED about an unwed pregnancy to the point you want to off the little baby, what if society decides it is so embarrassed by you for wanting that they decide to off you?

At what age does a person suddenly have the right to life? Why does age and size matter?


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

painterswife said:


> What rights does a fetus have under the constitution?


What rights does a life have under the constitution? This link (Abortion Survivors Network) isn’t mothers who had abortions, and are now bearing the weight of that decision. They were in the womb when their mothers tried to abort them, and they miraculously survived. Ive seen interviews with a few of them - some are terribly maimed.

Now, consider the possibility that one of them is one of the few thousand who are homesteading members of this forum (I truly have no idea if that is the case) - honest question: do you think they would believe you have anything but contempt for their lives if they read your post, or saw “Mr. Fast’s” cartoon? If not, when did that shift occur?


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

nodak3 said:


> Which of my children or grandkids does someone have the right to lop off their arms and legs, cut off their head, crush their torso, and vacuum up? The little blue eyed blond cutie who grew up to supervise a meat packing plant? The birth mom was clear if Roe v Wade had happened 3 weeks sooner he would have been dismembered and killed. The dark eyed one who has long sacrificed financial security to teach the poor kids to read and write? The one that took in a teen mom and put her through high school, helping her with daycare, etc?
> 
> Those worried about the rights of the women: if you are not willing to do that to the babies once they are born, why do you think she has the right to hire someone to do it to them before they pop out?
> 
> ...


this is purely drama. no one is telling you to have an abortion. or that your grandkids should have been aborted. what i am saying is the government does not have the right to make my decision for me. and obviously you have never been in an abusive relationship, or you wouldnt be so casual as to just say "leave". its never that easy. nor is rape or incest just that easy to come out with. so once again...no one is qualified to make decisions about my body when they havent been in my shoes. with abortion being legal, at least there is an option for women. make it illegal and more women will die.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bubba42 said:


> What rights does a life have under the constitution? This link (Abortion Survivors Network) isn’t mothers who had abortions, and are now bearing the weight of that decision. They were in the womb when their mothers tried to abort them, and they miraculously survived. Ive seen interviews with a few of them - some are terribly maimed.
> 
> Now, consider the possibility that one of them is one of the few thousand who are homesteading members of this forum (I truly have no idea if that is the case) - honest question: do you think they would believe you have anything but contempt for their lives if they read your post, or saw “Mr. Fast’s” cartoon? If not, when did that shift occur?


I am asking because this is a supreme court decision and about the law and the constitution. How you feel about that based on your religion or your morals is something different. I am asking about only the constitution and the laws that arise from that.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I am asking because this is a supreme court decision and about the law and the constitution. How you feel about that based on your religion or your morals is something different. I am asking about only the constitution and the laws that arise from that.


And while I gave context to my personal views (in a second post), I asked two purely secular (and logical) questions (in keeping with my original post - also secular, by the way). As such, these fit perfectly into any Supreme Court discussion… HD Rider has a great topic he just started.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bubba42 said:


> And while I gave context to my personal views (in a second post), I asked two purely secular (and logical) questions (in keeping with my original post - also secular, by the way). As such, these fit perfectly into any Supreme Court discussion… HD Rider has a great topic he just started.


I am fine with staying in this thread. I hope others will respond to my posts.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> What rights does a fetus have under the constitution?


All the same rights that a 30 year-old does… or none at all.

That’s where the court screwed up with Roe. The constitution acknowledges and guarantees several right to both the States and the people. The constitution defines what a State is, but does not define what a person is.

The pro-abortion activists went into the Roe v Wade case, decided on what they wanted the outcome to be, and used the SCOTUS to legislate what a person was. The SCOTUS legislated it based on a trimester basis, which was found to be faulty. Casey tried to relegislate it on a viability basis. Both bases have been found to be flawed, and, more so, it appears that the court is about to rule that the court shouldn’t have been attempting to legislate in the first place.

If you pro-abortion folks want to take another stab at forcing your will on the whole of the country, you need to elect representatives who will write and pass a federal law dictating when a baby becomes a person.

Good luck with that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> All the same rights that a 30 year-old does… or none at all.
> 
> That’s where the court screwed up with Roe. The constitution acknowledges and guarantees several right to both the States and the people. The constitution defines what a State is, but does not define what a person is.
> 
> ...


I thought the constitution says something about being born or breathing before having rights.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

colourfastt said:


>


Your cartoon confuses me. They guy with the red tie is obviously trying to get Uncle Sam to make the lady put her mask on, or get her Covid shot or whatever, but why is he holding an abortion sign?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I thought the constitution says something about being born or breathing before having rights.


It describes citizenship in terms of (natural) birth, but that’s part (and only part) of defining a citizen. I’m not aware of anywhere that it defines a person. I don’t think anyone is arguing that babies should have the right to vote. 

Care to cite something?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It describes citizenship in terms of (natural) birth, but that’s part (and only part) of defining a citizen. I’m not aware of anywhere that it defines a person. I don’t think anyone is arguing that babies should have the right to vote.
> 
> Care to cite something?


No, just asking because this is something I don't have a lot of information on but seems to be discussed with regards to this topic. I was hoping to see what others here say about it.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

painterswife said:


> What rights does a fetus have under the constitution?


Read the preamble, carefully, reflecting on the meaning of each word. Especially "general welfare" and "posterity". Then tell us if you think that constitutional rights apply to people born at the time this document was written, or if it was written to secure rights for people yet to be born.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> My personal belief is a fetus that cant stay alive without the womans body is not a viable life. I dont particularly think the law owes legal protection to a thing that isnt able to be alive on its own.


A living fetus is not a 'thing'. In fact, a living fetus is a person! To make this easier to understand, I will use an inanimate object as an example ... a chair ... so let's say I make a chair. That chair didn't just all of a sudden pop into existence. First, I wanted to make a chair, then I planned out how I would do it, then I began making the chair ... but unless I told others about that chair, as far as anyone else knows, there is no chair, until I finish making it (because until it is done, it is still just in my imagination). Does that mean the chair didn't exist until after I made it and others could see it?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> i dont obsess over the issue. i know my heart and what i would do. i dont google and read tons about abortion. i also feel like im probably in the majority..most people just know their own heart. and in my heart, its not anyone elses business what decisions i make about my body. and yes. its my body...not just a grow tank for another being.


The body of a pregnant woman is hers and it should not be up to anyone else what she does with her body, but the body that lives inside of her body is another person, who has just as much right to live as the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman is unwilling to protect the living person inside of her, then it seems only right that someone else do what they can to protect the fetus that lives and grows within the body of the pregnant woman, from being murdered, even if that means making laws to prevent the murder of a fetus, baby, or any other person.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

CC Pereira said:


> A living fetus is not a 'thing'. In fact, a living fetus is a person! To make this easier to understand, I will use an inanimate object as an example ... a chair ... so let's say I make a chair. That chair didn't just all of a sudden pop into existence. First, I wanted to make a chair, then I planned out how I would do it, then I began making the chair ... but unless I told others about that chair, as far as anyone else knows, there is no chair, until I finish making it (because until it is done, it is still just in my imagination). Does that mean the chair didn't exist until after I made it and others could see it?


here is a personal story...when i was younger, just after getting married, i became pregnant. i was using an IUD for birth control and not trying to be pregnant. but things happen. at about 4 months, i had a partial miscarriage. my dr had to order a chemical abortion to get the rest of it out of me so i wouldnt become infected and die. was i to be denied that right? i was doing things the "right" way and life happened. it was a miscarriage and abortion. i didnt lose a baby. i lost a blob of tissue that couldnt even be identified. so yes, it was a thing. not a person.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> this is purely drama. no one is telling you to have an abortion. or that your grandkids should have been aborted. what i am saying is the government does not have the right to make my decision for me. and obviously you have never been in an abusive relationship, or you wouldnt be so casual as to just say "leave". its never that easy. nor is rape or incest just that easy to come out with. so once again...no one is qualified to make decisions about my body when they havent been in my shoes. with abortion being legal, at least there is an option for women. make it illegal and more women will die.


The government should not have the right to dictate what anyone does with their own body, but it does and should have the right to protect anyone from being murdered. It is not the baby's fault if the pregnant woman was raped. Also, if the supreme court does overturn the Roe vs Wade case, it is my understanding that the decision as to whether or not abortion is legal would simply revert back to the states. The result would be that some states would make it legal and others wouldn't. Under such circumstances, a pregnant woman who wants to murder her baby would still have that choice, but may have to go to a state where murdering babies is legal if it wasn't legal in the state she lives in.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

CC Pereira said:


> The government should not have the right to dictate what anyone does with their own body, but it does and should have the right to protect anyone from being murdered. It is not the baby's fault if the pregnant woman was raped. Also, if the supreme court does overturn the Roe vs Wade case, it is my understanding that the decision as to whether or not abortion is legal would simply revert back to the states. The result would be that some states would make it legal and others wouldn't. Under such circumstances, a pregnant woman who wants to murder her baby would still have that choice, but may have to go to a state where murdering babies is legal if it wasn't legal in the state she lives in.


this is more emotional drama.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

I'm not for abortion and so glad I never had to make that choice but I am for freedom. I feel we are entering a time where our freedoms will be taken one at a time. If you are personally against abortion then you will be happy with this decision because you don't like it but I prefer the government stay out of our affairs. Next could be a reversal of marriage laws and of course if you hate gay people then you will be glad for that. Just know that we as a nation will have lost one more freedom. Then it could be a disregard for separation of church and state which is great if you are a white, male, evangelical but there goes so many other freedoms. They are already pulling books from libraries in some states and refuse to teach real history in public schools because it doesn't make the white man look good. You may be glad that your kids pray as a group in class but what if your Muslim, Buddhist, or who knows what religion also wants to lead your kids in prayer. Do we dare reverse the protections of other civil rights too, I mean if your not a woman, black, Hispanic, etc., then maybe you see this is a good thing. If that all sounds great to you then you would understand how Germany slid into fascist nazism and the people cheered. It's all good when it is someone else's rights that are being taken but then one day they come for you and there is no one who cares. .


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

I have different feelings about abortion. Really don't think humans have advanced far enough to know what is right or wrong. 
One thing I can't make up my mind about is the man does not have any control over his child to be. That doesn't seem to be right. It takes a man to have a child just like it takes a female. The female is the only one who gets to choose if she gets rid of the child. If everyone is supposed to be treated equally shouldn't the father of a child have some say in what happens to his child?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> here is a personal story...when i was younger, just after getting married, i became pregnant. i was using an IUD for birth control and not trying to be pregnant. but things happen. at about 4 months, i had a partial miscarriage. my dr had to order a chemical abortion to get the rest of it out of me so i wouldnt become infected and die. was i to be denied that right? i was doing things the "right" way and life happened. it was a miscarriage and abortion. i didnt lose a baby. i lost a blob of tissue that couldnt even be identified. so yes, it was a thing. not a person.


I am sorry that you went through that experience, and you are correct that even with birth control, a woman can become pregnant, and not know it until months later. In your case however, the abortion actually saved a life, which is the only reason I can think of that would ethically justify an abortion. I would not consider that murder, but a fetus is not a thing, a fetus is a person. Maybe it didn't look like a person because his / her body was not yet fully formed, but the fetus was in fact, a person.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Chief50 said:


> I have different feelings about abortion. Really don't think humans have advanced far enough to know what is right or wrong.
> One thing I can't make up my mind about is the man does not have any control over his child to be. That doesn't seem to be right. It takes a man to have a child just like it takes a female. The female is the only one who gets to choose if she gets rid of the child. If everyone is supposed to be treated equally shouldn't the father of a child have some say in what happens to his child?



i agree. the father should have some say. and he should have to support the mother.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> here is a personal story...when i was younger, just after getting married, i became pregnant. i was using an IUD for birth control and not trying to be pregnant. but things happen. at about 4 months, i had a partial miscarriage. my dr had to order a chemical abortion to get the rest of it out of me so i wouldnt become infected and die. was i to be denied that right? i was doing things the "right" way and life happened. it was a miscarriage and abortion. i didnt lose a baby. i lost a blob of tissue that couldnt even be identified. so yes, it was a thing. not a person.


Nothing changes in that scenario


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

i would like to see a chart with the numbers of different reasons an abortion was performed. i would bet just using abortion as birth control was not as high as some people seem to think.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

HDRider said:


> Nothing changes in that scenario


what do you mean?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> what do you mean?


The SC ruling would not change anything related to the procedure you had


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> i agree. the father should have some say. and he should have to support the mother.


Most times they do not have a choice and have to support the child and it's mother also. It would be more equal if whoever wanted the child had to support that child.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

HDRider said:


> The SC ruling would not change anything related to the procedure you had


Thats a good thing. But then is it putting the reason an abortion is needed into someone elses hands?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

rbelfield said:


> Thats a good thing. But then is it putting the reason an abortion is needed into someone elses hands?


In your case it is just you and the doctor


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

HDRider said:


> In your case it is just you and the doctor


but where does that leave the 12 year old incest victims and the victims of rape? or the moms who want to be pregnant so bad but their baby has no brain? there are so many other reasons abortion is needed. its not just birth control. i think people lose sight of that.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Miss Kay said:


> I'm not for abortion and so glad I never had to make that choice but I am for freedom. I feel we are entering a time where our freedoms will be taken one at a time. If you are personally against abortion then you will be happy with this decision because you don't like it but I prefer the government stay out of our affairs. Next could be a reversal of marriage laws and of course if you hate gay people then you will be glad for that. Just know that we as a nation will have lost one freedom. Then it could be a disregard for separation of church and state which is great if you are a white, male, evangelical but there goes so many other freedoms. They are already pulling books from libraries in some states and refuse to teach real history in public schools because it doesn't make the white man look good. You may be glad that your kids pray as a group in class but what if your Muslim, Buddhist, or who knows what religion also wants to lead your kids in prayer. Do we dare reverse the protections of other civil rights too, I mean if your not a woman, black, Hispanic, etc., then maybe you see this is a good thing. If that all sounds great to you then you would understand how Germany slid into fascist nazism and the people cheered. It's all good when it is someone else's rights that are being taken but then one day they come for you and there is no one who cares. .


I am for freedom too ... such as the freedom and right of any human to choose for themselves what they do with their own bodies, and the freedom / right of a fetus / baby to live. I think the less government the better ... but at the same time, if pregnant women are unwilling to protect the lives of their babies, then I have no problem with others doing it for them. If a pregnant woman cannot legally get an abortion in one state, she will likely be able to do it in another state. If a pregnant woman is so determined to kill her baby that she would do it illegally, regardless of the potential for herself being harmed or killed ... that is unfortunate ... and whatever the results of her decision are, would be her own responsibility, for a choice she herself freely made.

Wanting freedom for a pregnant woman to murder her baby is no different than wanting everyone to be free to kill anyone for any reason.

It is not just only white, male, religious men who do not believe in abortion. Many people, including myself (and BTW, I am Scottish / native American, not white, male, or Christian), do not support abortion. Public schools are secular, so uh ... if kids want to pray at school, they are free to do so, regardless of their religion, but teachers and the schools are not supposed to be pushing any religion or requiring prayer at school. If you want your kids to mix school with religion, you are free to send your kids to a private religious school.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> rbelfield said:
> 
> 
> > what do you mean?
> ...


Actually, it could.

This ruling would pass all legislation of abortion rules back to the states. As a knee-jerk reaction to the partial-birth and infanticide insanity that we’re seeing from some states, I could imagine a state coming out with a zero-tolerance abortion ban.

I certainly wouldn’t support such a thing, nor would I call the cleaning up of a partial miscarriage as an abortion any more than I would call menstration or a failed insemination an abortion, but there may be states that do, and I would hope that it’s residents would quickly rectify that at the election box.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Actually, it could.
> 
> This ruling would pass all legislation of abortion rules back to the states. As a knee-jerk reaction to the partial-birth and infanticide insanity that we’re seeing from some states, I could imagine a state coming out with a zero-tolerance abortion ban.
> 
> I certainly wouldn’t support such a thing, nor would I call the cleaning up of a partial miscarriage as an abortion any more than I would call menstration or a failed insemination an abortion, but there may be states that do, and I would hope that it’s residents would quickly rectify that at the election box.


If the baby is dead inside the mother the doctor could still remove it


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I am happy that we can all discuss touchy subjects such as this like free adults. Conversations like this really do need to happen. Thank you moderators, for not censoring this.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

rbelfield said:


> but where does that leave the 12 year old incest victims and the victims of rape? or the moms who want to be pregnant so bad but their baby has no brain? there are so many other reasons abortion is needed. its not just birth control. i think people lose sight of that.


The 12 year-old incest or rape victim is good (horribly bad) example.

Either a fetus is a baby or it’s not. If it’s not, then it’s no one’s right to tell anyone else what they are or are not allowed to do with it. If someone can fairly convince me that there is a point before which a fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells, then I will be the first to jump on the bandwagon to fight for their right to have it removed in whatever method they want.

If, on the other hand, a fetus is a baby, then there is no circumstance in which it is OK to kill it that wouldn’t also be OK to kill a 6 month-old. For the sake of this discussion, say the 12 year-old is not discovered to be pregnant until the fetus is at four months, 20 weeks. Then, as distasteful as it might seem, any action taken to kill that fetus, with her consent, should carry an accessory to murder charge.

For the sake of illustration, say a young girl gives birth, and a DNA test discovers that the father is its grandfather. Would that be cause to kill the child? How would it be any different 1 day or 1 month before it was born?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> If the baby is dead inside the mother the doctor could still remove it


If the baby is dead inside the mother, removal is not an abortion. I could be wrong about terminology, but I believe she said partial miscarriage, which I took to mean that the pregnancy had self-terminated but not necessarily killed the fetus, yet, and that leaving it in place would mean that it would die soon, and put the mother at risk.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If the baby is dead inside the mother, removal is not an abortion. I could be wrong about terminology, but I believe she said partial miscarriage, which I took to mean that the pregnancy had self-terminated but not necessarily killed the fetus, yet, and that leaving it in place would mean that it would die soon, and put the mother at risk.


I thought the baby was dead, or the mother's life was in danger


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Determinations are made about allowing the termination of life support on humans each day based on brain activity above the level of motor activity. For a certain part of a fetus's gestation, there is no brain activity above motor activity. Maybe even the entire gestation in certain circumstances.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I thought the constitution says something about being born or breathing before having rights.





painterswife said:


> No, just asking because this is something I don't have a lot of information on but seems to be discussed with regards to this topic. I was hoping to see what others here say about it.


Is there something you can post to someone making that argument? I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I do have more than a passing familiarity with the document. I’m not aware of anything tying rights to breath in any of the founding documents. The only mentions of birth I can think of are in reference to citizenship and eligibility to be president.

Someone may be making a reference to something from a Federalist Paper, or some similar photo-constitutional debate, and, if so, that may fairly enter into the analysis of precedence, but it certainly wouldn’t be enough to settle it.

To counter that, in Alito’s complete disassembly of the fraudulent precedence claims in Roe, a compelling illustration is drawn for a fetus, even pre-quickening, to be a person in terms of murder and manslaughter law, going well back into the common law.

The pro-abortion activists who gave us Roe unabashedly hid precedence and fabricated new in its place. I highly recommend you read Alito’s alleged draft. It’s quite eye-opening to how dirty and lawless the majority justices were in legislating Roe. There’s even pages of citation, and two appendices showing exactly where the justices in 1973 lied.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Determinations are made about allowing the termination of life support on humans each day based on brain activity above the level of motor activity. For a certain part of a fetus's gestation, there is no brain activity above motor activity. Maybe even the entire gestation in certain circumstances.


That last sentence is absolutely not true. There is proof of mental function above motor well before birth.

That much was actually used for part of the trimester system that SCOTUS legislated via Roe.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That last sentence is absolutely not true. There is proof of mental function above motor well before birth.
> 
> That much was actually used for part of the trimester system that SCOTUS legislated via Roe.


The last sentence refers to a fetus whose brain is damaged or just does not progress past the brain stem. So I do believe it is absolutely true.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> I thought the baby was dead, or the mother's life was in danger


That could be. As I said, I’m not 100% on that terminology. The term abortion may be applied to the removal of a dead, miscarried fetus. If that is the case, and it is still legally termed an abortion, it appears that this ruling would revert the legislation of that back to the states. I would certainly hope that no state would legislate that way, and, if they do, that that state’s residents would quickly dispatch the careers of the numskull politicians who did it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> The last sentence refers to a fetus whose brain is damaged or just does not progress past the brain stem. So I do believe it is absolutely true.


So a brain-dead baby with no DNR or keep-alive order. That is an interesting case. I suppose, in that case, I would expect it left up to the mother AND father, as it should be if the child was 4 years-old.

But, unless and until the pro-abortionists can manage to get the federal legislature to come up with a legally codified definition of personhood, the states will just have to wrangle with those questions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So a brain-dead baby with no DNR or keep-alive order. That is an interesting case. I suppose, in that case, I would expect it left up to the mother AND father, as it should be if the child was 4 years-old.
> 
> But, unless and until the pro-abortionists can manage to get the federal legislature to come up with a legally codified definition of personhood, the states will just have to wrangle with those questions.


Have they not already codified that in law by allowing the withdrawal of life support of human bodies with no brain activity past that of motor function?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Have they not already codified that in law by allowing the withdrawal of life support of human bodies with no brain activity past that of motor function?


That’s exactly how I’m describing I would see it be handled. In the case of the brain dead, it’s legal for them to be removed from life support, but that only comes at the wishes of the next of kin. The court sometimes adjudicates it if multiple lines can’t agree, so, in the case of an about-to-be-born baby, that choice should be left up to the mother AND father- and on to the courts if they can’t agree.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That’s exactly how I’m describing I would see it be handled. In the case of the brain dead, it’s legal for them to be removed from life support, but that only comes at the wishes of the next of kin. The court sometimes adjudicates it if multiple lines can’t agree, so, in the case of an about-to-be-born baby, that choice should be left up to the mother AND father- and on to the courts if they can’t agree.


Why would a man be able to force a woman to carry something in her body if she does not wish it ( if there is no brain activity) I can't force a man to provide something life promoting of his body. Say a liver or plasma.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Why would a man be able to force a woman to carry something in her body if she does not wish it ( if there is no brain activity) I can't force a man to provide something life promoting of his body. Say a liver or plasma.


For the same reason that a man can be forced to provide financial support to a child he didn’t wish to raise- because it’s his child, too.

We’re coming out of an era where you pro-abortionists were able to force your belief that an unborn baby was somehow not a baby, through illegal extra-legislative means. Once the ruling comes out, if it’s similar to the draft from February, the states will no longer be bound by the judicial activism that your side managed to pull over the country 50 years ago.

Silly questions like the one you just asked will finally be recognized for their silliness. Start working on that legislation if you want to keep your silliness relevant.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> For the same reason that a man can be forced to provide financial support to a child he didn’t wish to raise- because it’s his child, too.
> 
> We’re coming out of an era where you pro-abortionists were able to force your belief that an unborn baby was somehow not a baby, through illegal extra-legislative means. Once the ruling comes out, if it’s similar to the draft from February, the states will no longer be bound by the judicial activism that your side managed to pull over the country 50 years ago.
> 
> Silly questions like the one you just asked will finally be recognized for their silliness. Start working on that legislation if you want to keep your silliness relevant.


Well. I believe that a man should be able to terminate his parental rights and not pay child support in several situations as long as it is done as soon as he knows or is informed the woman is pregnant or had a child of his. I don't think that he can start off being a father and then try to duck out of the situation. I don't believe a man should be trapped into fatherhood.

These are not silly questions. I am asking them of you and other posters so I can see where your line is. You did the same to me in another thread and I answered to the best of my ability and was not derogatory to you when I did that.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

I think both men and women have (or should have) rights to their children (assuming they are not abusive), and should take responsibility for their children. Either parent has (or should have) the right to give up their parental rights, if they choose to.

I don't think it's right for a woman to trap or trick a man into becoming a father, or for a man to rape a woman.

I also don't think it's right for a man to have no say in whether or not a woman aborts / murders / kills a fetus / baby / person, if he impregnated the woman but did not rape her.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

rbelfield said:


> i agree. the father should have some say. and he should have to support the mother.


He should have some say, and that should include the money.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> For the same reason that a man can be forced to provide financial support to a child he didn’t wish to raise- because it’s his child, too.
> 
> We’re coming out of an era where you pro-abortionists were able to force your belief that an unborn baby was somehow not a baby, through illegal extra-legislative means. Once the ruling comes out, if it’s similar to the draft from February, the states will no longer be bound by the judicial activism that your side managed to pull over the country 50 years ago.
> 
> Silly questions like the one you just asked will finally be recognized for their silliness. Start working on that legislation if you want to keep your silliness relevant.


Why should your belief or mine determine what anyone else considers a baby, fetus, collection of cells. Thats the whole problem with this situation.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Do we want the government to define a fetus at some particular stage to be not a human and to define pregnancy as a potentially life threatening condition? That would make it awfully easy for folks to say that a particular segment of society should be forced to have an abortion, for their own good. 

It's hard to grant freedom to all parties sometimes. Someone's freedom could end up infringing another's. It's unfortunate and takes careful planning to work out.

We are told that if all of these pregnancies went to term that it would overwhelm us with the dregs of society. It seems a plausible argument, but the folks making it turn around and tell us we need open, unsecure borders to have enough people to cut grass, put on shingles and process chickens.

We are told that corpses would pile in the streets from DIY abortions. How better to prove that to those who don't believe that would be a problem in today's world. By leaving the matter up to states, we could see real and current data. If people in Mississippi were dropping like flies while New York was unchanged there would be concrete data. Somewhere in the mix, there would be a state that crafted the perfect law, that placated people on both sides, and that state would be emulated by others. This is the beauty of leaving things up to the states, different strategies can be tried, great successes and epic failures can be documented and reported.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I think both men and women have (or should have) rights to their children (assuming they are not abusive), and should take responsibility for their children. Either parent has (or should have) the right to give up their parental rights, if they choose to.
> 
> I don't think it's right for a woman to trap or trick a man into becoming a father, or for a man to rape a woman.
> 
> I also don't think it's right for a man to have no say in whether or not a woman aborts / murders / kills a fetus / baby / person, if he impregnated the woman but did not rape her.


I see too many reasons that forcing a woman to carry a fetus past the early stages of gestation should not be a man's choice. I don't think a man can really grasp all those reasons unless you yourself have been pregnant. It might not be completely fair in life but a woman must carry the pregnancy so it has to be her decision ultimately.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I see too many reasons that forcing a woman to carry a fetus past the early stages of gestation should not be a man's choice. I don't think a man can really grasp all those reasons unless you yourself have been pregnant. It might not be completely fair in life but a woman must carry the pregnancy so it has to be her decision ultimately.


My understanding is that men can get pregnant. Are the social justice warriors wrong? Personally, I don't believe that a man can get pregnant. But, i keep getting told that I'm wrong....🤔


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The term abortion may be applied to the removal of a dead, miscarried fetus.


The term "abortion" means the termination of pregnancy whether it's a medical abortion—be it mechanically or chemically—or a spontaneous abortion (which many people euphemistically call a "miscarriage").


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> As a knee-jerk reaction to the partial-birth and infanticide insanity that we’re seeing from some states, I could imagine a state coming out with a zero-tolerance abortion ban.


I believe "Misery" is in the process of trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to leave the state to have an abortion in a state where it's legal. And the less said about Tx the better …


----------



## NEPA (Feb 21, 2015)

Killing an unborn child is a terrible thing, But so is putting a pregnant woman in jail or forcing her to use a coat hanger. There is no easy answer to this. 

That's part of Washington's problem. They always think there are easy answers to complex problems.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> the pro-abortionists


Goddess, I HATE that term. There are people who are in favour of* CHOICE*, and those who aren't. I wouldn't call them "pro-life" as they're usually the first to advocate for military use and the death penalty—I tend to refer to them as "pro-fœtus" because their interest in the new baby ceases with its birth (no healthcare (not that they're into pre-natal care in the first place), necessary social services, etc.).


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> Why should your belief or mine determine what anyone else considers a baby, fetus, collection of cells. Thats the whole problem with this situation.


Because we live in a society, and, for that society to work, we need the rule of law. In order for the rule of law to work, we need legal definitions. Without a definition for what is murder, a murder could never be prosecuted.

The legal definition for personhood in this case becomes especially important when you consider that there once was a time when dark-skinned people were not considered “people” in sufficient capacity to warrant the prosecution of murders committed against them.

Those of us who are pro-life or anti-choice, however you’d like to call it, see unborn human beings as human beings, and the lack of protection that our society provides them, under the rule of law, to be no less egregious than the lack of protection we once afforded dark-skinned people.

Whether the outcome matches your belief, my belief, or some compromise of the two, a hard legal definition of personhood is of critical importance to the rule of law in our society.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

colourfastt said:


> I believe "Misery" is in the process of trying to pass legislation that would make it illegal for a woman to leave the state to have an abortion in a state where it's legal. And the less said about Tx the better …


You know, as much as I want to see all elective abortion to be abolished, I tend to think I would be against that limitation placed on the right to free movement.

That said, if the people of the state of Missouri defines an abortion as murder, we have to think of it in that context. Would it be that unreasonable for a State to say that any murderers in their state, even if not eligible for prosecution of such crime in that state, would be subject to some penalty?

When New York abolished slavery, the slave owners in New York were left with a choice.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

colourfastt said:


> Goddess, I HATE that term. There are people who are in favour of* CHOICE*, and those who aren't. I wouldn't call them "pro-life" as they're usually the first to advocate for military use and the death penalty—I tend to refer to them as "pro-fœtus" because their interest in the new baby ceases with its birth (no healthcare (not that they're into pre-natal care in the first place), necessary social services, etc.).


I don’t really care what you choose to call me. In my opinion, the slavery abolitionists also earned the term pro-lifer, and I see our abortion-abolitionist movement as being no different in substance.

I also believe that you pro-abortionists earned the label you wear. If there truly is nothing wrong with abortion, then own it. If there is something bad about abortion, then own why you support it.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Well. I believe that a man should be able to terminate his parental rights and not pay child support in several situations as long as it is done as soon as he knows or is informed the woman is pregnant or had a child of his. I don't think that he can start off being a father and then try to duck out of the situation. I don't believe a man should be trapped into fatherhood.
> 
> These are not silly questions. I am asking them of you and other posters so I can see where your line is. You did the same to me in another thread and I answered to the best of my ability and was not derogatory to you when I did that.


Then that is yet another topic on which we disagree. Maternal child support is, in my opinion, a just law, but, you’ll notice, it is also law that is left to the states to decide, as it should be.

Don’t attempt to take the high road with me. You’ve long since worn out that trope. Have you managed to find that Remington ad where we supposedly advertised the Bushmaster as being more effective at killing people quickly? No? Just going to continue to ignore that slander? Yeah? Enjoy your low road, pumpkin.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Then that is yet another topic on which we disagree. Maternal child support is, in my opinion, a just law, but, you’ll notice, it is also law that is left to the states to decide, as it should be.
> 
> Don’t attempt to take the high road with me. You’ve long since worn out that trope. Have you managed to find that Remington ad where we supposedly advertised the Bushmaster as being more effective at killing people quickly? No? Just going to continue to ignore that slander? Yeah? Enjoy your low road, pumpkin.


Personal attacks ruin good threads.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Personal attacks ruin good threads.


Then you ruin them all the time. Don’t act like you’re clean as the driven snow, Mrs. Painter.

One of us has never had to become a sock puppet. The other one is you.

Still ignoring the requests for evidence to back up your slanderous statements about Remington? You made the statement. All you have to do is provide the link… or admit that you lied.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

I have always thought it greatly interesting that men have such strong opinions about what women should be "allowed" to do, when there is truly no comparison for a man. They can't get pregnant, therefore have no idea what it would be like to be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason it happened). 

Unless and until there is some definitive proof of when actual "life" begins, I don't believe there will be a solution that is truly acceptable to all. If that never happens, we are doomed to disagree forever.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

BadOregon said:


> I have always thought it greatly interesting that men have such strong opinions about what women should be "allowed" to do, when there is truly no comparison for a man. They can't get pregnant, therefore have no idea what it would be like to be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason it happened).
> 
> Unless and until there is some definitive proof of when actual "life" begins, I don't believe there will be a solution that is truly acceptable to all. If that never happens, we are doomed to disagree forever.


We know exactly when life begins. The pro-abortionists have never taken issue with that. Their position has relied on the opinion that the living human is, at some point, not a person; hence the debate about “personhood”. If you want more substance on that debate, read the works of the pro-slavery movement. They also crafted a framework under which a human could not necessarily be a person. There might be something of interest there for you.

As far as there not being an analog to pregnancy in men, I don’t have anything to suggest but taking that one up with God. There is a Court higher than the SCOTUS, and my experience is that It grants certiorari to every single case brought before It.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Who is the "we" that you speak of. I have never had it definitively proven to me one way or the other. Therein lies the problem. Perhaps one side or the other feels life starts at one point, but the other side feels it starts at a different point.
Who decides that? 

Sorry, but comparing a clump of cells without a heartbeat or brain function to slavery is NOT the same thing. There has to be a dividing line somewhere between cells and life. 

I am not pro abortion as you put it, nor am I pro life. I do have a huge problem with the government (any government)
"allowing" or not allowing. Where does it stop? Or what other things will they not allow? They are entirely too involved in our personal lives as it is. It is a slippery slope and it scares the bejeebers out of me the direction it is heading.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

painterswife said:


> I am fine with staying in this thread. I hope others will respond to my posts.


Wow! I never said anything about leaving this thread? I simply pointed to an additional bit of very good info. What a bizarre response…


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

It’s simple. Fetus out if the womb becomes a person. No need to make it complicated for anyone. Those that are trying to make it complicated with heartbeat, or whatever, have a obvious agenda, that is not the best for society or the people actually involved and dealing with the situation.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Would that everyone saw it that way.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> It’s simple. Fetus out if the womb becomes a person. No need to make it complicated for anyone. Those that are trying to make it complicated with heartbeat, or whatever, have a obvious agenda, that is not the best for society or the people actually involved and dealing with the situation.


I never considered all life being precious as an agenda, but it is an interesting perspective.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> It’s simple. Fetus out if the womb becomes a person. No need to make it complicated for anyone. Those that are trying to make it complicated with heartbeat, or whatever, have a obvious agenda, that is not the best for society or the people actually involved and dealing with the situation.


Which part has to be out of the womb? If they pull it out, ass first, and jam a set of scissors into its spinal column so that it can’t thrash about while they dismember it before pulling the head out of mama, it’s OK because it wasn’t a person yet?

Trying to force it to be a simple problem doesn’t make it one.

ETA: Adding to quote, since your answer would be as valid as any other:


BadOregon said:


> Would that everyone saw it that way.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

The Moloch worshippers are showing their cards.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

BadOregon said:


> Who is the "we" that you speak of. I have never had it definitively proven to me one way or the other. Therein lies the problem. Perhaps one side or the other feels life starts at one point, but the other side feels it starts at a different point.
> Who decides that?
> 
> Sorry, but comparing a clump of cells without a heartbeat or brain function to slavery is NOT the same thing. There has to be a dividing line somewhere between cells and life.
> ...


The royal “we”, if that helps. Roe nor Casey settled on an issue of when life began. They both labored to establish a point at which an accepted human life could be considered a “non-person” in order to abdicate guilt over its subjugation of right, up to and including its premeditated murder.

Slavery is relevant to the abortion debate because exactly the same rhetorical gymnastics were employed in both cases. Have you read Roe? Have you read Dred Scott? The SCOTUS, in both cases, had no choice but to acknowledge that the subject of the debated right was a human life. The science of the matter wouldn’t allow them a straight-faced denial of that.

Instead, they knew, going in, what they needed the outcome to be, and crafted an opinion that allowed them to acknowledge the life, but categorize it as somehow less deserving of right in order for them to arrive at the non-personhood that they needed in order to allow them to treat it the way they wanted.

Both Dred Scott and Roe were cases of the judicial tail wagging the legislative dog in order to allow an absolution of guilt over something that all involved knew was wrong.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

It is very telling that every description of abortion that has been posted are the partial birth/dismemberment ones. There is no comparing that type of abortion to one that occurs at say 6 or 8 weeks. 

My personal experience tells me that the clump of cells at that time period is not a living baby. And that I am glad I am past the age where it affects my choice. 

Other than that, we will just have to agree to disagree. I see your point and it is valid, but I do not agree with it.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Which part has to be out of the womb? If they pull it out, ass first, and jam a set of scissors into its spinal column so that it can’t thrash about while they dismember it before pulling the head out of mama, it’s OK because it wasn’t a person yet?
> 
> Trying to force it to be a simple problem doesn’t make it one.
> 
> ETA: Adding to quote, since your answer would be as valid as any other:


Sounds like someone is trying to make it complicated. Keep it simple, any part out of womb.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

colourfastt said:


> Goddess, I HATE that term. There are people who are in favour of* CHOICE*, and those who aren't. I wouldn't call them "pro-life" as they're usually the first to advocate for military use and the death penalty—I tend to refer to them as "pro-fœtus" because their interest in the new baby ceases with its birth (no healthcare (not that they're into pre-natal care in the first place), necessary social services, etc.).


It does seem that you prefer not to be categorized by a general term, yet you attempt to break down the opposition into as simple a category as you can, regardless of its accuracy.

I find it interesting that many often “learn” about the beliefs of others from those within their own culture, sans actually listening to the opposing culture and learning what their beliefs actually are, from the “opposing culture” itself. It’s a political issue that is often intended to stir emotional voting responses. Curiously; I don’t believe I have read where anyone on this thread fits the parameters you describe above.

God knows I’m not perfect (possibly the least perfect person I know is my own self), so I often remind myself to look in the mirror. I highly recommend this technique.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

bubba42 said:


> The interesting aspect of my first post is that none have given any views on specifically when the mother bestows the right to control an infant daughters body, on the infant daughter (as the infant clearly does not initially have any right to self protection, and following that logic, neither would the mother have initially had that right).
> 
> Some interesting aspects a few may be unaware of: The problem isn’t abortions as I and every Christian I personally know view it; rather it is defining when life begins (which should include consideration of some of the aspects mentioned), and thus at which point beyond that definition would such an act be infanticide. For example; as I understand from my Christian research and confirmed by some Jewish friends, traditional Jewish belief held that “life” wasn’t manifest until the infant drew its first breath (God breathing the ‘breath of life’ into the child). In most Christian traditions, the challenge in defining this stemmed from Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…”. “In the Islamic tradition, this point is generally recognized as 120 days after conception…” (Islam and the Beginning of Human Life | Bill of Health). These are fundamental aspects that define moral/ethical decision-points that have to be addressed based on the various worldviews.
> 
> ...


Status update: after nearly 100 responses, and almost 1000 views, none who favor keeping Roe V Wade have answered the question I posed, and have often asked over the years: 

(summary) - If a woman “controls her own bodily choices” (not my words), and has the right to choose an abortion, then logically her own mother had that same right. 

Thus, the woman (who has the right to choose) did not originally possess that right until her own mother “bestowed” that right upon her when deciding not to abort the child (who grew to become the woman in this example). When did this bestowal of rights to the woman occur? It cannot logically be a right the woman was born with…


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Hiro said:


> The Moloch worshippers are showing their cards.


Just because you don't agree with someone is no reason to start calling names. I was under the impression that we are all adults here having a reasonable discussion.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> Sounds like someone is trying to make it complicated. Keep it simple, any part out of womb.


So, a born premature baby say at 6 months gestation is a person, but, a fetus at 8.5 months of gestation is not?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> I am happy that we can all discuss touchy subjects such as this like free adults. Conversations like this really do need to happen. Thank you moderators, for not censoring this.



Mods have no problem with civil discussion but I can assure you that discussion will stop being civil sooner than later.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Life is precious and fleeting. Destroying it's potential should not be an arbitrary decision.

Look at the achievements of certain individuals. Most are very unremarkable, takes billions of individual masses of cells to turn out one that makes a real mark on the boring tapestry of humanity. But each makes a mark nonetheless.

The greatest contribution of some is to provide a stellar bad example. This country was founded on the principle of allowing the individual to shoot his shot, hit or miss, win, lose or draw. Allowing those that have had their turn at bat advocate to deny others the same luxury doesn't seem just. 

Seems like in the years of RVW we haven't cut down on homelessness, squalor, ignorance, apathy, greed or any other untidy facet of humanity. Maybe if people were forced to recognize that life is precious and fleeting some would place more value in it.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

My social and political mantra is MYOB - Mind Your Own Business. That has two facets- If it IS your business, YOU take care of it: if it is NOT your business, stay out of it!.
Personally, I am against the abortion of a healthy fetus of mine. If someone aborted a healthy fetus of mine I would abhor and despise her for all eternity. That said, I would still cede her right to have an abortion. On the other hand, I would expect a defective fetus to be aborted. 

1. I have had an epiphany: George Soros must be financing the anti-abortion activists. That's right. There is no issue that drives more independents and moderate Republicans to vote for the Democrat. The Democrats ran entirely on this issue in 2018, citing the slew of anti-abortion laws in 2017, and took over the House.
2. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House (and, incidentally, only 2 heartbeats from the Predidency) due entirely to the anti-choice legislation of 2017 etc.
3. If you give the State the power to ban abortions, you have then given the State the power to mandate abortions. The State should not be given this power.
4. The clause to allow abortion in case of rape or incest completely undermines the moral authority of the anti-abortion argument. You can't argue about the rights of the baby, except for cases you make up. That is playing God.
6. A woman should not be forced to birth a rapist's baby.
7. A woman should not be forced to birth a baby with birth defects.
8. God (or Nature) is the most prolific abortionist. The majority of pregnancies end in miscarriages, in other words, God's abortions. So, God doesn't seem to have anything against abortion.
9. If you give the State the right to ban abortion, you are saying the State owns all women and children (and men too) and can make decisions over their bodies. The choice to abort or keep a baby should be made by the family. But ultimately, with the mother. The Democrats have waged a 100 year pogrom to destroy the family, don't support them.
10. If abortion was legal in 1961, we wouldn't have suffered 8 years of the Despot.
11. Unwanted feti become unwanted babies. Unwanted babies become unwanted toddlers. Unwanted toddlers become unwanted children. Unwanted children become unwanted adolescents. Unwanted adolescents become unwanted teenagers. Unwanted teenagers become juvenile delinquents. Juvenile delinquents become criminals. Not all of course, but the preponderance. Giuliani loves to take credit for reducing crime in NYC, but the crime rate sank just at the time the first wave of abortions would have become adults. 
12. It is absurd and morally unteneble to punish abortionists, but not the mother. If your spouse hires a hit man to kill you, the spouse is the primary perpetrator. How is abortion not the same?
13. From the individual's standpoint, if you are a woman who believes in abortion, choose. If you are a woman who does not believe in abortion, have the baby. If you are a man who believes in choice, have fun. If you are a man who does not believe in abortion, make your position known to anyone in whom you plan to deposit your sperm. No need for the State to get involved.
14. It is hypocrisy to say you believe in freedom of religion, then say you want to ban abortion for everyone based on your religious beliefs.
15. This country was founded on the premise that social issues should be handled best by social presures. The State should not be given power over the individual.
16. Most importantly, if both sides would take a step back and let go of their self-righteous indignation, they both would realize that if they spent the billions of dollars and enormous amount of time and energy fighting each other, and instead joined forces to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place, there would be far, far fewer abortions.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

There are a lot of complexities involved in any discussion about abortion and it seems pointless to me to demand abortion be abolished without understanding why they are happening and come up with constructive solutions. 

I made the choice I was comfortable with but I honestly couldn’t have raised 3 kids and gotten an education without my family and not many have the level of support I did.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

painterswife said:


> I am asking about only the constitution and the laws that arise from that.


Well, the 10th amendment basically says it ain't the federal governments job to care.

It's up to the states.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

BadOregon said:


> I have always thought it greatly interesting that men have such strong opinions about what women should be "allowed" to do, when there is truly no comparison for a man. They can't get pregnant, therefore have no idea what it would be like to be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason it happened).


What I posted to FB yesterday:

“He who hath not a uterus should shuteth the f**k up” Fallopians 13:13


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

Vjk said:


> 3. If you give the State the power to ban abortions, *you have then given the State the power to mandate abortions*. The State should not be given this power.


Not just this but any medical procedure. For example, if the Vice-President or a member of Congress needs a kidney transplant, then you could be "mandated" to provide the kidney.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

colourfastt said:


> What I posted to FB yesterday:
> 
> “He who hath not a uterus should shuteth the f**k up” Fallopians 13:13


Then, by that standard alone, Roe should be overturned.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> Sounds like someone is trying to make it complicated. Keep it simple, any part out of womb.


I’m not forcing anything to be complicated. I’m just illustrating where you attempts to make it simple fail.

That’s the same problem Roe and Casey created by trying to simplify the issue. Roe, again, couldn’t deny life, so they invented personhood. In order to define personhood, they concocted the trimester framework. When it was proven that the trimester scheme didn’t work, Casey overturned Roe, and based it on viability. Viability, it turns out, is a subjective measure as well, so it can’t be a basis for equal protection under the law.

Defining something as a person is no small matter. Your attempt to cram this round problem into a square hole creates a situation where persons will be denied their rights in order to fit into your simple framework.

Twins, conceived at exactly the same moment, developed healthy, and allowed to gestate until the normal term, the first being born becomes a person, with rights, the moment it’s head crowns, but the next one in line, ready to be born moments later, is not a person, and can be chopped up, alive, in the womb.

If there’s ever a workable compromise to be found on this issue, it’s going to require intellectually honest discussion and objective consideration of the facts and realities. Trying to define personhood by the person’s relation to the womb is not workable any more than Roe’s trimester system, or Casey’s hypothetical viability.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

BadOregon said:


> It is very telling that every description of abortion that has been posted are the partial birth/dismemberment ones. There is no comparing that type of abortion to one that occurs at say 6 or 8 weeks.
> 
> My personal experience tells me that the clump of cells at that time period is not a living baby. And that I am glad I am past the age where it affects my choice.
> 
> Other than that, we will just have to agree to disagree. I see your point and it is valid, but I do not agree with it.


The discussion has to start somewhere, and the pro-abortionists currently have legislation on deck that allows mothers to demand that their natural born babies be left to starve to death without repercussion. That is an even more horrible death than the ones discussed when illustrating the procedures of abortion in use today.

When we discuss the brutal procedures related to late-term abortions, we’re describing a reality that we were told, during the debate of Roe, would never happen because it was accepted that that would be depraved beyond what anyone would ever want. Now, just 50 years later, we’re being forced to consider not only that reality, which is currently done, but even more horrible ways to murder babies.

If you don’t like the pro-life side citing examples of horrendous abortion procedures, don’t blame the pro-lifer. Blame the pro-abortionists who forced us into this reality, and are now arguing to go even further.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I wish some of the pro abortion folks viewed the second amendment the same way they view the abortion debate. We can have arms. This should mean that even school children should be allowed to carry fully automatic weapons and shoulder launched surface to air missiles. That is what late term abortions look like to pro life people. Couldn't just be happy that Roe affirmed the right of the woman, and breath a big sigh of relief for victims of rape, incest and those with medical problems. Nope, had to take a victory lap and go all the way to partial birth. We wouldn't be where we are now if they hadn't flexed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Personhood is already addressed in the law. It is based on higher brain activity. We allow family members to remove life support not based on a heartbeat but on higher brain activity.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Personhood is already addressed in the law. It is based on higher brain activity. We allow family members to remove life support not based on a heartbeat but on higher brain activity.


I remember you being such a fan of the SC ruling in favor of abortion on demand. You used to rub our faces in it.

The worm turned.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> I remember you being such a fan of the SC ruling in favor of abortion on demand. You used to rub our faces in it.
> 
> The worm turned.


I believe it is a woman's right to make decisions about her own pregnancy. That has not changed. If the worm turned once it can turn again.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> I believe it is a woman's right to make decisions about her own pregnancy. That has not changed. If the worm turned once it can turn again.


It isn't just her own pregnancy. Trying to hold onto talking point terminology and using language like that only makes it so in your mind.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> It isn't just her own pregnancy. Trying to hold onto talking point terminology and using language like that only makes it so in your mind.


There is a word for that


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> It isn't just her own pregnancy. Trying to hold onto talking point terminology and using language like that only makes it so in your mind.


Is a woman allowed to make the decision about whether a man gets snipped? She may be able to offer her opinion but no she does not get a say in the end. Pregnancy is a medical decision for a woman and her significant other does not get to make a decision about that.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Your opinion is just that.
You haven't had children correct?
Has your husband ever been a father?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> There is a word for that


It makes one recall the CRT debates on HT last year between a member who just swore there was no such thing being taught in public schools. Then another one who had no skin in the game tried to agree with her out of spite for parents fighting it.
Well, that was about controlling the language as well and of course time has proven CRT is and was being taught in schools.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

GTX63 said:


> Your opinion is just that.
> You haven't had children correct?
> Has your husband ever been a father?


You believe that I have never had children because of partial bits of info shared by me or other HT posters. You don't know the truth. You don't have the right to know the truth. Your personal attacks definitely mean I won't be sharing that info with you. Just remember you don't know the lives others have lived.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> It makes one recall the CRT debates on HT last year between a member who just swore there was no such thing being taught in public schools. Then another one who had no skin in the game tried to agree with her out of spite for parents fighting it.
> Well, that was about controlling the language as well and of course time has proven CRT is and was being taught in schools.


Was she autistic?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

painterswife said:


> You believe that I have never had children because of partial bits of info shared by me or other HT posters. You don't know the truth. You don't have the right to know the truth. Your personal attacks definitely mean I won't be sharing that info with you. Just remember you don't know the lives others have lived.


Claiming to be attacked in almost every thread becomes like crying wolf.
It doesn't sell here.
We don't believe you because you have a documented history of making up facts and stories.
The latest one was about Remington. Should I expand on that?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> Was she autistic?


I think she worked in the CRT kitchen making Koolaide and was dipping the powder.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> It isn't just her own pregnancy. Trying to hold onto talking point terminology and using language like that only makes it so in your mind.



In some cases, it is. I’m not sure if there are solutions but I can’t see any benefit in forcing a woman to contact an abusive spouse to get consent. 

The reasons women have abortions are varied and I don’t feel the is a simple solution.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> In some cases, it is. I’m not sure if there are solutions but I can’t see any benefit in forcing a woman to contact an abusive spouse to get consent.
> 
> The reasons women have abortions are varied and I don’t feel the is a simple solution.


I agree.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> In some cases, it is. I’m not sure if there are solutions but I can’t see any benefit in forcing a woman to contact an abusive spouse to get consent.
> 
> The reasons women have abortions are varied and I don’t feel the is a simple solution.


My grandmother told my mother many years ago "Don't name a critter you plan to eat". 
I think that bit of wisdom is applicable here.

There will always be exceptions, always. Being able to discuss that in an open and honest manner can be beneficial to everyone.
But purposely using language and trending terminology in order to steer the discussion or dehumanize a pregancy is dishonest.
I will also say that one thing that many pro life proponents do not consider is the additional burden on tax payers/charity organizations to assist is shouldering the financial weight of protecting and raising a child saved from abortion. It would be signigificant.


----------



## Digitalis (Aug 20, 2021)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I’m not forcing anything to be complicated. ....
> 
> If there’s ever a workable compromise to be found on this issue, it’s going to require intellectually honest discussion and objective consideration of the facts and realities. ...


I wish everyone had the intellectual honesty to recognize that this is a complicated, difficult, and important subject. But because it is so difficult and important it tends to quickly get heated, and when people get emotional the rational portion of the brain shuts down.

If we look through history and nature the question of where to draw the line is much wider than anything discussed here. At one end of the spectrum parents had the right to kill their children long after they were born. Killing them shortly after birth was quite common. Vikings would kill their healthy baby girls if they had dark hair.

This is consistent with the concept of people not being fully their own: masters own their slaves, husbands own their wives, parents own their children. When you own a living thing you have the right to kill it. At least we can agree that slavery is wrong, husbands don't own their wives, and parents can't kill their born children.

At the other end of the spectrum we have religious teachings that a woman's eggs and a man's sperm is life, and masturbation and birth control is a form of killing. This was a not uncommon view in this country just a few decades ago.

It's so easy to get caught up in your own paradigm. I think it's helpful to step back and acknowledge the breadth of perspectives on this difficult subject.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I believe it is a woman's right to make decisions about her own pregnancy. That has not changed. If the worm turned once it can turn again.


Worm can crawl straight to a state where like-minded worms can do that to their heart's desire. I think that is the main issue in this decision. The federal government has no constitutional authority here. That works both ways. If highly religious people elect representatives in Mississippi that enact legislation prohibiting abortion, more socially liberal people in California can elect representatives to enact legislation that enables abortion. If residents don't feel well represented in their state, they are free to vote with their feet.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Babylon Bee, kek:

Moloch issues warning


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

NEPA said:


> Killing an unborn child is a terrible thing, But so is putting a pregnant woman in jail or forcing her to use a coat hanger. There is no easy answer to this.
> 
> That's part of Washington's problem. They always think there are easy answers to complex problems.


No one forces anyone to use a coat hanger to murder a baby. That is a choice that could be made by women, but is absolutely not forced.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

colourfastt said:


> Goddess, I HATE that term. There are people who are in favour of* CHOICE*, and those who aren't. I wouldn't call them "pro-life" as they're usually the first to advocate for military use and the death penalty—I tend to refer to them as "pro-fœtus" because their interest in the new baby ceases with its birth (no healthcare (not that they're into pre-natal care in the first place), necessary social services, etc.).


The term 'pro-abortionists' is just a brief and simple description of people who believe in the choice to murder babies. The term 'pro-life' is a term that simply and briefly describes people who believe in the right of babies to live and be legally protected from being murdered, like every other person is. Making a choice for your own body only (such as choosing to or not to get the covid-19 'vaccine') is not the same as making a choice to kill another person (such as a living person inside of the body of a pregnant woman).


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> It’s simple. Fetus out if the womb becomes a person. No need to make it complicated for anyone. Those that are trying to make it complicated with heartbeat, or whatever, have a obvious agenda, that is not the best for society or the people actually involved and dealing with the situation.


This really seems to boil down to:
1. what people consider is a person
2. If and when the ghost / spirit of a person enters the body of a fetus
3. Whether abortion laws are up to the feds (laws that apply to everyone in all states) or each state (laws in each state applies only to those in each state)

Personally, I am not an atheist, or Christian, but I do believe in divinity and spirituality. If you believe in divinity (no matter your religion), and you believe that people are more than just a clump of cells, then we are not just talking about physical biological human body parts ... we are also talking about the human spirit. I believe that the spirit exists before the body is detectable, and that a fetus is not a thing, but a person, long before birth. People don't just all of the sudden exist. It takes time to develop the body and spirit of a person. Just because we cannot see it, does not mean it does not exist. You can't see air with the naked eye either, but we all breath it until our biological bodies die.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> This really seems to boil down to:
> 1. what people consider is a person
> 2. If and when the ghost / spirit of a person enters the body of a fetus
> 3. Whether abortion laws are up to the feds (laws that apply to everyone in all states) or each state (laws in each state applies only to those in each state)
> ...


Do you believe it is a person when the egg is fertilized?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

barnbilder said:


> I wish some of the pro abortion folks viewed the second amendment the same way they view the abortion debate. We can have arms. This should mean that even school children should be allowed to carry fully automatic weapons and shoulder launched surface to air missiles. That is what late term abortions look like to pro life people. Couldn't just be happy that Roe affirmed the right of the woman, and breath a big sigh of relief for victims of rape, incest and those with medical problems. Nope, had to take a victory lap and go all the way to partial birth. We wouldn't be where we are now if they hadn't flexed.


If a woman becomes pregnant due to rape or incest, it is very unfortunate for her, but that does not justify the murder of her baby and it is not the baby's fault if that is how he / she was concieved. The only thing that changes abortion from murder to a life saving medical procedure, is if that procedure actually prevents the death of the baby and/or pregnant woman. Killing a baby because you don't want it is a really selfish excuse and puny attempt at justifying the murder of a baby.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Personhood is already addressed in the law. It is based on higher brain activity. We allow family members to remove life support not based on a heartbeat but on higher brain activity.


Life support is only removed if a person is unable to live without it ... very different than murdering babies who would be just fine if allowed to live.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I believe it is a woman's right to make decisions about her own pregnancy. That has not changed. If the worm turned once it can turn again.


Making your own decisions about your own body is not the same as making a choice to kill someone else that temporarily lives inside of your body.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Is a woman allowed to make the decision about whether a man gets snipped? She may be able to offer her opinion but no she does not get a say in the end. Pregnancy is a medical decision for a woman and her significant other does not get to make a decision about that.


Women have no part in the creation of men's junk, and therefore do not have the right to choose for men whether or not the men get snipped. Women also do not get pregnant without men, because a fetus requires both man and woman for conception to occur, which is why both men and women should have equal say in what happens to their (not just her) babies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> Who is the "we" that you speak of. I have never had it definitively proven to me one way or the other. Therein lies the problem. Perhaps one side or the other feels life starts at one point, but the other side feels it starts at a different point.
> Who decides that?
> 
> Sorry, but comparing a clump of cells without a heartbeat or brain function to slavery is NOT the same thing. There has to be a dividing line somewhere between cells and life.
> ...


If that cell or “clump of cells” is not alive why be concerned with them at all? If on the other hand they are alive and then deserve the right to live as any other human being.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Evons hubby said:


> If that cell or “clump of cells” is not alive why be concerned with them at all? If on the other hand they are alive and then deserve the right to live as any other human being.


How are you doing?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Making your own decisions about your own body is not the same as making a choice to kill someone else that temporarily lives inside of your body.


I understand and respect you line. It just happens to be different than mine. I personally would not have an abortion after 12 to 15 weeks. I believe there is human tissue and organs but no higher brain activity and definitely no person, just the possibility of one until after 15 weeks or so. I don't believe abortions should happen after 20 weeks without a medical reason, mother or fetuses. I am willing to reevaluate all of this as science progresses. 

We now allow the removal of life support from human bodies that have no higher brain activity and I am okay with that line. I don’t believe there is a soul delivered to a fetus. I don't believe a heart beat makes a person.

I think discussion on this is important. I don't believe in violence or threats against anyone because their view is different than mine.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> How are you doing?


Still hanging in there!


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Do you believe it is a person when the egg is fertilized?


Sortof. I believe each person was, always has been, is, and always will be, a person (maybe not a person in a human body, but a person / spirit / ghost, nonetheless). Life as a human, in a human body, I believe begins at conception. However, I do not see abortion as a black and white issue with no gray areas between. I don't believe that it should be outlawed with no exceptions. For example: 

1. I believe that people should take responsibility for their actions. If they do not want to become a parent, then it is their job to prevent pregnancy (i.e., abstinence, birth control, condoms, Queen Anne's Lace, etc.). However, I understand that a woman can become pregnant even if such precautions were taken. In this case, I don't think it wrong to use the plan B / morning after pill or Queen Anne's Lace to prevent the possibility of pregnancy within the first 8 weeks (preferrably the day after, but at least within 8 weeks, because the development of pain receptors begins at 7.5-15 weeks of pregnancy), which could result in the loss of a growing fetus. Definitely a gray area.
2. If abortion is the only way to protect the life of a pregnant woman, then I do not consider abortion to be murder, but rather a necessary medical procedure. Another gray area.
3. I understand that pregnancy can be the result of rape or incest, but that is not the baby's fault, and the baby does not deserve to be murdered for what the rapist or participants of incest did. If it is known that incest will absolutely cause the baby to die before or shortly after birth, or to be deformed, or to be dependent on others to survive for the entire lifetime of the baby, then maybe abortion would be better for the baby. Again ... a gray area.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I understand and respect you line. It just happens to be different than mine. I personally would not have an abortion after 12 to 15 weeks. I believe there is human tissue and organs but no higher brain activity and definitely no person, just the possibility of one until after 15 weeks or so. I don't believe abortions should happen after 20 weeks without a medical reason, mother or fetuses. I am willing to reevaluate all of this as science progresses.
> 
> We now allow the removal of life support from human bodies that have no higher brain activity and I am okay with that line. I don’t believe there is a soul delivered to a fetus. I don't believe a heart beat makes a person.
> 
> I think discussion on this is important. I don't believe in violence or threats against anyone because their view is different than mine.


I do not believe that a person (spirit / ghost) requires a heart, brain, or any other biological body part to exist ... mind over matter stuff ... my view on this is ... from a programmer for 20+ years / mother / grandmother perspective, and based on my own personal OBE and NDE experiences ... it seems to me that consciousness (including spirit, soul, mind, psyche, ghost) exists forever (with and without a physical body, regardless of religion), and that a brain is used by a person (spirit / ghost) to process individual consciousness, much as computer hardware would be the equivalent of a physical body (brain, heart, etc.) and software processes information (from consciousness), in order to function and interact in this world ... so definitely a person. But that's just me, and I don't know anyone else that sees it that way.

I respect that you are willing to rethink things, if new information proves you wrong. Me too.

I don't think such a discussion should be violent either. So far, I haven't seen any threats or anything violent. Disagreements sure. But no violence here.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I do not believe that a person (spirit / ghost) requires a heart, brain, or any other biological body part to exist ... mind over matter stuff ... my view on this is ... from a programmer for 20+ years perspective, and based on my own personal OBE and NDE experiences ... it seems to me that consciousness (including spirit, soul, mind, psyche, ghost) exists forever (with and without a physical body, regardless of religion), and that a brain is used by a person (spirit / ghost) to process individual consciousness, much as computer hardware would be the equivalent of a physical body (brain, heart, etc.) and software processes information (from consciousness), in order to function and interact in this world ... so definitely a person. But that's just me, and I don't know anyone else that sees it that way.
> 
> I respect that you are willing to rethink things, if new information proves you wrong. Me too.
> 
> I don't think such a discussion should be violent either. So far, I haven't seen any threats or anything violent. Disagreements sure. But no violence here.


The violence reference was more about the extremes of both positions threatening those they disagree with.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Vjk said:


> 3. If you give the State the power to ban abortions, you have then given the State the power to mandate abortions. The State should not be given this power.


Hogwash. If you give the state power to ban murder, you give them the power to mandate murder. If you give the state the power to ban robbery, you give them the power to mandate robbery..etc. etc. 



Vjk said:


> 8. God (or Nature) is the most prolific abortionist. The majority of pregnancies end in miscarriages, in other words, God's abortions. So, God doesn't seem to have anything against abortion.


Like saying that murder should be legal because everyone dies. 



Vjk said:


> 12. It is absurd and morally unteneble to punish abortionists, but not the mother. If your spouse hires a hit man to kill you, the spouse is the primary perpetrator. How is abortion not the same?


I agree, the person who wants the abortion and the person who provides it should share in the punishment. 


Vjk said:


> 14. It is hypocrisy to say you believe in freedom of religion, then say you want to ban abortion for everyone based on your religious beliefs.


It is no more a religious conviction that being anti-murder or anti-slavery. Sure, It CAN be, but, I know many, in the pro-life movement who are openly hostile to religion. 


Vjk said:


> 15. This country was founded on the premise that social issues should be handled best by social presures. The State should not be given power over the individual.


The state should protect individuals life liberty and property. We simply want to extend those basic protections to the unborn.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I understand and respect you line. It just happens to be different than mine. I personally would not have an abortion after 12 to 15 weeks. I believe there is human tissue and organs but no higher brain activity and definitely no person, just the possibility of one until after 15 weeks or so. I don't believe abortions should happen after 20 weeks without a medical reason, mother or fetuses. I am willing to reevaluate all of this as science progresses.
> 
> We now allow the removal of life support from human bodies that have no higher brain activity and I am okay with that line. I don’t believe there is a soul delivered to a fetus. I don't believe a heart beat makes a person.
> 
> I think discussion on this is important. I don't believe in violence or threats against anyone because their view is different than mine.


You know, like you say, my line differs from your line, but I have a very strong feeling that, if the pro-abortionists hadn’t rammed the legislation-via-judicial-fiat that is Roe down our throats, the overwhelming majority of the law of our land would be really, really close to where you claim to draw your line.

The opinion in Roe was less about abortion than it was advancing the anti-federalist movement. At the time of Roe, 26 states had extremely tight abortion restrictions or an all-out ban. The rest were around your line. Given where our country has evolved on most social issues in the last 50 years, it’s almost a sure thing that all but a few, if not all, states would have some legal abortion, at least through the first trimester as most of the country seems to support. There would, no doubt, be a few “progressive” states that had to push the envelope, but they would be the extreme rarity, and would have to test their proposed system on the merits and the sentiment of the people.

What Roe did was create a right out of the ink between the lines of the Constitution, and then ram that legislation down the throats of the entire country. That act of ideological force is what created the divisiveness over this issue that we’re dealing with today.

By giving the virtue-signal progressives the soapbox to scream “_Constitutional right!! Constitutional right!!_”, Roe set the stage for an extreme minority of states to push for such absurdities as late-term, partial-birth, Down’s-genocide, and now even post-birth abortion. Poll after poll shows that only the slimmest segment of the population actually wants that.

To contrast, Dobb v. Mississippi examines a law that is only the slightest bit more restrictive than what Roe laid out in its legislative approach, and, apparently, that was enough to bring down the entire house. 

Now, after throwing salt in the wound for the last 50 years, pushing against every attempt by a state to pass reasonable restrictions on the abortions they were forced to tolerate, your side’s judicial activism has set up a scenario where a handful of states are going to outlaw it altogether, and another handful of states are going to push to make it legal to kill newborns.

The extremists aren’t the ones pushing for the new law in Mississippi. The extremists are the ones who forced Mississippi’s hand. I hope you’re happy with yourselves- and, yes, that is correctly _yourselves_, because we’ve all seen where you’ve consistently been on this issue, even before “the worm turned”.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

bubba42 said:


> Status update: after nearly 100 responses, and almost 1000 views, none who favor keeping Roe V Wade have answered the question I posed, and have often asked over the years:
> 
> (summary) - If a woman “controls her own bodily choices” (not my words), and has the right to choose an abortion, then logically her own mother had that same right.
> 
> Thus, the woman (who has the right to choose) did not originally possess that right until her own mother “bestowed” that right upon her when deciding not to abort the child (who grew to become the woman in this example). When did this bestowal of rights to the woman occur? It cannot logically be a right the woman was born with…


When she became pregnant.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> So, a born premature baby say at 6 months gestation is a person, but, a fetus at 8.5 months of gestation is not?


Why not ?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I’m not forcing anything to be complicated. I’m just illustrating where you attempts to make it simple fail.
> 
> That’s the same problem Roe and Casey created by trying to simplify the issue. Roe, again, couldn’t deny life, so they invented personhood. In order to define personhood, they concocted the trimester framework. When it was proven that the trimester scheme didn’t work, Casey overturned Roe, and based it on viability. Viability, it turns out, is a subjective measure as well, so it can’t be a basis for equal protection under the law.
> 
> ...


Good example of making it complicated.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> Why not ?


Because location should have nothing to do with the personhood of a human.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> Because location should have nothing to do with the personhood of a human.


Your opinion and you have a right to have it. Same as others have a right to theirs.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> Your opinion and you have a right to have it. Same as others have a right to theirs.


And that is how we create laws.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Hogwash. If you give the state power to ban murder, you give them the power to mandate murder. If you give the state the power to ban robbery, you give them the power to mandate robbery..etc. etc.
> 
> 
> Like saying that murder should be legal because everyone dies.
> ...


Great breakdown! Well said….


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

colourfastt said:


> What I posted to FB yesterday:
> 
> “He who hath not a uterus should shuteth the f**k up” Fallopians 13:13


"He who doesn't pay income tax should shuteth the f**k up". Taxation 4:15

That right there would solve a bunch of our problems.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Vjk said:


> . If you give the State the power to ban abortions, you have then given the State the power to mandate abortions. The State should not be given this power


This is dumb.

The state outlaws murder. Isn't going to mandate murder.

The state outlaws theft. Isn't going to mandate theft.

Etc ad nauseum.

You had a couple of good points. I disagree with you, but you had some good points.

You also had some dumb points. This one was the dumbest.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I wish Lisa was here


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Some make paths too narrow to turn around in.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

GTX63 said:


> Some make paths too narrow to turn around in.


Slam it in reverse


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

CC Pereira said:


> Life support is only removed if a person is unable to live without it ... very different than murdering babies who would be just fine if allowed to live.


Then think of abortion as the removal of life support.


----------



## colourfastt (Nov 11, 2006)

CC Pereira said:


> Making your own decisions about your own body is not the same as making a choice to kill someone else that temporarily lives inside of your body.


Parasite —
Definition: an organism that lives in or on an organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> > So, a born premature baby say at 6 months gestation is a person, but, a fetus at 8.5 months of gestation is not?
> ...


Because we’re talking about something as fundamental as personhood; as fundamental as the threshold of when rights are established. Your standard of when that personhood, and claim to right, is established is so arbitrary and capricious that it would result in two babies, identical in stage of development and brain function, in two adjacent beds in the hospital, one being a person and the other being a lump of cells.

Standards like you’d see established are exactly how we arrive at systems that allow people to lose their personhood because of arbitrary features like the color of their skin or shape of their genitalia.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

colourfastt said:


> Then think of abortion as the removal of life support.


So you admit there was / is life!?!?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> GunMonkeyIntl said:
> 
> 
> > I’m not forcing anything to be complicated. I’m just illustrating where you attempts to make it simple fail.
> ...


So, let me get this straight, you’ve proposed a standard by which rules around gestation and child-birth would be based, and my suggesting to test that standard against the reality of twins, a completely natural and common occurrence in gestation and child-birth, is “_making it too complicated_”?


How precious.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

bubba42 said:


> So you admit there was / is life!?!?


Of course it is life. Pro-abortionists like @colourfastt know they can’t deny that it’s life, so they don’t even try anymore. Instead, they invented the concept of personhood to allow them decide which human beings get to actually be considered human beings.

This is the same ideological group, after all, that constructed an explanation for how black folks could, coincidentally, be of the same species, but, somehow, not _really_ be people like white folks.

Hell, the matron saint of abortion-proliferation openly and admittedly started their movement in order to keep the population of black folks in check. Since they could no longer own them, they had to do something to keep their numbers at a palatable level.

Having a mechanism by which to determine who does and does not qualify for full humanity and right is critical to the survival of their ideology. Just look at how the deplorables shouldn’t be afforded the same right to speak as “real” people.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

colourfastt said:


> Parasite —
> Definition: an organism that lives in or on an organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.


Just silly!
What is the most common way to get parasites?

Parasitic infections can be spread in a number of ways. For example, protozoa and helminths can be spread through *contaminated water, food, waste, soil, and blood*. Some can be passed through sexual contact. Some parasites are spread by insects that act as a vector, or carrier, of the disease.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Because we’re talking about something as fundamental as personhood; as fundamental as the threshold of when rights are established. Your standard of when that personhood, and claim to right, is established is so arbitrary and capricious that it would result in two babies, identical in stage of development and brain function, in two adjacent beds in the hospital, one being a person and the other being a lump of cells.
> 
> Standards like you’d see established are exactly how we arrive at systems that allow people to lose their personhood because of arbitrary features like the color of their skin or shape of their genitalia.


Your mixing in other issues as many do. Once again making it complicated. Which is to your opinions benefit or you would not do so. No need to make it complicated for the subject of abortion.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, let me get this straight, you’ve proposed a standard by which rules around gestation and child-birth would be based, and my suggesting to test that standard against the reality of twins, a completely natural and common occurrence in gestation and child-birth, is “_making it too complicated_”?
> 
> 
> How precious.


Give nature a bit of time and your issue is solved.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Many seem to miss the point that people will do what they think is best for their needs. Regardless of other’s opinions or a law. In the case of abortion there is no need to make the issue such a dangerous choice. It’s going to happen, legally or not. Safely or not.


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

rbelfield said:


> all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body should have the right to decide what happens to my body.


Why has it been legitimate for a government body, such as a court, to decide what happens to a person on life support or in a coma, or even whether or not they can receive a certain medical treatment like was prominent during the age of "covid19"? Those have been largely life and death situations and the patient nor their family in their stead have often been denied the right of their choice of what happens to their body.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

colourfastt said:


> Then think of abortion as the removal of life support.


I believe that all people have the right to live. A fetus that lives within the body of a woman, could live and be just fine, if allowed to finish growing into a baby. On the other hand, someone who is already grown into a body that no longer depends on the body of a woman to survive, who requires life support to survive, is in that position because their body is no longer able to survive without life support. BIG difference.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

colourfastt said:


> Parasite —
> Definition: an organism that lives in or on an organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.


Parasite = pathogenic infection
Fetus = human baby
Again ... BIG DIFFERENCE.


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

rbelfield said:


> My personal belief is a fetus that cant stay alive without the womans body is not a viable life. I dont particularly think the law owes legal protection to a thing that isnt able to be alive on its own.


Does the same go for a being who would die without the assistance of modern medical devices or procedures?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> Many seem to miss the point that people will do what they think is best for their needs. Regardless of other’s opinions or a law. In the case of abortion there is no need to make the issue such a dangerous choice. It’s going to happen, legally or not. Safely or not.


Absolutely it would. Murder has been illegal for a long time, and it still happens. If we would make it legal, it would be a whole lot safer and easier for the murderer, yet, for some reason, we don’t.

The laws of man are only a deterrent against crime. The presence of a law does not eliminate it.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

boatswain2PA said:


> This is dumb.
> 
> The state outlaws murder. Isn't going to mandate murder.
> 
> ...


That is an ignorant response. The State already allows and even mandates killing in numerous situations .... all determined by the State. The State already allows and even mandates theft in numerous situations .... all determined by the State. Taxation comes to mind. For you to sit there in your blissful ignorance and presume the State isn't going to do something untoward is laughable.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Redlands Okie said:


> Give nature a bit of time and your issue is solved.


You’re actually proving my point.

In the case of twins, your arbitrary personhood standard would make it legal for a woman who only wanted one baby, or only wanted the boy or the girl, to give natural birth to one, and hire a medical hitman to murder the other just moments before it is born.


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

rbelfield said:


> this is purely drama. no one is telling you to have an abortion. or that your grandkids should have been aborted. what i am saying is the government does not have the right to make my decision for me. and obviously you have never been in an abusive relationship, or you wouldnt be so casual as to just say "leave". its never that easy. nor is rape or incest just that easy to come out with. so once again...no one is qualified to make decisions about my body when they havent been in my shoes. with abortion being legal, at least there is an option for women. make it illegal and more women will die.


How many less pre-born babies would have lived if abortion had not been so easily accessible? How many women were convinced abortion was the right thing to do at the time regretted that decision later?


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> The body of a pregnant woman is hers and it should not be up to anyone else what she does with her body, but the body that lives inside of her body is another person, who has just as much right to live as the pregnant woman. If the pregnant woman is unwilling to protect the living person inside of her, then it seems only right that someone else do what they can to protect the fetus that lives and grows within the body of the pregnant woman, from being murdered, even if that means making laws to prevent the murder of a fetus, baby, or any other person.


If a parent physically abuses a child, does the parent's rights over what they do with their own body (hands, feet, or other appendages) matter more than the child who is abused by the same? My greatest concern with the topic of abortion, is the slippery slope of negligent or reckless endangerment being launched against a pregnant woman, although a procedural abortion is obviously intentionally premeditated. I'm guessing that most of us mature women here never called our babies a "fetus".


----------



## mamagoose (Nov 28, 2003)

BadOregon said:


> I have always thought it greatly interesting that men have such strong opinions about what women should be "allowed" to do, when there is truly no comparison for a man. They can't get pregnant, therefore have no idea what it would be like to be forced to continue with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason it happened).
> 
> Unless and until there is some definitive proof of when actual "life" begins, I don't believe there will be a solution that is truly acceptable to all. If that never happens, we are doomed to disagree forever.


I'm guessing "scientists" would be in general agreement that if a fertilized egg of any species were found on another planet active, frozen or dehydrated, they would deem it a sign of "life".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mamagoose said:


> I'm guessing "scientists" would be in general agreement that if a fertilized egg of any species were found on another planet active, frozen or dehydrated, they would deem it a sign of "life".


A seed or a one cell organism would be sign of life.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You’re actually proving my point.
> 
> In the case of twins, your arbitrary personhood standard would make it legal for a woman who only wanted one baby, or only wanted the boy or the girl, to give natural birth to one, and hire a medical hitman to murder the other just moments before it is born.


She could. Her choice. Should not be mine or yours.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

mamagoose said:


> How many less pre-born babies would have lived if abortion had not been so easily accessible? How many women were convinced abortion was the right thing to do at the time regretted that decision later?


It was her choice. We all have to live with our choices, good or bad.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Redlands Okie said:


> people will do what they think is best for their needs. Regardless of other’s opinions or a law.


You are right. The rule of law is only considered by some when they get caught.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

In the case of abortion it is probably thought about a lot before hand.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Redlands Okie said:


> It was her choice. We all have to live with our choices, good or bad.


Yes we do, as well as whatever consequences come with those choices.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Vjk said:


> That is an ignorant response. The State already allows and even mandates killing in numerous situations .... all determined by the State. The State already allows and even mandates theft in numerous situations .... all determined by the State. Taxation comes to mind. For you to sit there in your blissful ignorance and presume the State isn't going to do something untoward is laughable.


Big difference between killing and murder. 

Big difference between taxation and theft (although, smaller difference than killing & murder).

The state has forced abortions on people in past, but it was wrong, and we all know it. If we can keep the abortion-loving racist democrats out of office I'm sure they won't be able to so that again.

Your entire premise was dumb.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

colourfastt said:


> Then think of abortion as the removal of life support.


We remove life support from people who we think will never come off it. Those who will never get better.

Not for people, like pre-born babies, who we expect to be able to come off of it and lead normal luves.


----------



## boatswain2PA (Feb 13, 2020)

Redlands Okie said:


> Many seem to miss the point that people will do what they think is best for their needs. Regardless of other’s opinions or a law. In the case of abortion there is no need to make the issue such a dangerous choice. It’s going to happen, legally or not. Safely or not.


Yes.

Some people are going to steal what they cannot buy. It's going to happen, legally or not. Safely or not.

People are going to kill those they cannot live with. It's going to happen, legally or not. Safely or not.

Since people are going to do it anyway, lets just make thievery and murder legal, so people can do it safely, right?

Dumb idea....


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

boatswain2PA said:


> This is dumb.
> 
> The state outlaws murder. Isn't going to mandate murder.
> 
> ...


Insults bring nothing to discussion and are a poor reflection of character. 

It’s also what gets threads locked, deleted or moved.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

boatswain2PA said:


> Yes.
> 
> Some people are going to steal what they cannot buy. It's going to happen, legally or not. Safely or not.
> 
> ...


Illegal abortion is just one more dumb idea.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Quick thoughts: we in the pro life camp DO support a woman's right to choose concerning HER body. Which means we support strong laws against rape and incest. Most I know at least also allow for those horrific times when a medical situation mandates the end of the pregnancy or the end of the woman's life, like an ectopic pregnancy. In the case of eclampsia and some other conditions where the baby might survive with care, all we ask is that when the pregnancy is ended, if it must be ended, try to save the baby ALSO.

But what we DO care about is who makes the decisions for the BABY'S BODY. The woman who wants to control her own body (and I think all women do!) should be able to understand the baby's body is NOT her body. So she controls her body but society as a whole otherwise regulates matters of life. It may be legal to have the death penalty. Doesn't mean it is always ok to kill another person.

As to the old coat hanger argument: there are a lot of things we can do to harm ourselves and others, and yep some people do them. Does not mean we make them legal. Mainlining heroin is dangerous. Some people do it anyway. Doesn't mean we need heroin clinics where you can just walk in or make an appointment for some nice safe heroin under medical supervision. Especially not if you getting your heroin means another person, another living human being, absolutely will be put to death right then and right there.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Well, I saw a Governor on tv today that says life begins at fertilization not attachment to the uterus. He will be fighting for no legal birth control pill next.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> It was her choice. We all have to live with our choices, good or bad.


It probably wasn't the baby's choice, who if aborted, does not get the opportunity to live with a choice that was made for him / her.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Well, I saw a Governor on tv today that says life begins at fertilization not attachment to the uterus. He will be fighting for no legal birth control pill next.


What Governor was that?


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Sorry, haven't figured how to post links yet. 
This is not a governor, but a Republican Assistant majority leader for Idaho house of representatives. Brent Crane
openly admitted that "his caucus would consider banning certain forms of birth control if Roe v. Wade were overturned". This could include Plan B emergency morning after pills and IUD's. 

So, it hasn't even been overturned and already they are making plans to ban birth control methods.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> Sorry, haven't figured how to post links yet.
> This is not a governor, but a Republican Assistant majority leader for Idaho house of representatives. Brent Crane
> openly admitted that "his caucus would consider banning certain forms of birth control if Roe v. Wade were overturned". This could include Plan B emergency morning after pills and IUD's.
> 
> So, it hasn't even been overturned and already they are making plans to ban birth control methods.


I do not agree with murdering babies, but I think that would be a step too far. Well, I guess it's a good thing nature provided us with things like the ability to make responsible choices, and plants like Queen Anne's Lace to help us to prevent unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Well, I saw a Governor on tv today that says life begins at fertilization not attachment to the uterus. He will be fighting for no legal birth control pill next.


Actually life began millions of years before any child today is born. But then you know that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Actually life began millions of years before any child today is born. But then you know that.


I do know that. I have never stated otherwise. It just did not happen to be human life and not all human life becomes a person or was meant to.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I do know that. I have never stated otherwise. It just did not happen to be human life and not all human life becomes a person or was meant to.


Interesting that you know what species of life appeared first and what people are meant to be! How do you know that humans sole purpose of existence is not to merely procreate at every opportunity?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Interesting that you know what species of life appeared first and what people are meant to be!


Interesting that you find that interesting. I just call it science. I don't know what single cell life came first but I do know that it was not human.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Interesting that you find that interesting. I just call it science. I don't know what single cell life came first but I do know that it was not human.


And you know this how? Certainly not science!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> And you know this how? Certainly not science!


If you go by what your God says, the garden of eden was there before man. That means that life existed before man, not human. Now if your God existed before man, he is not human either. Then yes, we have science that tells us one cell organisms existed before humans.

Debate all three scenarios if you like.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> If you go by what your God says, the garden of eden was there before man. That means that life existed before man, not human. Now if your God existed before man, he is not human either. Then yes, we have science that tells us one cell organisms existed before humans.
> 
> Debate all three scenarios if you like.


Science has no way to know if god created anything. Many will say there is no god at all. What science does agree on is that life began. Period. It also agrees that life insists upon continuing to exist via a host of self healing mechanisms and procreation. As to one cell Organisms preceding any other life form…. That is pure poppycock!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Science has no way to know if god created anything. Many will say there is no god at all. What science does agree on is that life began. Period. It also agrees that life insists upon continuing to exist via a host of self healing mechanisms and procreation. As to one cell Organisms preceding any other life form…. That is pure poppycock!


I said one cell organisms preceeded humans . Not poppycock.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I said one cell organisms preceeded humans . Not poppycock.


And your evidence would be?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> And your evidence would be?


Have you read a science book lately? Maybe you should.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Have you read a science book lately? Maybe you should.


Have you read the Bible lately? Maybe you should.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

BadOregon said:


> Sorry, haven't figured how to post links yet.
> This is not a governor, but a Republican Assistant majority leader for Idaho house of representatives. Brent Crane
> openly admitted that "his caucus would consider banning certain forms of birth control if Roe v. Wade were overturned". This could include Plan B emergency morning after pills and IUD's.
> 
> So, it hasn't even been overturned and already they are making plans to ban birth control methods.


Sounds like the press is overblowing it

House State Affairs Committee Chairman Brent Crane, R-Nampa, said he would hold hearings on legislation banning emergency contraception and abortion pills during a Friday interview with Idaho Public Television. “IUDs, I’m not for certain yet on where I would be on that particular issue,” he said, referring to intrauterine devices, which are a long-lasting form of contraception.​​In a Saturday interview, Crane clarified that he supports contraception, including IUDs, and would not support hearings banning contraception generally. Instead, he said that he has heard of safety concerns with emergency contraceptives, like Plan B, and abortion pills, and would therefore be willing to hold hearings about them.​​Read more at: https://www.idahostatesman.com/news...-politics/article261207007.html#storylink=cpy​


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

BadOregon said:


> Sorry, haven't figured how to post links yet.
> This is not a governor, but a Republican Assistant majority leader for Idaho house of representatives. Brent Crane
> openly admitted that "his caucus would consider banning certain forms of birth control if Roe v. Wade were overturned". This could include Plan B emergency morning after pills and IUD's.
> 
> So, it hasn't even been overturned and already they are making plans to ban birth control methods.


The wonderful thing about a Federal system is that one can leave a jurisdiction that would do such a thing, to one that is more liberal, if one wishes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

BadOregon said:


> Sorry, haven't figured how to post links yet.
> This is not a governor, but a Republican Assistant majority leader for Idaho house of representatives. Brent Crane
> openly admitted that "his caucus would consider banning certain forms of birth control if Roe v. Wade were overturned". This could include Plan B emergency morning after pills and IUD's.
> 
> So, it hasn't even been overturned and already they are making plans to ban birth control methods.


It is not an unusual position.

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter _Humanae Vitae_ (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.​​Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (_Humanae Vitae_ 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.​







Birth Control


The Catholic Church has always maintained that it is intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.




www.catholic.com



​


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I do know that. I have never stated otherwise. It just did not happen to be human life and not all human life becomes a person or was meant to.


All humans are people / persons, regardless of the biological stage of development their bodies are in.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Just because he backed off on a second interview and said he "would consider it" does not negate the fact that he said it in the first place. If you watch the first interview, those words are his "exact" words that came out of his mouth. All politicians are great at backing off what they said originally if it makes them look bad. 
All fine examples of choosing which example to believe. I am from Idaho and you can bet the first interview were his true beliefs. One of the many reasons I am "from" Idaho rather than still living there. Oregon sucks, but in completely different ways.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

I should add that is not the first time he has made his views on making birth control illegal.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

BadOregon said:


> I should add that is not the first time he has made his views on making birth control illegal.


As I explained, opposing contraception is not an extremist view. Killing babies is.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

CC Pereira said:


> It probably wasn't the baby's choice, who if aborted, does not get the opportunity to live with a choice that was made for him / her.


What baby ? Or did you mean fetus ?


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

So you are ok with the banning of birth control methods? Do you not think that would just lead to more people choosing an abortion, legal or not?

Not only that, but there is where I draw the line. I am not Catholic and they have no business telling me when, how many or if I can have children because they say so. Any religion for that matter. Although the line is exceedingly thin now, I have always firmly believed in separation of church and state.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> What baby ? Or did you mean fetus ?


Two words… same meaning.


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

Uh no.

Fetus is defined as a gestational mammal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Uh no.
> 
> Fetus is defined as a gestational mammal.


And which part of baby does not qualify?


----------



## Alice In TX/MO (May 10, 2002)

I am addressing the actual definitions.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Alice In TX/MO said:


> Uh no.
> 
> Fetus is defined as a gestational mammal.


According to oxford:

fe·tus
/ˈfēdəs/
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...2ahUKEwjGv4C0vNH3AhXJomoFHTIjBkYQ3eEDegQIAxAK

_noun_



an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human *baby* more than eight weeks after conception.
(bold added by me )


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

mamagoose said:


> Why has it been legitimate for a government body, such as a court, to decide what happens to a person on life support or in a coma, or even whether or not they can receive a certain medical treatment like was prominent during the age of "covid19"? Those have been largely life and death situations and the patient nor their family in their stead have often been denied the right of their choice of what happens to their body.


Often, because the person was able to identify beforehand their choice (living will), or in the case of a coma, their family can often identify the victims wish with medical professionals. Even then, a court may still have to make the final decision in each case. None have yet been able to get a fetus to sign a living will…

You really are identifying apples and oranges. And with respect to the government mandated vaccines, i think you stretch too far implying that those have been defined to the satisfaction of all.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

BadOregon said:


> So you are ok with the banning of birth control methods?


I was just pointing out that it is not some whacko extremist view.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

How much worse is it going to get?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1523368533119234048


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Report: Madison Anti-Abortion Headquarters Set on Fire, Vandalized


The Madison headquarters of Wisconsin Family Action, an anti-abortion group, was reportedly set on fire and vandalized over the weekend.




www.breitbart.com


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Some people just aren't likable. So naturally, when their own mother didn't even like them, they decide that mother's should kill their babies. Whole thing would be a non issue if it weren't for those people. Medical, rape, incest yeah sure whatever. But the unlikables get involved, and like every issue they get involved with, it descends into utter stupidity and we start having discussions that no sane people would ever engage in.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

RoeVWade was a bad decision from day 1. Even liberal Justice Ginsburg said it was based on flimsy law and would likely be reversed at some point.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Do you know this person?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1523036388492337152


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Someone is going to get hurt before this is all over


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1523506935252803587


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Evons hubby said:


> Two words… same meaning.


Nope


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> It is not an unusual position.
> 
> In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter _Humanae Vitae_ (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.​​Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (_Humanae Vitae_ 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.​
> 
> ...


Even most Catholics don't follow that teaching these days, so it is an unusual position now. The pope is by definition an extremist, the MOST Catholic of the Catholics. (Maybe not the current pope though...who knows what that dude is?)


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> Nope


Like a penny and a nickel…. Both being different words, yet both describing money.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

A bill to grant security for the families of U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously passed the Senate Monday.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> A bill to grant security for the families of U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously passed the Senate Monday.


Good move!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

There are already laws.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GTX63 said:


> There are already laws.


Apparently not enough…


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

HDRider said:


> A bill to grant security for the families of U.S. Supreme Court justices unanimously passed the Senate Monday.


Why would they need special laws that only protect them? We have laws in this country. If they do not work for some reason or the other it is their job to change that.


----------



## Digitalis (Aug 20, 2021)

Janet Yellen says overturning Roe would be bad for the economy. Never thought I'd hear that argument for killing kids.

Maybe they should bring back slavery for the economic benefits while they're at it?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> What baby ? Or did you mean fetus ?


I have been using fetus and baby interchangeably, but to be more specific, fetus if not born yet, or baby if born ... living human either way ... unless aborted, in which case ... ghost.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> So you are ok with the banning of birth control methods? Do you not think that would just lead to more people choosing an abortion, legal or not?
> 
> Not only that, but there is where I draw the line. I am not Catholic and they have no business telling me when, how many or if I can have children because they say so. Any religion for that matter. Although the line is exceedingly thin now, I have always firmly believed in separation of church and state.


I'm not sure who you were talking to on this, but couldn't help but respond (no offense intended). I do not agree with banning birth control. I agree that it is a person's choice and no one else's, whether or not she / he has children, or how many children she / he can have if any. No permission necessary. However, I also believe that 1. if people do not want to become a parent, then it is the responsibility of both men and women, to prevent unwanted pregnancies (with abstinence or birth control), and 2. if a woman does get pregnant, and she doesn't want to complete the pregnancy, the choice to use the morning after pill / plan B or Queen Anne's Lace to abort a fetus should be up to the woman and man who caused the pregnancy, if done within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy (preferrably the day after, but at least before pain receptors begin to grow), and that 3. if a woman has been pregnant for more than 8 weeks, does not want to allow the fetus to be born, and gets an abortion ... that is absolutely murder, unless it is done due to medical emergency to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. In this case, where a pregnant woman is unwilling to protect her fetus from being murdered, I think others (including the state) should have every right to step in and protect the fetus from murder, just as we have laws to protect anyone else from being murdered.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

This shines a different light on it.

The Satanic Temple of the United States (TST) plans to file legal challenges against any states that restrict or ban abortions, claiming that such procedures constitute religious rituals for its adherents.​​Satanists plan to file their lawsuits under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a 1993 law that made it illegal for state governments to interfere in religious practices without first demonstrating a “compelling interest” in doing so.​

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/10/satanists-to-make-legal-argument-in-favor-of-abortion-as-a-religious-ritual/


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Did I miss something?? Where is our mi school teacher who usually has lots to not say on this subject??


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

tripletmom said:


> Did I miss something?? Where is our mi school teacher who usually has lots to not say on this subject??


After months of telling us that CRT wasn’t being taught in public schools, and ridiculing us for even suggesting it, accusing us of being illiterate and racist, there were some videos posted of school boards and administrators saying things like “…_of course we put CRT into every class we can, but we’re not going to let this law stop us_…”, and, all of a sudden, her keyboard ran plumb out of clicky clacks.

Besides, I’m sure this forum was taking away from the quality time she could devote to teaching CRT to Michigan’s children.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524486366360391680


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

Chief50 said:


> Why would they need special laws that only protect them? *We have laws in this country.* If they *do not work* for some reason or the other it is their job to change that.


They don't change or create laws. That's the job of the judicial branch. Nor do they enforce law. That's up to law enforcement and the DOJ. Laws aren't being enforced.

_Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. _









18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading







www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

HDRider said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1524486366360391680


That was nothing more than a tactical play to allow the Ds to accuse the Rs of voting to turn women into handmaids in their campaign ads. They knew it wouldn’t pass, just like they knew it wouldn’t pass in 1973 when they asked the SCOTUS to legislate it for them.

Shameless.

The people of the United States don’t want third trimester infanticide. Once the Marxists manage to convince the French to get behind it, they can think about trying it here. Until then, it’s all political theatre to buy the 1% of the vote that no one listens to anyway.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

They really should think about pooling their money to buy a card to send to Manchin to thank him for taking one for the team and being the last democrat with a brain.


----------



## JRHill02 (Jun 20, 2020)

This is a depressing thread. I wish, sincerely, we could stay on homesteading. Earlier when I asked what people thought of homesteading these days I got beat up - like I was a gov't troll. How dare I ask?

Friggin people... keep your closely held beliefs to yourselves or offer them gently. Esp when it comes to difficult subjects. I have seven children. My DW has four. Out of them we have nine left. Life is hard enough as it is without all these personal opinions which may only apply to you, in your circumstance.


----------



## Roy Gilbert (Apr 11, 2020)

GTX63 said:


> I am certain there will always be choice. California, New York and likely a couple dozen others will offer that choice.


statement is likely correct ... but it would be a limited choice for only those with sufficient funds


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Planned Parenthood targets low income minority neighborhoods. Margaret Sanger's original idea was thinning the herd of those she considered undesirables. States like California will allow scissors to the head of babies to the point of birth, no questions asked. As stated, they are currently offering abortions for anyone willing to travel to their state. Companies like Amazon are kicking in extra monies for employees who want an abortion.
When half of all black babies in New York City are aborted every year, it should tell you it has little to do with who has money.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JRHill02 said:


> This is a depressing thread. I wish, sincerely, we could stay on homesteading. Earlier when I asked what people thought of homesteading these days I got beat up - like I was a gov't troll. How dare I ask?
> 
> Friggin people... keep your closely held beliefs to yourselves or offer them gently. Esp when it comes to difficult subjects. I have seven children. My DW has four. Out of them we have nine left. Life is hard enough as it is without all these personal opinions which may only apply to you, in your circumstance.


It is depressing, if you let it be so. I want to keep my eyes and ears open to what is going on in the world, and I like to discuss it with my friends here on HT.

There are a multitude of sections in HT that you should find helpful. Most of us try not to clutter those sections up with our opinions on current events. Let us have this section

Poke around here. See what you see. - Homesteading Forum


----------



## Eutychus2 (Jul 22, 2021)

rbelfield said:


> all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body should have the right to decide what happens to my body.


Do you have a new definition for "religion?" Religion has always been beliefs about what is right and wrong and making law to uphold those beliefs. How can you separate that from government?


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

My opinion on Roe v Wade
I could give a rodent's hind quarter if you choose to get one, or your availability to get one

Just don't ask for me to pay for it.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Eutychus2 said:


> Do you have a new definition for "religion?" Religion has always been beliefs about what is right and wrong and making law to uphold those beliefs. How can you separate that from government?


theres that old thing about separation of church and state that we used to have.


----------



## ferdberfel (Oct 5, 2014)

rbelfield said:


> all the arguments that i have seen include some sort of religious "law". and im not arguing religion. i feel that any sort of religion doesnt belong in government. No government body should have the right to decide what happens to my body.


Wrong! The argument is, “You are killing a baby! What gives you the right to kill another person? Nothing! Stop killing people. One doesn’t need God to know that killing people is wrong.” Yes a baby is a person. Look at an ultrasound. Nobody showing her ultrasound says, “Look at my fetus!”


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

ferdberfel said:


> Wrong! The argument is, “You are killing a baby! What gives you the right to kill another person? Nothing! Stop killing people. One doesn’t need God to know that killing people is wrong.” Yes a baby is a person. Look at an ultrasound. Nobody showing her ultrasound says, “Look at my fetus!”


Most people needing an abortion are not parading around showing their ultrasounds..this is more emotional unnecessary drama. what gives you the right to require me to carry non viable pregnancy?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Eutychus2 said:


> Do you have a new definition for "religion?" Religion has always been beliefs about what is right and wrong and making law to uphold those beliefs. How can you separate that from government?


Do you truly believe that only religious people know right from wrong?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rbelfield said:


> theres that old thing about separation of church and state that we used to have.


No one is asking anyone to adopt anyone’s religion. We only demand everyone’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rbelfield said:


> Most people needing an abortion


needing or wanting? Huge difference!


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> needing or wanting? Huge difference!


i would really like to see the numbers on how many abortions are done purely for birth control and how many are done in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. i have not found any solid numbers..but i havent researched it thoroughly either.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

rbelfield said:


> i would really like to see the numbers on how many abortions are done purely for birth control and how many are done in the 2nd or 3rd trimester. i have not found any solid numbers..but i havent researched it thoroughly either.


 In 2019 92.7 % of abortions took place before 13 weeks. 6.2 performed between 14-20 weeks and less than 1 percent after 21 weeks.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

painterswife said:


> In 2019 92.7 % of abortions took place before 13 weeks. 6.2 performed between 14-20 weeks and less than 1 percent after 21 weeks.


Those are about what i figured..so its not mostly people stabbing scissors into babys heads 2 days before they are born...as most of the pro-life people would have you think.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

rbelfield said:


> Those are about what i figured..so its not mostly people stabbing scissors into babys heads 2 days before they are born...as most of the pro-life people would have you think.


It is not.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Is there a difference when you decide to have an abortion?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

OBVIOUSLY


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

JRHill02 said:


> This is a depressing thread. I wish, sincerely, we could stay on homesteading. Earlier when I asked what people thought of homesteading these days I got beat up - like I was a gov't troll. How dare I ask?
> 
> Friggin people... keep your closely held beliefs to yourselves or offer them gently. Esp when it comes to difficult subjects. I have seven children. My DW has four. Out of them we have nine left. Life is hard enough as it is without all these personal opinions which may only apply to you, in your circumstance.


Anyone who does not want to read this thread is free not to read it, and to go to another thread instead.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Chief50 said:


> Is there a difference when you decide to have an abortion?


i just dont believe there are a lot of people who are 8 months pregnant and decide at the last minute, they dont want a baby. i think there are way more other reasons, mostly medical that make having a legal, safe abortion, important to have available. i think the pro life side likes to make it out like all women who get an abortion are just dirty murderers who dont want kids. i think its a very personal choice that the government doesnt need to be involved in. there are plenty of people out there who are pro choice, who wouldnt have an abortion but you should still have the CHOICE to do so. why is it hard to leave the choice to the people involved?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> Most people needing an abortion are not parading around showing their ultrasounds..this is more emotional unnecessary drama. what gives you the right to require me to carry non viable pregnancy?


What gives any woman the right to use abortion as birth control?

Very rarely does anyone _need_ an abortion ... _wanting_ an abortion and _needing_ an abortion are two _very_ different things. People already have the choice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, by being responsible (i.e., abstinence, birth control, condoms, Queen Anne's Lace, vasectomy / tube tying, etc.). The natural consequence of having sex is pregnancy, which everyone knows results in the birth of another living individual. No one forces nature, or our bodies, to do that.

If a woman is raped, she has the option of using the morning after / plan B pill, or Queen Anne's Lace. If she does not make use of such a choice within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy (before pain receptors begin to form), then although it is not her fault or the baby's fault that she was raped, I think killing the baby after that is murder, plain and simple. Once the baby is born, she can give the baby up for adoption, or even leave the baby at a hospital for someone else to give up for adoption.

If abortion prevents a pregnant woman from dying, then the abortion is a life saving medical procedure. Otherwise, unless the case above applies, then I think killing the baby is murder, plain and simple.

Also, because it takes a man and woman to cause pregnancy, then both the man and woman should have equal say in what happens to their (not just her) baby.

My body my choice works fine if the choice made only affects my body (such as choosing whether or not to get the covid-19 shot), but a pregnant woman also has another living person inside of her body. If a pregnant woman is unable or unwilling to protect her unborn child from being murdered, then I think others (including the government) have every right to step in and do it f or her.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> What gives any woman the right to use abortion as birth control?
> 
> Very rarely does anyone _need_ an abortion ... _wanting_ an abortion and _needing_ an abortion are two _very_ different things. People already have the choice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, by being responsible (i.e., abstinence, birth control, condoms, Queen Anne's Lace, vasectomy / tube tying, etc.). The natural consequence of having sex is pregnancy, which everyone knows results in the birth of another living individual. No one forces nature, or our bodies, to do that.
> 
> ...


You obviously have never been raped. You have not experienced the emotional turmoil; and even denial. You really should not speak about things you can't even begin to understand.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> i just dont believe there are a lot of people who are 8 months pregnant and decide at the last minute, they dont want a baby. i think there are way more other reasons, mostly medical that make having a legal, safe abortion, important to have available. i think the pro life side likes to make it out like all women who get an abortion are just dirty murderers who dont want kids. i think its a very personal choice that the government doesnt need to be involved in. there are plenty of people out there who are pro choice, who wouldnt have an abortion but you should still have the CHOICE to do so. why is it hard to leave the choice to the people involved?


Abortion is abortion. Doesn't matter when, the baby is still just as dead.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

CC Pereira said:


> What gives any woman the right to use abortion as birth control?
> 
> Very rarely does anyone _need_ an abortion ... _wanting_ an abortion and _needing_ an abortion are two _very_ different things. People already have the choice to prevent unwanted pregnancies, by being responsible (i.e., abstinence, birth control, condoms, Queen Anne's Lace, vasectomy / tube tying, etc.). The natural consequence of having sex is pregnancy, which everyone knows results in the birth of another living individual. No one forces nature, or our bodies, to do that.
> 
> ...


that was my question to start with. how many women truly use abortion for birth control? i dont think its as many as you think. and whats the difference in an abortion or the morning after pill? according to you, life begins at conception..so isnt that the same thing? im not advocating for late term abortions either. i think they should be done as soon as possible. but i think the choice should be there. making it illegal is not right.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Chief50 said:


> Abortion is abortion. Doesn't matter when, the baby is still just as dead.



but why is it anyones business other than the people involved personally? if i were to get pregnant, which is impossible, but just saying...and decided to have an abortion, why should you worry about it? we dont know each other. its not going to affect you. why should your views change what is available to me?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rbelfield said:


> i just dont believe there are a lot of people who are 8 months pregnant and decide at the last minute, they dont want a baby. i think there are way more other reasons, mostly medical that make having a legal, safe abortion, important to have available. i think the pro life side likes to make it out like all women who get an abortion are just dirty murderers who dont want kids. i think its a very personal choice that the government doesnt need to be involved in. there are plenty of people out there who are pro choice, who wouldnt have an abortion but you should still have the CHOICE to do so. why is it hard to leave the choice to the people involved?


Because one of the people involved don’t have any say.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Evons hubby said:


> Because one of the people involved don’t have any say.


im sorry. i dont believe that. i dont believe that a fetus is a baby until it can live on its own without a uterus to live in.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You obviously have never been raped. You have not experienced the emotional turmoil; and even denial. You really should not speak about things you can't even begin to understand.


Not true. I have been beaten, raped, experienced much more than just emotional turmoil, I have been homeless, I have lived much of my life in a hospital, left home at 13, died multiple times, given birth to one living and one not living twin on a chair without drugs or a hospital, given birth on a bed without drugs or hospital, fallen / pushed / and punched out of moving vehicles, and much more. Do not assume things you know nothing about. Please. Take your own advice, and do not speak about things you can't even begin to understand.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rbelfield said:


> im sorry. i dont believe that. i dont believe that a fetus is a baby until it can live on its own without a uterus to live in.


the fetus is a unique living human being from conception forward. This is fact, not opinion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Not true. I have been beaten, raped, experienced much more than just emotional turmoil, I have been homeless, I have lived much of my life in a hospital, left home at 13, died multiple times, given birth to one living and one not living twin on a chair without drugs or a hospital, given birth on a bed without drugs or hospital, fallen / pushed / and punched out of moving vehicles, and much more. Do not assume things you know nothing about. Please. Take your own advice, and do not speak about things you can't even begin to understand.


I apologize. I thought you had indicated you were a man.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> im sorry. i dont believe that. i dont believe that a fetus is a baby until it can live on its own without a uterus to live in.


A fetus is an unborn child, which is a living person. The end. Dehumanizing a living human doesn't make a living human anything other than a human.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

CC Pereira said:


> A fetus is an unborn child, which is a living person. The end. Dehumanizing a living human doesn't make a living human anything other than a human.


then why is the plan b pill ok?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rbelfield said:


> then why is the plan b pill ok?


It isn’t. In my opinion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> that was my question to start with. how many women truly use abortion for birth control? i dont think its as many as you think. and whats the difference in an abortion or the morning after pill? according to you, life begins at conception..so isnt that the same thing? im not advocating for late term abortions either. i think they should be done as soon as possible. but i think the choice should be there. making it illegal is not right.


It seems to me that way too many women use abortion as birth control. You are correct that there is not much difference between the morning after / plan B pill and abortion ... except that can be used to stop the pregnancy (which results in the death of an unborn baby if taken while pregnant) within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. I don't want any unborn child to be killed ever. But I understand that there are rare cases (such as preventing a pregnant woman from dying, or ending a pregnancy that occurs even after using birth control, Queen Anne's Lace, condoms, vasectomy, tube tying, etc.), where I think the morning after / plan B pill or Queen Anne's Lace should be an option.

I just think abortion after 8 weeks should be illegal, unless it is necessary to prevent a pregnant woman from dying, and that the choice should be between a qualified medical practitioner, the pregnant woman, and the man who impregnated her.

I also think that if a pregnant woman chooses to use a coat hanger or some other disgusting method of abortion if unnecessary abortions are not legal, then the consequences are her own fault and her own responsibility, not anyone else's. That is very much the same as saying something like, 'if you break up with me, I will kill myself, and it will be your fault'. Lame excuse to murder someone.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> but why is it anyones business other than the people involved personally? if i were to get pregnant, which is impossible, but just saying...and decided to have an abortion, why should you worry about it? we dont know each other. its not going to affect you. why should your views change what is available to me?


I can agree with that. Do you think the father should have any say in it?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> but why is it anyones business other than the people involved personally? if i were to get pregnant, which is impossible, but just saying...and decided to have an abortion, why should you worry about it? we dont know each other. its not going to affect you. why should your views change what is available to me?


If a pregnant woman is unable or unwilling to protect her unborn child from being murdered, then others should have every right to step in and do it for her. We have laws to protect people who have been born from being murdered. Why should that protection exclude unborn children?

Besides, if the Roe vs Wade case is overturned, it simply becomes a decision for each individual state to make for people who live in those states. If your state makes unnecessary abortions illegal in the state you live in, and you really want to get an abortion, you would be free to go to a different state, where murdering babies is legal.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> then why is the plan b pill ok?


I have already explained that multiple times. I don't like it, but there are rare cases (1. to prevent the death of a pregnant woman, 2. if birth control, condoms, Queen Anne's Lace, tube tying or vasectomy, are ineffective) in which the plan B / morning after pill or Queen Anne's Lace would in my opinion, be acceptable (if used within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy). Again, I do not believe that abortion should be outlawed without exception.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Chief50 said:


> I can agree with that. Do you think the father should have any say in it?


Are you sure that’s going to work out in your favour? Most young I’ve dealt with were pressured by their boyfriends to get an abortion so they didn’t have to quit college and go to work or have to worry about child support.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> Are you sure that’s going to work out in your favour? Most young I’ve dealt with were pressured by their boyfriends to get an abortion so they didn’t have to quit college and go to work or have to worry about child support.


You have a good point, worth consideration. However, I think if such a decision is between a pregnant woman, the man who impregnated her, and a qualified medical practitioner, it is very unlikely that a qualified medical practitioner would suggest that she get an abortion if it is not medically necessary (so long as the medical practitioner is an OBGYN, and not working at an abortion clinic). If the doc doesn't approve, then I think it should be a no go, regardless of what either the pregnant woman or man who impregnated her thinks. If you go to a qualified medical practitioner and ask them to cut off your thumb, and they know there is no medically necessary reason for it, the doc will not approve / allow or agree to do it ... unless of course the doc makes a living from unnecessary medical procedures.

Another point I think naturally comes up regarding a man's say in abortion, is that if the man is nowhere to be found because he's already moved on with his life, or the man is not even informed that he impregnated the woman, or the man doesn't care. Those could be sticky situations as well, but in those cases, I think it would have to be up to the pregnant woman and a qualified medical practitioner (such as an OBGYN), and should not be approved if not medically necessary.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

rbelfield said:


> but why is it anyones business other than the people involved personally? if i were to get pregnant, which is impossible, but just saying...and decided to have an abortion, why should you worry about it? we dont know each other. its not going to affect you. why should your views change what is available to me?


For the same reason it matters if you were to kill, beat, starve, etc a born child. Sure, none of that affects me, but, still....


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

wr said:


> Are you sure that’s going to work out in your favour? Most young I’ve dealt with were pressured by their boyfriends to get an abortion so they didn’t have to quit college and go to work or have to worry about child support.


I don't have a favor. I do think the father should have as much say as the mother. If they cannot come to a solution who ever wants the child should support and raise the child.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

A woman about 10 miles from where I live was arrested for repeatedly throwing her 9 week old child to the pavement. It isn't expected to live.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

If you are fine with abortion up until 8 weeks then you should be fine with it up to 15 weeks. There is little difference. There is still no higher brain function. 

If you are fine with abortion for rape or incest then you should be fine with abortion up until 15 weeks or so. Still stopping the life of a fetus.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> If you are fine with abortion up until 8 weeks then you should be fine with it up to 15 weeks. There is little difference. There is still no higher brain function.
> 
> If you are fine with abortion for rape or incest then you should be fine with abortion up until 15 weeks or so. Still stopping the life of a fetus.


I do not agree with abortion after 15 weeks, because there is a big difference between a 0-8 week old fetus vs a 15 week old fetus.

I am not fine with abortion at all, if it can be avoided. Rape and incest do not justify abortion.

I will explain 1 more time only, and this time please pay attention, before asking the same questions repeatedly.

I do not approve of abortion, under any circumstances, if it can be avoided.

Both men and women have options to prevent unwanted pregnancies, such as abstinence, birth control, condoms, or vasectomy / tube tying.

If one or more than one of the options above are used but are ineffective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, the plan B / morning after pill or Queen Anne's Lace are options that could be used, to end the pregnancy (which could result in the death of an unborn baby). Unless a woman is raped or held against her will, nothing stops her from using one of these options the very next day, and no one forces her to wait for weeks or months, let alone 15 weeks. I know this is a gray area, and I accept that. I don't like it, but I understand and accept it.

Incest is rare, because it is well known that a person born of incest is likely to have medical problems that could cause that person to live a short life, suffer until they die, be dependent upon others for their entire life, or to pass on their medical problems to the next generation. In this case, the option to abort the unborn baby within the first 8 weeks of pregnancy is available ... but unless rape is involved, incest is very irresponsible ... and gross.

Rape happens, which is not the fault of a pregnant woman or her unborn baby. In this case, a pregnant woman has the same options available to her as the two previous cases. She also has the option of completing her pregnancy, giving birth to the baby, and giving up the baby for adoption.

Medically necessary abortion (to prevent the death of a pregnant woman) is rare, but possible. In this case, I think abortion should be an option.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Who raises the ones nobody wants?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I do not agree with abortion after 15 weeks, because there is a big difference between a 0-8 week old fetus vs a 15 week old fetus.
> 
> I am not fine with abortion at all, if it can be avoided. Rape and incest do not justify abortion.
> 
> ...


I find your line in the sand arbitrary. You believe it is a child at conception but say there are options in certain cases. It is either never acceptable after it is what you deem a child or it is not. You seem to be okay with queen Anne's lace but not other early pregnancy termination.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

Contraception!!! Why is that so hard to understand? Preventing the pregnancy in the first place will prevent an abortion. It's so easy and no one gets it! How many unwanted children wouldn't exist if folks would act responsibly and use contraception!!!
And the unwanted children aren't a valid excuse for abortion either. Abortion has been available for 50 years and the unwanted and abused children still exist!!
And she did mention plan b, what other early termination are you talking about @painterswife? 
Iud's? Another great option to prevent an unwanted abortion!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Birth control fails and woman have the right to use after fertilization options. If you don't want to use them don't. 

Isn't plan b enough to be mentioned? She has also discussed Queen Anne lace several times.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Birth control fails and woman have the right to use after fertilization options. If you don't want to use them don't.
> 
> Isn't plan b enough to be mentioned? She has also discussed Queen Anne lace several times.


I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying, and my intent...I'm asking of what others you are speaking. I wasn't being nasty, so please let's not do that. I also said that iud's worked wonders at preventing abortions.
Yes, birth control fails, there are always going to be exceptions, always. But again, using it in the first place goes a long ways toward preventing unwanted abortions.
Why can't contraception be promoted as passionately as abortion? Why is the concept so difficult for so many folks?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

tripletmom said:


> I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying, and my intent...I'm asking of what others you are speaking. I wasn't being nasty, so please let's not do that. I also said that iud's worked wonders at preventing abortions.
> Yes, birth control fails, there are always going to be exceptions, always. But again, using it in the first place goes a long ways toward preventing unwanted abortions.
> Why can't contraception be promoted as passionately as abortion? Why is the concept so difficult for so many folks?


Queens Ann lace. That was one of the abortion methods she talked about. Supposed to prevent implantation. 

Anyone I know that has had an abortion did use pre sex birth control and it failed. So they then used after sex birth control.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Who raises the ones nobody wants?


The government, for a year or so. Then auction them off to the ultra wealthy to adorn their holiday dining tables.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

If you are so anti abortion, then the question asked by wr deserves a real answer. Unwanted children are a real problem,
whereas your flip, unfunny answer does not further the conversation. 
I am sure that all the pro-lifers posting here are aware of what is going on in the world. Every news feed I see has parents torturing, starving and killing their children. How in the blue blazes is letting them be born and then end like that making
"every life is precious".


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Chief50 said:


> I can agree with that. Do you think the father should have any say in it?


Yes I do think the father should be involved in the decision.


----------



## rbelfield (Mar 30, 2015)

Another thought...how do you force a woman to take care of herself through an unwanted pregnancy? What if she uses drugs or alcohol and causes the baby to be born handicapped? It's just not right to force someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy. I totally agree with using birth control to start with..but we all know it fails..mine did.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

rbelfield said:


> theres that old thing about separation of church and state that we used to have.


The separation of church and state, while a topic of discussion among the founders, did not exist in the form we know of now prior to Everson v. Board of Education in 1947. So, really only about 75 years.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

wr said:


> Do you truly believe that only religious people know right from wrong?


The politically correct answer is, of course “no”. That being said, if we consider that virtually every single law is a derivative of a religious law (I’m speaking of morals and standards of conduct defining right and wrong; traffic laws and such would not apply). Regardless of one’s current religious beliefs, moral standards of conduct are absolutely within the realm of religion.

Consider murder (say a burglar shooting someone after robbing them): how is murder defined, and what is it that makes it morally reprehensible? We can not look to the animal kingdom for a premise or example, as we are the only species in over 1 million species within Kingdom anamalia that has a concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ above and beyond mere survival instincts. So, we recognize, as a species, that there is something “else”; an additional standard we must adhere to (regardless of specific religious beliefs).


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

rbelfield said:


> but why is it anyones business other than the people involved personally? if i were to get pregnant, which is impossible, but just saying...and decided to have an abortion, why should you worry about it? we dont know each other. its not going to affect you. why should your views change what is available to me?


Why do we worry when someone gets shot during a robbery? Regardless of of one’s views, empathy is still a factor and this broaches (at the least) one’s views on morals and views of right and wrong. I began this thread by asking when the right to a woman’s body was granted to the child by their mother (who did not choose to have an abortion), as the mother would presumably have that same right to choose (according to most pro-choice advocates). No one has answered that question. Clearly, and at the very least, pro choice advocates must then concede that this right to choose isn’t one they were born with. On the other hand, most pro-life advocates believe that the right to life is something that one is born with.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

rbelfield said:


> then why is the plan b pill ok?


Why would you assume most pro-life advocates believe it is?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You obviously have never been raped. You have not experienced the emotional turmoil; and even denial. You really should not speak about things you can't even begin to understand.


Think a little more about what you just said. You implied men don't see rape as bad.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

CC Pereira said:


> I just think abortion after 8 weeks should be illegal





CC Pereira said:


> If a pregnant woman is unable or unwilling to protect her unborn child from being murdered, then others should have every right to step in and do it for her.





CC Pereira said:


> I am not fine with abortion at all, if it can be avoided. Rape and incest do not justify abortion.


Thank you for having the courage to speak up. Too many women are beat down by the likes of @painterswife


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

bubba42 said:


> Why would you assume most pro-life advocates believe it is?


That’s my biggest problem with the whole thing. There is no cohesive agreement on what is acceptable and what isn’t. 

Some feel IUD’s are not acceptable and others feel it’s fine, some believe that Plan B is acceptable and others don’t, some feel birth control is unacceptable, some feel abortion is acceptable if a woman’s life is in danger and others feel it’s only acceptable up to a certain point.

While we are all deciding what’s best for women, who’s opinion is the right opinion?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

BadOregon said:


> If you are so anti abortion, then the question asked by wr deserves a real answer. Unwanted children are a real problem,
> whereas your flip, unfunny answer does not further the conversation.
> I am sure that all the pro-lifers posting here are aware of what is going on in the world. Every news feed I see has parents torturing, starving and killing their children. How in the blue blazes is letting them be born and then end like that making
> "every life is precious".


If they can choose to have an abortion, they can choose to let the born child go for adoption. Every healthy infant is wanted and then some. The problem is when people have children and don't put them up for adoption then proceed to damage them beyond repair. The vast majority of aborted babies would have been healthy infants and there are currently 35 couples, give or take, waiting for every healthy infant available. While I do believe those who choose abortion are sick sadistic twists, I am told that they are usually well adjusted, well informed, good people, so, which is it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"Every healthy infant is wanted and then some"

That is what really bothers me. It is like everyone wants a puppy but not a teen or adult dog. They won't take the children that really need them first.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

rbelfield said:


> im sorry. i dont believe that. i dont believe that a fetus is a baby until it can live on its own without a uterus to live in.


That is a common and really useless argument. If you take a 2yo out in the wild and leave him in a clearing, come back a week later, I guarantee he will be dead.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

Vjk said:


> That is a common and really useless argument. If you take a 2yo out in the wild and leave him in a clearing, come back a week later, I guarantee he will be dead.


Come to think of it, I know a lot of 20yo like that. We call them Snowflakes.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wr said:


> That’s my biggest problem with the whole thing. There is no cohesive agreement on what is acceptable and what isn’t.
> 
> Some feel IUD’s are not acceptable and others feel it’s fine, some believe that Plan B is acceptable and others don’t, some feel birth control is unacceptable, some feel abortion is acceptable if a woman’s life is in danger and others feel it’s only acceptable up to a certain point.
> 
> While we are all deciding what’s best for women, who’s opinion is the right opinion?


Here is my take. Pre-conception birth control is fine and its use should be encouraged. While I am not a fan of government programs, voluntary "free" sterilization programs should be available to lower income folks. I would even be in favor of tax credits for those who undergo said procedures, in all income brackets. 

If the life of the mother is truly in danger, logic dictates that the pregnancy be terminated. Why? Because if the pregnancy is going to kill the mother, the baby will also be lost and, therefore we must act to save as many lives as possible, and, in that case, abortion does that. 

In my view, the age of the new life has nothing to do with if it is okay to kill it.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> While we are all deciding what’s best for women, who’s opinion is the right opinion?


The Father
The Mother
The Baby

Currently three opinions, one can be ignored and the other can't be heard.
The other didn't have a say in being conceived either.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Vjk said:


> That is a common and really useless argument. If you take a 2yo out in the wild and leave him in a clearing, come back a week later, I guarantee he will be dead.


Lot of hypotheticals and what ifs and contortions of reason and terminology in order to come to a conclusion that something considered monstrous until recently is now blase.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> "Every healthy infant is wanted and then some"
> 
> That is what really bothers me. It is like everyone wants a puppy but not a teen or adult dog. They won't take the children that really need them first.


Yes, but most of the children, currently killed in abortion, would enter the world as wanted healthy infants and, if the mother would have killed it before birth, we know she doesn't want it and adoption is the logical option.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, but most of the children, currently killed in abortion, would enter the world as wanted healthy infants and, if the mother would have killed it before birth, we know she doesn't want it and adoption is the logical option.


If a child is wanted then age shouldn't matter. They should be adopting older children or children with special needs first. Instead they are ignored because they are not infants.


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> If you are so anti abortion, then the question asked by wr deserves a real answer. Unwanted children are a real problem,
> whereas your flip, unfunny answer does not further the conversation.
> I am sure that all the pro-lifers posting here are aware of what is going on in the world. Every news feed I see has parents torturing, starving and killing their children. How in the blue blazes is letting them be born and then end like that making
> "every life is precious".


And again, these children already are not being aborted!!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> If a child is wanted then age shouldn't matter. They should be adopting older children or children with special needs first. Instead they are ignored because they are not infants.


They are sometimes ignored because they tend to be damaged. Most children, in foster care, are not given up, they are taken from their parents because of abuse, neglect, or, other damaging event.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> They are sometimes ignored because they tend to be damaged. Most children, in foster care, are not given up, they are taken from their parents because of abuse, neglect, or, other damaging event.


So! Any child can be born damaged or get damaged. If they are precious enough to be born, they are precious enough to be adopted no matter what age or damage. No need to force bringing more into this world until the ones already here are adopted.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> So! Any child can be born damaged or get damaged. If they are precious enough to be born, they are precious enough to be adopted no matter what age or damage. No need to force bringing more into this world until the ones already here are adopted.


If you are in favor of killing the unborn, non damaged ones, why don't you favor killing the damaged born ones? BTW, I am in favor of making adoption easy/free for children of all ages. That would go a long way.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If you are in favor of killing the unborn, non damaged ones, why don't you favor killing the damaged born ones? BTW, I am in favor of making adoption easy/free for children of all ages. That would go a long way.


I am not in favor of killing anyone. I don't believe that you are killing a person just because an egg is fertilized. Just like I don't believe that ending life support on a brain dead body is killing someone.

Adoption is not the answer to abortion. Woman don't want to give up a child they birthed. Some children may be given up but many will not. Some, maybe many of those will end up in the system and will add to the amount of older and possibly damaged children that are not being adopted now.

I believe every child already in this world should be taken care of before we force women to have more.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> If they can choose to have an abortion, they can choose to let the born child go for adoption. Every healthy infant is wanted and then some. The problem is when people have children and don't put them up for adoption then proceed to damage them beyond repair. The vast majority of aborted babies would have been healthy infants and there are currently 35 couples, give or take, waiting for every healthy infant available. While I do believe those who choose abortion are sick sadistic twists, I am told that they are usually well adjusted, well informed, good people, so, which is it?


What about those babies that aren’t healthy? I just checked my province’s website and there seems to be a lot of flawed ones who have been in the system for up to 17 years and all of them indicate a need for a young family to keep supporting them and their costly medical needs for many years to come.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wr said:


> What about those babies that aren’t healthy? I just checked my province’s website and there seems to be a lot of flawed ones who have been in the system for up to 17 years and all of them indicate a need for a young family to keep supporting them and their costly medical needs for many years to come.


You don't kill millions to avoid a few dozen who might be less than perfect. We will deal with them like we have been. It is unfortunate but, it keeps them from starving.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wr said:


> What about those babies that aren’t healthy? I just checked my province’s website and there seems to be a lot of flawed ones who have been in the system for up to 17 years and all of them indicate a need for a young family to keep supporting them and their costly medical needs for many years to come.


Are you suggesting it is ok to abort if a baby is found to be deformed or unhealthy?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I am not in favor of killing anyone. I don't believe that you are killing a person just because an egg is fertilized. Just like I don't believe that ending life support on a brain dead body is killing someone.


Sure you are. The unborn are living humans and you are in favor of killing them. And generally, the brain dead have chosen not to be kept alive on LS. I have a living will that directs them not to keep me living. My body, my choice, only really. 


painterswife said:


> Adoption is not the answer to abortion. Woman don't want to give up a child they birthed. Some children may be given up but many will not. Some, maybe many of those will end up in the system and will add to the amount of older and possibly damaged children that are not being adopted now.


Millions will survive and have perfectly normal happy lives. 


painterswife said:


> I believe every child already in this world should be taken care of before we force women to have more.


The unborn are in this world. A uterus is not some transdimensional location.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

wr said:


> That’s my biggest problem with the whole thing. There is no cohesive agreement on what is acceptable and what isn’t.
> 
> Some feel IUD’s are not acceptable and others feel it’s fine, some believe that Plan B is acceptable and others don’t, some feel birth control is unacceptable, some feel abortion is acceptable if a woman’s life is in danger and others feel it’s only acceptable up to a certain point.
> 
> While we are all deciding what’s best for women, who’s opinion is the right opinion?


You make some interesting points, but here it is again - from your perspective, pro-life individuals are attempting to decide whats best for women. Yet, from every single pro-life advocate I have ever spoken to, it is an attempt to decide whats best for a child who has no voice.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Sure you are. The unborn are living humans and you are in favor of killing them. And generally, the brain dead have chosen not to be kept alive on LS. I have a living will that directs them not to keep me living. My body, my choice, only really.
> 
> Millions will survive and have perfectly normal happy lives.
> 
> The unborn are in this world. A uterus is not some transdimensional location.


No, I am not. I can differentiate between human cells and a human person. Higher brain activity is what makes a person. 

Just because an egg got fertilized does not mean it has the right to life.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> No, I am not. I can differentiate between human cells and a human person. Higher brain activity is what makes a person.
> 
> Just because an egg got fertilized does not mean it has the right to life.


So, a temporary state is what determines ones worth for living? 
Are you also in favor of amputation in cases of broken bones?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> So, a temporary state is what determines ones worth for living?
> Are you also in favor of amputation in cases of broken bones?


Are you in favor of taking by force blood or bone marrow from someone else for the health of another?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Are you in favor of taking by force blood or bone marrow from someone else for the health of another?


If that person is the parent of the person needing the tissue, yes.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Are you in favor of taking by force blood or bone marrow from someone else for the health of another?


Completely false equivalency


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

bubba42 said:


> You make some interesting points, but here it is again - from your perspective, pro-life individuals are attempting to decide whats best for women. Yet, from every single pro-life advocate I have ever spoken to, it is an attempt to decide whats best for a child who has no voice.


But I would still like to know what Pro Life opinion is correct? Is an IUD or any form of birth control okay, because some have said no IUD and others have indicated that abstinence is the only suitable birth control. 

Is the Plan B pill okay, because we are getting conflicting opinions on that. 

Is abortion okay if the woman’s health in danger and should dad have power of veto? Some seem to indicate that even when the woman’s health is at risk, abortion should only be performed up until a certain point, regardless if the issue occurs later on and should the father have the legal right to endanger a woman under those circumstances?

I’ve asked several questions that nobody seems to want to answer and that concerns me as well. 

It’s great to demand an end to all abortions but there seems to be very few solutions presented in all these years as to why they are happening and how to prevent them.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> But I would still like to know what Pro Life opinion is correct? Is an IUD or any form of birth control okay, because some have said no IUD and others have indicated that abstinence is the only suitable birth control.
> 
> Is the Plan B pill okay, because we are getting conflicting opinions on that.
> 
> ...


Opinions are just that, and having the correct one is subjective.

I am reading, and hearing primarily the words "force" and ie "demand to end all abortions" not from those who are against abortion, but those who fear having to carry a pregnancy to term. 

Generally, you are going to find a person who is for the life of a child looking for alternatives to abortion.
Yes, it is inevitable that there would be a much greater strain on our systems financially to care for children who have not been aborted. There is money wasted now on nonsense that could easily support programs for unwanted newborns. A system of both public and private support, and it would be large, would be required.
It is a fact that half of all black babies in New York City are aborted each and every year. Feel free to fact check that. Half of all black babies.
They are not being aborted due to the health of the mother, or because of some deformity or risk; it is due to convenience.
It is because of poor choices and lack of education and a government that is an enabler.
What was supposed to have been rare and for the life of the mother has become anything but, yet the cries supporting abortion by many would make you believe otherwise.
Remove the convenience, the government funding, the government encouragement, the double speak and hyperbole.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

painterswife said:


> If a child is wanted then age shouldn't matter. They should be adopting older children or children with special needs first. Instead they are ignored because they are not infants.


How many older children are waiting long term for adoption?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

po boy said:


> How many older children are waiting long term for adoption?


More than 100,000 and 20,000 age out every year without being adopted. 

People will go to other countries to adopt instead of looking after the children here first. Why are these children not as important?


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

painterswife said:


> More than 100,000 and 20,000 age out every year without being adopted.
> 
> People will go to other countries to adopt instead of looking after the children here first. Why are these children not as important?


I looked at this in the past and read that the problem with most of these kids was behavioral problems and had been in several foster homes by the time they aged out.

My late brother fostered a lot of these kids and to my knowledge never sent one back. He passed away last October at 80 and there were two in his home at that time. He had more grandkids and great-grandkids than he could name. A while back, his son posted a photo of a young lady at her graduation saying that it was his niece. That would be the daughter of one my brother's foster kids.

Newborns are in demand and about 60% of parents wait up to 12 months for a child. That means 40% wait longer than two years. I doubt any of these kids are given up for adoption. More newborn adoptions could decrease older kids going into foster care.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

wr said:


> But I would still like to know what Pro Life opinion is correct? Is an IUD or any form of birth control okay, because some have said no IUD and others have indicated that abstinence is the only suitable birth control.
> 
> Is the Plan B pill okay, because we are getting conflicting opinions on that.
> 
> ...


The answer is very easy. No one gets pregnant by themselves. We are all old enough to know what causes a woman to break out in babies. We should be old enough to know how to prevent that from happening.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> More than 100,000 and 20,000 age out every year without being adopted.
> 
> People will go to other countries to adopt instead of looking after the children here first. Why are these children not as important?


Take a good look at the breeding stock those children come from.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> "Every healthy infant is wanted and then some"
> 
> That is what really bothers me. It is like everyone wants a puppy but not a teen or adult dog. They won't take the children that really need them first.


Supply and demand. If you wanted a watermelon would you settle for a tomato?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

po boy said:


> I looked at this in the past and read that the problem with most of these kids was behavioral problems and had been in several foster homes by the time they aged out.
> 
> My late brother fostered a lot of these kids and to my knowledge never sent one back. He passed away last October at 80 and there were two in his home at that time. He had more grandkids and great-grandkids than he could name. A while back, his son posted a photo of a young lady at her graduation saying that it was his niece. That would be the daughter of one my brother's foster kids.
> 
> Newborns are in demand and about 60% of parents wait up to 12 months for a child. That means 40% wait longer than two years. I doubt any of these kids are given up for adoption. More newborn adoptions could decrease older kids going into foster care.


Are you sure? If they don't adopt the damaged or older children now , why would they start after women are forced to be pregnant?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Chief50 said:


> Take a good look at the breeding stock those children come from.


Same breeing stock of the woman forced to remain pregnant.

I thought all children are precious? You show that is not true.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Chief50 said:


> Supply and demand. If you wanted a watermelon would you settle for a tomato?


Another post that proves all children are not wanted just the perfect ones.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Another post that proves all children are not wanted just the perfect ones.


I would be willing to pay, through taxes for the permanent sterilization for any person who thinks the ending of Roe means they are going to be forced to produce children.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Are you sure? If they don't adopt the damaged or older children now , why would they start after women are forced to be pregnant?


Good grief!
They are waiting for newborns!!!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Chief50 said:


> Take a good look at the breeding stock those children come from.


What will change the breeding stock in the future?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

po boy said:


> Good grief!
> They are waiting for newborns!!!


Yes because newborns are better, older children are not important.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I would be willing to pay, through taxes for the permanent sterilization for any person who thinks the ending of Roe means they are going to be forced to produce children.


Just pay for all men to be snipped and their swimmers stored. Less intrusive of an operation.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Just pay for all men to be snipped and their swimmers stored. Less intrusive of an operation.


If they don't want to be father's, sure. Why not? I did say "any person".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Yes because newborns are better, older children are not important.


No, but you know that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No, but you know that.


I see no proof of that in the actions of those wanting newborns instead of older or damaged children. 

Stats tell us that more forced pregnancies means more damaged children born, more newborns kept at birth and then put into the system when the mother can't cope. So more older and damaged children that will not get adopted because they are not what people want when they say no abortion. They perfect ones will get snapped up and the older and damaged ones will not.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I see no proof of that in the actions of those wanting newborns instead of older or damaged children.
> 
> Stats tell us that more forced pregnancies means more damaged children born, more newborns kept at birth and then put into the system when the mother can't cope. So more older and damaged children that will not get adopted because they are not what people want when they say no abortion. They perfect ones will get snapped up and the older and damaged ones will not.


Then why not put an end to human reproduction all together? I have worked with some of those damaged kids in foster care. I have never met one who wished he/she was never born. Are you simply a fan of eugenics?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Then why not put an end to human reproduction all together? I have worked with some of those damaged kids in foster care. I have never met one who wished he/she was never born. Are you simply a fan of eugenics?


I am fan of a woman deciding for herself when to carry a pregnacy. Not forcing her to do what someone else wants. That is not eugenics.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Same breeing stock of the woman forced to remain pregnant.
> 
> I thought all children are precious? You show that is not true.


A woman has the final say if she becomes pregnant or not. Not many are forced to become pregnant.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

wr said:


> What will change the breeding stock in the future?


Enforcing the laws would do away with the poor breeding stock. Drugs are the main problem with many who get pregnant, and drug addicted babies are the next problem. If the would be parents are in jail for the crimes they commit there would not be as near as many babies born.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Chief50 said:


> Enforcing the laws would do away with the poor breeding stock. Drugs are the main problem with many who get pregnant, and drug addicted babies are the next problem. If the would be parents are in jail for the crimes they commit there would not be as near as many babies born.


So untrue. People of all incomes and education get pregnant when birth control fails. Those with more income can easily afford to travel for an abortion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> Who raises the ones nobody wants?


People who adopt children or orphanages. It may not be the best option, but I think either would be better than death.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I find your line in the sand arbitrary. You believe it is a child at conception but say there are options in certain cases. It is either never acceptable after it is what you deem a child or it is not. You seem to be okay with queen Anne's lace but not other early pregnancy termination.


I've already explained this multiple times, and see no reason to keep doing so. Everything is not always black and white, but sometimes a gray area. 

A person is an unborn child until born. 

I mentioned multiple options (such as abstinence, birth control which could be in multiple forms such as shots or pills, condoms, plan B / morning after pill), not just Queen Anne's Lace. I just prefer Queen Anne's Lace, because it is natural, you can grow it yourself, it's easy to use, there are no negative short or long term health effects from using it (unlike most other birth control options), it can be used for both birth control and instead of the plan B / morning after pill, and it only takes one moon cycle of not taking it to be fertile enough to conceive thereafter.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

rbelfield said:


> Another thought...how do you force a woman to take care of herself through an unwanted pregnancy? What if she uses drugs or alcohol and causes the baby to be born handicapped? It's just not right to force someone to go through an unwanted pregnancy. I totally agree with using birth control to start with..but we all know it fails..mine did.


Aside from rape, no one forces a woman to get pregnant, or not to take care of herself during pregnancy. Everyone knows that unprotected sex causes pregnancy, which naturally results in the birth of a baby. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

bubba42 said:


> The politically correct answer is, of course “no”. That being said, if we consider that virtually every single law is a derivative of a religious law (I’m speaking of morals and standards of conduct defining right and wrong; traffic laws and such would not apply). Regardless of one’s current religious beliefs, moral standards of conduct are absolutely within the realm of religion.
> 
> Consider murder (say a burglar shooting someone after robbing them): how is murder defined, and what is it that makes it morally reprehensible? We can not look to the animal kingdom for a premise or example, as we are the only species in over 1 million species within Kingdom anamalia that has a concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ above and beyond mere survival instincts. So, we recognize, as a species, that there is something “else”; an additional standard we must adhere to (regardless of specific religious beliefs).


Long ago, when religion and politics were one thing and inseparable, laws were based on religious morals. Since the separation of church and state, our laws have been based on ethics. Morals and ethics are not the same thing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Just pay for all men to be snipped and their swimmers stored. Less intrusive of an operation.


Not nearly as effective though.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

bubba42 said:


> Why do we worry when someone gets shot during a robbery? Regardless of of one’s views, empathy is still a factor and this broaches (at the least) one’s views on morals and views of right and wrong. I began this thread by asking when the right to a woman’s body was granted to the child by their mother (who did not choose to have an abortion), as the mother would presumably have that same right to choose (according to most pro-choice advocates). No one has answered that question. Clearly, and at the very least, pro choice advocates must then concede that this right to choose isn’t one they were born with. On the other hand, most pro-life advocates believe that the right to life is something that one is born with.


I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly, but if so, I would say that all sentient individuals have (or should have) the right to live, before and after birth (or hatching or whatever). IMO, it is not a pregnant woman who gives her unborn or born child the right to live, nor even any human laws, but the natural laws of the universe and of divinity ... so universal divine laws.

I cannot speak for others, but I didn't answer your question before because I wasn't sure if I understood the question correctly, or if the question was really related to the thread.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly, but if so, I would say that all sentient individuals have (or should have) the right to live, before and after birth (or hatching or whatever). IMO, it is not a pregnant woman who gives her unborn or born child the right to live, nor even any human laws, but the natural laws of the universe and of divinity ... so universal divine laws.
> 
> I cannot speak for others, but I didn't answer your question before because I wasn't sure if I understood the question correctly, or if the question was really related to the thread.


What laws of the universe give anyone the right to live?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> "Every healthy infant is wanted and then some"
> 
> That is what really bothers me. It is like everyone wants a puppy but not a teen or adult dog. They won't take the children that really need them first.


Can you prove that? I'll bet the answer would be..no!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Can you prove that? I'll bet the answer would be..no!


Over 100000 children waiting to be adopted and 20000 aging out every year proves it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I am not in favor of killing anyone. I don't believe that you are killing a person just because an egg is fertilized. Just like I don't believe that ending life support on a brain dead body is killing someone.
> 
> Adoption is not the answer to abortion. Woman don't want to give up a child they birthed. Some children may be given up but many will not. Some, maybe many of those will end up in the system and will add to the amount of older and possibly damaged children that are not being adopted now.
> 
> I believe every child already in this world should be taken care of before we force women to have more.


Your a living contradiction. 
Sure their willing to give up a child they gave birth to.
Thats why their are children up for adoption. I was one of them....don't lie.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Over 100000 children waiting to be adopted and 20000 aging out every year proves it.


Prove it. Your opinion doesn't count.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So! Any child can be born damaged or get damaged. If they are precious enough to be born, they are precious enough to be adopted no matter what age or damage. No need to force bringing more into this world until the ones already here are adopted.


First in first out makes sense for food in a refrigerator, but for people?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Your a living contradiction.
> Sure their willing to give up a child they gave birth to.
> Thats why their are children up for adoption. I was one of them....don't lie.


Some are willing. Some are not.That is why they choose abortion over pregnancy. Not a contradiction, a reality.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> First in first out makes sense for food in a refrigerator, but for people?


Why not? You want a child you take what they have. If they are all precious then you take what is available and needs a home.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I am not in favor of killing anyone. I don't believe that you are killing a person just because an egg is fertilized. Just like I don't believe that ending life support on a brain dead body is killing someone.
> 
> Adoption is not the answer to abortion. Woman don't want to give up a child they birthed. Some children may be given up but many will not. Some, maybe many of those will end up in the system and will add to the amount of older and possibly damaged children that are not being adopted now.
> 
> I believe every child already in this world should be taken care of before we force women to have more.


An unborn child is a person, from conception forward. A born child does not come from some thing that is not alive. Anyone who dies has experienced death, and anyone who causes that death killed that person. Killing may not be murder (i.e., accidents, self defense, defending the life of another, etc.), but killing is killing. Ending life support IMO is killing, but not murder. 

Many people and comments here have already explained multiple alternatives to abortion, multiple times, which you seem to have ignored.

Once again -- unless a woman is raped, she is not forced to get pregnant, or forced not to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Birth is caused by pregnancy, which is caused by unprotected sex, which is a choice that is not forced, unless a woman is raped.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So untrue. People of all incomes and education get pregnant when birth control fails. Those with more income can easily afford to travel for an abortion.


But the older children you want others to adopt are more likely to come from a woman who let drugs put her pregnant.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Chief50 said:


> But the older children you want others to adopt are more likely to come from a woman who let drugs put her pregnant.


So your answer is to stop abortions and have possibly more children from drug addicted mothers that won't be adopted?


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So your answer is to stop abortions and have possibly more children from drug addicted mothers that won't be adopted?


No, my answer is to enforce the drug laws and there will be fewer drug addicted kids.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

If a person wants to adopt a child they should not be forced to adopt a child they do not want. Forcing them to adopt a child they do not want would not be healthy for the child or the parents.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No, I am not. I can differentiate between human cells and a human person. Higher brain activity is what makes a person.
> 
> Just because an egg got fertilized does not mean it has the right to life.


All biological bodies are made up of cells, much as proteins are made up of amino acids. Biological cells may be used to make a biological body, and higher brain activity is ideal, but what about people with lower or abnormal brain activity, such as those who are mentally or psychological disabled ... are they not people because their brain activity isn't what you consider higher brain activity? Biological cells and brain activity may play a large role in a person's ability to use a biological body to interact in the world, and to use their brain to process their consciousness, but certainly does not make a person ... People are much more than that. 

When an egg is fertilized, a person begins their life in a biological body, within the body of a pregnant woman -- and _every_ person has the right to live, no matter what stage of physical or psychological development they are at in _their_ lives.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I am fan of a woman deciding for herself when to carry a pregnacy. Not forcing her to do what someone else wants. That is not eugenics.


I am all for a woman saying that she doesn't want to become pregnant being able to PREVENT conception by any means she sees fit. Once a new human life is produced, it is too late as we can't allow the wanton destruction of human life.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

If a woman is that much against getting pregnant she should know there is one sure way to avoid that from happening.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Chief50 said:


> No, my answer is to enforce the drug laws and there will be fewer drug addicted kids.


If a pregnant woman doesn’t stop doing drugs or drinking alcohol she should be locked up and forced to stay healthy so it doesn’t hurt the baby.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> But I would still like to know what Pro Life opinion is correct? Is an IUD or any form of birth control okay, because some have said no IUD and others have indicated that abstinence is the only suitable birth control.
> 
> Is the Plan B pill okay, because we are getting conflicting opinions on that.
> 
> ...


It is possible that no one is 100% correct or 100% incorrect. Abortion may be a difficult issue for everyone. 

I think abstinence is the best option for young people who are not yet adults, but such an ideal can be quite difficult for parents to ensure, which is why birth control (such as an Queen Anne's Lace, IUD, birth control pills or shots) may be a good additional measure that parents can choose to allow their daughters to use, in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Young people who are not yet adults can also be taught to use condoms. Parents can teach their kids about sex, pregnancy, birth, etc.. Adults can likewise choose abstinence or birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to set a better example for the next generation to follow. And of course, if an adult does not want to have any children or more children, he can get a vasectomy and / or she can get her tubes tied ... which is not guaranteed, which is why there are additional options to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

I think using the plan B / morning after pill or Queen Anne's Lace before 8 weeks is acceptable (if other measures that were taken to prevent unwanted pregnancies were ineffective, but the sooner the better), however preventing unwanted pregnancies is ideal.

After 8 weeks of pregnancy, I think abortion should be illegal, unless medically necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman ... and if the baby can be removed from a pregnant woman to save both the baby and the pregnant woman, even better.

Unfortunately everything is not black and white, nor is everything ideal. Rarely is anything so simple.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

[


CC Pereira said:


> It is possible that no one is 100% correct or 100% incorrect. Abortion may a difficult issue for everyone.
> 
> I think abstinence is the best option for young people who are not yet adults, but such an ideal can be quite difficult for parents to ensure, which is why birth control (such as an Queen Anne's Lace, IUD, birth control pills or shots) may be a good additional measure that parents can choose to allow their daughters to use, in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Young people who are not yet adults can also be taught to use condoms. Parents can teach their kids about sex, pregnancy, birth, etc.. Adults can likewise choose abstinence or birth control, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to set a better example for the next generation to follow.
> 
> ...


If up to 8 weeks is acceptable to you then abortion is acceptable. It is just the timing of it.. That is what I get from your posts.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

I have been reading these posts and still can't believe what I am reading. NOT ONE of you has an answer for what is supposed to happen to all of these unwanted children. You can't seriously believe it is ok to keep "damaged" children in the system where the tax payers are forced to pay for children they didn't produce, but it is ok to force women to bear
children so that people who want a newborn are able to have a baby. 
If someone wants a child so badly they are willing to adopt, they should be willing to consider ANY child, not just a baby. 
Or your whole theory of every life is precious gets thrown out the window. What you really mean is every perfect newborn baby is precious, but the older kids born and in the system through no fault of their own are worth nothing.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Are you sure? If they don't adopt the damaged or older children now , why would they start after women are forced to be pregnant?


UNLESS A WOMAN IS RAPED, SHE IS *NOT* *FORCED* TO BE PREGNANT.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> UNLESS A WOMAN IS RAPED, SHE IS *NOT* *FORCED* TO BE PREGNANT.


Very true. She can have an abortion.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Blackberry Jam I do hope you are kidding. We can't even keep murderers in jail and now you want to lock up pregnant women. Geez.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Blackberry Jam said:


> If a pregnant woman doesn’t stop doing drugs or drinking alcohol she should be locked up and forced to stay healthy so it doesn’t hurt the baby.


I would think it is a little too late to wait for her to become pregnant to lock her up.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Just pay for all men to be snipped and their swimmers stored. Less intrusive of an operation.


Sounds pretty sexist to me. Would you be in favor of all men being snipped and their swimmers stored, _and_ all women having their eggs removed and stored, so that people can continue to be sexually irresponsible, and so that whoever has the most money, the most power, and the 'right' family, can choose if and when new humans will be produced, from the swimmers and eggs they so choose and deem to be 'perfect'? Sounds like something China would do, but hopefully not America.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Sounds pretty sexist to me. Would you be in favor of all men being snipped and their swimmers stored, _and_ all women having their eggs removed and stored, so that people can continue to be sexually irresponsible, and so that whoever has the most money, the most power, and the 'right' family, can choose if and when new humans will be produced, from the swimmers and eggs they so choose and deem to be 'perfect'? Sounds like something China would do, but hopefully not America.


I was being sarcastic. I don't believe anyone has the right to make reproductive decisions for someone else's body.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I see no proof of that in the actions of those wanting newborns instead of older or damaged children.
> 
> Stats tell us that more forced pregnancies means more damaged children born, more newborns kept at birth and then put into the system when the mother can't cope. So more older and damaged children that will not get adopted because they are not what people want when they say no abortion. They perfect ones will get snapped up and the older and damaged ones will not.


It's a good thing that most pregnancies are _not forced_, and are therefore not caused by rape. Even in rape cases, options other than abortion are usually available.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> It's a good thing that most pregnancies are _not forced_, and are therefore not caused by rape. Even in rape cases, options other than abortion are usually available.


Yet those who want to outlaw abortion are trying to force women to remain pregnant.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> I have been reading these posts and still can't believe what I am reading. NOT ONE of you has an answer for what is supposed to happen to all of these unwanted children. You can't seriously believe it is ok to keep "damaged" children in the system where the tax payers are forced to pay for children they didn't produce, but it is ok to force women to bear
> children so that people who want a newborn are able to have a baby.
> If someone wants a child so badly they are willing to adopt, they should be willing to consider ANY child, not just a baby.
> Or your whole theory of every life is precious gets thrown out the window. What you really mean is every perfect newborn baby is precious, but the older kids born and in the system through no fault of their own are worth nothing.


No, they are not worthless. Most people who want to adopt a child want one who is healthy and undamaged. Not that many who decide to adopt want a child that has a mental or physical problem. They want the chance to become a parent, not a nurse, doctor, and wallet to a child that will never be what they want.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I am fan of a woman deciding for herself when to carry a pregnacy. Not forcing her to do what someone else wants. That is not eugenics.


If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can choose not to have sex, or to use birth control, condoms, etc. No one forces her to do anything, unless she is raped. Very simple. This is not rocket science.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Very true. She can have an abortion.


She can also not have sex. That is the one sure way of not getting pregnant.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Chief50 said:


> No, they are not worthless. Most people who want to adopt a child want one who is healthy and undamaged. Not that many who decide to adopt want a child that has a mental or physical problem. They want the chance to become a parent, not a nurse, doctor, and wallet to a child that will never be what they want.


Becoming a parent is taking what you get. Most don't get to give it back if the child is not as perfect as you want.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can choose not to have sex, or to use birth control, condoms, etc. No one forces her to do anything, unless she is raped. Very simple. This is not rocket science.


Or she can have sex and take precautions and still get pregnant. The abortion is an option. Her option, not yours. Very simple. You have already said abortion up to 8 weeks is acceptable.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> What laws of the universe give anyone the right to live?


The ones that cause every biological individual to do anything they can to survive ... it's called 'survival instincts'.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> The ones that cause every biological individual to do anything they can to survive ... it's called 'survival instincts'.


Survival instinct means I can take my neighbors liver to survive? Sorry but I don't think that is what you believe it is.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> Blackberry Jam I do hope you are kidding. We can't even keep murderers in jail and now you want to lock up pregnant women. Geez.


Not in jail. Just in a place where they can’t drink or do drugs. Or eat junk food or do anything that might endanger the baby she carries. Pregnancy camp.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Insults will not be tolerated


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Not in jail. Just in a place where they can’t drink or do drugs. Or eat junk food or do anything that might endanger the baby she carries. Pregnancy camp.


And when the baby is born and surrendered she can be offered an incentive to be sterilized. Then let go to resume her life. Why should an innocent child be forced to live with the bad choices of some drug addict or alky?


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Posts from those who have never had and raised children are arguing with you.
CC, I believe you know that it doesn't matter if a child is wanted or not. They themselves desire life. They have done nothing other than become the result of someone else's decision to risk creating them.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Insults will joy be tolerated and the thread will be moved or deleted if I have to clean it up again


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> I have been reading these posts and still can't believe what I am reading. NOT ONE of you has an answer for what is supposed to happen to all of these unwanted children. You can't seriously believe it is ok to keep "damaged" children in the system where the tax payers are forced to pay for children they didn't produce, but it is ok to force women to bear
> children so that people who want a newborn are able to have a baby.
> If someone wants a child so badly they are willing to adopt, they should be willing to consider ANY child, not just a baby.
> Or your whole theory of every life is precious gets thrown out the window. What you really mean is every perfect newborn baby is precious, but the older kids born and in the system through no fault of their own are worth nothing.


You must have missed the multiple posts where adoption and orphanages were mentioned -- not as good of an option as responsible parents, but better than death. 

Who determines whether or not a kid is 'damaged', or if that so called damage is permanent?

If we weren't forced to pay for so much stupid unnecessary stuff (such as several mansions or private security for a single politician), we'd have plenty of money to spare (for things that actually matter, such as children with selfish irresponsible parents), and then some.

Many people adopt children who are no longer babies.

Every life is precious, without exception.

No person is perfect, imperfect, worthless or not ... perfection is impossible anyway, because perfection is but a personal opinion, which is different for different people.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Very true. She can have an abortion.


Or she can choose not to get pregnant, instead of using abortion as birth control.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> Posts from those who have never had and raised children are arguing with you.
> CC, I believe you know that it doesn't matter if a child is wanted or not. They themselves desire life. They have done nothing other than become the result of someone else's decision to risk creating them.


By the same token, there seems to be a lot of posts from people who have never given birth as well.

You have no greater right to an opinion than anyone else.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Or she can choose not to get pregnant, instead of using abortion as birth control.


You choose for yourself. That is how it works. You don't choose for another women. You already stated you find abortion up to 8 weeks acceptable.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Yet those who want to outlaw abortion are trying to force women to remain pregnant.


How many times do you have to be informed that unless a woman is raped, she is *not forced* to get pregnant, be pregnant, or give birth. All of that was her choice, not anyone else's.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> How many times do you have to be informed that unless a woman is raped, she is *not forced* to get pregnant, be pregnant, or give birth. All of that was her choice, not anyone else's.


I am aware. She can have an abortion.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Or she can have sex and take precautions and still get pregnant. The abortion is an option. Her option, not yours. Very simple. You have already said abortion up to 8 weeks is acceptable.


If the law can be used to prevent the murder of a person who has been born, there is no good reason for the law not also being used to prevent unnecessary abortions. If a woman is unwilling to protect her unborn child, then who will? If a woman is not prevented from using the plan B / morning after pill, Queen Anne's Lace, etc. the day after having sex, there is no good reason for her to wait for weeks, let alone months, to take care of it.

I know precautions can be taken, and can be ineffective. I know a woman can be pregnant for months and not know it. I've already addressed this multiple times.

I was pregnant with my younger daughter for 6 months before I found out I was pregnant, and I had her 3 months later. Abortion never even crossed my mind. I wanted two children and two children I have (although the first pregnancy was actually with twins, and one died about half way through the pregnancy, which I did not know until after giving birth).


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

wr said:


> By the same token, there seems to be a lot of posts from people who have never given birth as well.
> 
> You have no greater right to an opinion than anyone else.


I agree. 
Forced pregnancy is a rare thing; so should forced abortions.
Becoming an arbiter of life and death is no small thing but dehumanizing a child in order to rationalize a decision may be worse than the act itself.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> If the law can be used to prevent the murder of a person who has been born, there is no good reason for the law not also being used to prevent the murder of an unborn child. If a woman is unwilling to protect her unborn child, then someone should do it for her. If a woman is not prevented from using the plan B / morning after pill, Queen Anne's Lace, etc. the day after having sex, there is no good reason for her to wait for weeks, let alone months, to take care of it.
> 
> I was pregnant with my younger daughter for 6 months before I found out I was pregnant. Then I had her 3 months later. I know precautions can be taken, and can be ineffective. I've already addressed this multiple times.


That is your opinion. You said that abortion is acceptable up until 8 weeks so it is only about timing for you. Timing may be different for another woman. It is the same for me, it is about timing and the health of the woman and the fetus. My time is just different than yours.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Survival instinct means I can take my neighbors liver to survive? Sorry but I don't think that is what you believe it is.


If someone tries to kill you, are you going to stand there and let them? No. Why not? Because survival instincts cause you to protect yourself from being killed. In the case of the need for a liver to survive (assuming your liver is no longer working, or won't continue to work for long), you would have to get on a liver transplant list. Instincts would cause most to at least try to get the liver by getting themselves on a liver transplant list. If you don't get the liver in time, you die. Others are not going to stand there and wait for you to take their liver, because instincts cause them to protect themselves from lunatics trying to take their livers and giblets.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

GTX63 said:


> I agree.
> Forced pregnancy is a rare thing; so should forced abortions.
> Becoming an arbiter of life and death is no small thing but dehumanizing a child in order to rationalize a decision may be worse than the act itself.


I do believe you missed my point entirely. You strongly suggested painterswife’s opinion was invalid because she may not have given birth. 

I’m suggesting that by your reasoning, no man should be sharing their opinion either. 

Her opinion is as valid as anyone else’s and insulting or attempting to shame others WILL cause this thread to vanish.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> If your someone tries to kill you, are you going to stand there and let them? No. Why not? Because survival instincts cause you to protect yourself from being killed. In the case of the need for a liver to survive (assuming your liver is no longer working), you would have to get on a liver transplant list. Instincts would cause most to at least try to get the liver by getting themselves on a liver transplant list. If you don't get the liver in time, you die. Others are not going to stand there and wait for you to take their liver, because instincts cause them to protect themselves from lunatics trying to take their livers and giblets.


So survival instict does not give your rights in the universe. That is what I always thought.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

CC Pereira said:


> Insults will not be tolerated


Understood, duly noted.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You choose for yourself. That is how it works. You don't choose for another women. You already stated you find abortion up to 8 weeks acceptable.


My body my choice works fine if you're making a choice for your body only (such as choosing to or not to get the covid-19 shot), because only you are affected by that choice. Abortion on the other hand, is not only about a woman's body, but also the body and life of another person, who temporarily lives within the body of a woman. Big difference.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I am aware. She can have an abortion.


Or not.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Becoming a parent is taking what you get. Most don't get to give it back if the child is not as perfect as you want.


But if you are choosing a child most parents would want a healthy and mentally stable. Since they are the people who are going to be raising it they should get what they want.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> My body my choice works fine if you're making a choice for your body only (such as choosing to or not to get the covid-19 shot), because only you are affected by that choice. Abortion on the other hand, is not only about a woman's body, but also the body and life of another person, who temporarily lives within the body of a woman. Big difference.


Yet you find it acceptable for her to have an abortion up to 8 weeks. Same situation. I just find it acceptable longer than that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Chief50 said:


> But if you are choosing a child most parents would want a healthy and mentally stable. Since they are the people who are going to be raising it they should get what they want.


That seems to mean that not all children are worthy of having parents because of mental or health problems. So those not perfect children should just be warehoused and we can wait for perfect ones.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> That is your opinion. You said that abortion is acceptable up until 8 weeks so it is only about timing for you. Timing may be different for another woman. It is the same for me, it is about timing and the health of the woman and the fetus. My time is just different than yours.


It is much more than just timing for me. Like I have said multiple times, I understand that an issue such as abortion is not just black and white. I understand that regardless of when a pregnancy is intentionally ended, the result is the same. I don't like it, but I accept it. Preventing unwanted pregnancies IMO, is ultimately the best option.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> It is much more than just timing for me. Like I have said multiple times, I understand that an issue such as abortion is not just black and white. I understand that regardless of when a pregnancy is intentionally ended, the result is the same. I don't like it, but I accept it. Preventing unwanted pregnancies IMO, is ultimately the best option.


I agree preventing unwanted pregnancies is ideal. Life is not ideal and unwanted pregnancies happen. Woman should be able to have an abortion to stop a pregnancy if they want. You have already agreed it is acceptable to do that. You just don't agree on timing.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So survival instict does not give your rights in the universe. That is what I always thought.


Life itself, and survival instincts, are simply examples of proof that all that can live have the right to live. Even according to the U.S. Declaration Of Independence, all are equal ... and endowed ... with certain ... rights ... including life ...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Life itself, and survival instincts, are simply examples of proof that all that can live have the right to live. Even according to the U.S. Declaration Of Independence, all are equal ... and endowed ... with certain ... rights ... including life ...


THE US declaration is writtenby humans. Not from the universe. Survival instincts don't give you any rights about killing others or taking to survive.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Yet you find it acceptable for her to have an abortion up to 8 weeks. Same situation. I just find it acceptable longer than that.


Unnecessarily aborting an unborn child is never a good thing, and is absolutely avoidable. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is the best option, followed by ending unwanted pregnancies the day after having unprotected sex (if precautions were taken but ineffective, but not just as birth control), followed by ending unwanted pregnancies within at least 8 weeks (if precautions were taken but ineffective, but not just as birth control). After that, unnecessary abortion is simply murder. That is what I have said multiple times, in multiple ways. Taking bits and pieces of what I have said, to make it suit your purposes, does not change what I have said, or what I believe.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Unnecessarily aborting an unborn child is never a good thing, and is absolutely avoidable. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is the best option, followed by ending unwanted pregnancies the day after having unprotected sex (if precautions were taken but ineffective, but not just as birth control), followed by ending unwanted pregnancies within at least 8 weeks (if precautions were taken but ineffective, but not just as birth control). After that, unnecessary abortion is simply murder. That is what I have said multiple times, in multiple ways. Taking bits and pieces of what I have said, to make it suit your purposes, does not change what I have said, or what I believe.


Yet, you find abortion acceptable up to 8 weeks. I find it acceptable longer. I also find it acceptable if birth control fails.

Your opinion on nessasary or unnecessary is not really relevant in another woman's life. You do find abortion acceptable but only under your terms. I don't find that based in science.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I agree preventing unwanted pregnancies is ideal. Life is not ideal and unwanted pregnancies happen.


I agree.



painterswife said:


> Woman should be able to have an abortion to stop a pregnancy if they want. You have already agreed it is acceptable to do that. You just don't agree on timing.


I think that ideally, a pregnant woman, the man who impregnated her, a qualified OBGYN, and the unborn child, should all have a say in whether or not abortion is acceptable for them. But like we have both said, life is not always ideal. The man may have skipped town and moved on, or he wants her to get an abortion, or he doesn't even know she is pregnant. The unborn child cannot speak for him or herself, nor protect him or herself from being killed or murdered. Women already have multiple options to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to end unwanted pregnancies, within a reasonable time frame.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> THE US declaration is writtenby humans. Not from the universe. Survival instincts don't give you any rights about killing others or taking to survive.


I didn't say survival instincts give any rights. I said survival instinct is an example of proof that all that can live has the right to live.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

wr said:


> I do believe you missed my point entirely. You strongly suggested painterswife’s opinion was invalid because she may not have given birth.
> 
> I’m suggesting that by your reasoning, no man should be sharing their opinion either.
> 
> Her opinion is as valid as anyone else’s and insulting or attempting to shame others WILL cause this thread to vanish.


I completely agree. Do the women always let the men voice an opinion when they decide to get an abortion?
I really have not made up my mind about abortion yet. What I find funny is from what I can read the man is usually not given any choice in the matter.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Yet, you find abortion acceptable up to 8 weeks. I find it acceptable longer. I also find it acceptable if birth control fails.
> 
> Your opinion on nessasary or unnecessary is not really relevant in another woman's life. You do find abortion acceptable but only under your terms. I don't find that based in science.


I will not keep repeating the same thing indefinitely, so I will only respond to the part that I haven't already repeated multiple times.

An unnecessary abortion is one that is not medically necessary. If you have ten fingers and they all work as they should, then cutting any of them off would be unnecessary. Likewise, if an unborn child is healthy and growing as any unborn child naturally does, then abortion would be medically unnecessary. If on the other hand, allowing the pregnancy to continue would cause the mother to die, then removing and saving the baby and mother both would be ideal, but if that is not possible, then abortion to prevent the pregnant woman from dying would be a necessary medical procedure.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I will not keep repeating the same thing indefinitely, so I will only respond to the part that I haven't already repeated multiple times.
> 
> An unnecessary abortion is one that is not medically necessary. If you have ten fingers and they all work as they should, then cutting any of them off would be unnecessary. Likewise, if an unborn child is healthy and growing as any unborn child naturally does, then abortion would be medically unnecessary. If on the other hand, allowing the pregnancy to continue would cause the mother to die, then removing and saving the baby and mother both would be ideal, but if that is not possible, then abortion to prevent the pregnant woman from dying would be a necessary medical procedure.


Yet you believe in Queen Anne lace and other methods to stop implantation, both after fertization. Again timing

So why the 8 weeks? If it is medically necessary, why does timing matter when it is less the viability?.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Chief50 said:


> I completely agree. Do the women always let the men voice an opinion when they decide to get an abortion?
> I really have not made up my mind about abortion yet. What I find funny is from what I can read the man is usually not given any choice in the matter.


They women I know who have had abortions were strongly encouraged by the men in their lives to have an abortion. 

I didn’t feel compelled to have much further conversation with my ex because he tried to legally force me to abort our third child. 

I have no opinion on how someone else should live so I chose to be a single mom of 3 but it was tough and I’m not sure I could have done it without huge support from my parents. 

As soon as I declined my ex’s offer, he made it clear that I would receive no child support for any of his kids and he kept his word.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So why the 8 weeks? If it is medically necessary, why does timing matter when it is less the viability?.


0-8 Weeks is preferable if at all, because that is about the time that pain receptors begin to form. If abortion is medically unnecessary, and an unborn child is growing as an unborn child naturally does, and there are no obvious medical problems with the unborn baby, then the baby is 'viable'.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> 0-8 Weeks is preferable if at all, because that is about the time that pain receptors begin to form. If abortion is medically unnecessary, and an unborn child is growing as an unborn child naturally does, and there are no obvious medical problems with the unborn baby, then the baby is 'viable'.


So you find abortion acceptable in timing because of certain medical timeliness.

I do as well. My medical time lines are different.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

wr said:


> They women I know who have had abortions were strongly encouraged by the men in their lives to have an abortion.
> 
> I didn’t feel compelled to have much further conversation with my ex because he tried to legally force me to abort our third child.
> 
> ...


Not all men are like your ex. Some of them would be glad to have a son or a daughter.
There are ways to help a man change his mind about child support.
I have been on this earth long enough to be on different sides of different things. I have been one of those men who would have been happy to have a child but was not given the option. I have also been one of those men who had to pay child support for 21 years for a child that I didn't know was mine. The choice I had was to pay or go to jail.
I can understand both sides of many different things. It is hard for me to understand people who will not look at things from a different place.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> So you find abortion acceptable in timing because of certain medical timeliness.
> 
> I do as well. My medical time lines are different.


No need to twist the words of another to suit your purposes. No need for me to repeat the same thing forever. It is okay to agree to disagree on anything we cannot see eye to eye on. A difference of opinion is also totally okay. We agree about some thing and disagree about other things, and that is quite alright with me.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

No words were twisted. You find abortion acceptable under your terms. I find it acceptable under mine.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No words were twisted. You find abortion acceptable under your terms. I find it acceptable under mine.


You have twisted my words multiple times. I think you just really enjoy arguing for no other purpose than to argue.

Feel free to read all of my posts (the first time or again) in this thread to prove your twistage, because I will not continue to repeat the same stuff ad infinitum.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> You have twisted my words multiple times. I think you just really enjoy arguing for no other purpose than to argue.
> 
> Feel free to read all of my posts (the first time or again) in this thread to prove your twistage, because I will not continue to repeat the same stuff ad infinitum.


What is incorrect about my previous post?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No words were twisted. You find abortion acceptable under your terms. I find it acceptable under mine.


And I never find it acceptable….. but then I don’t stomp on baby kittens either.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

CC Pereira, I have read the posts about adoption and "orphanages". My point was that there are a lot of children available for adoption that are not being adopted. And I don't know where you live, but last I checked the United States doesn't have "orphanages" anymore. They have foster parents and group homes. 
It was not I who called them "damaged" but the OP who mentioned them. I was just using his words. 
And I still don't understand how it is that there are older (therefore less desirable) children are left to languish in the system because people want a newborn that is perfect. As mentioned before, natural parents don't get to return their children if they aren't perfect.
Whether I agree with abortion or not, I believe that by outlawing it and making women carry these "unwanted" children to term will just add to the children without homes.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> What is incorrect about my previous post?


The part about not twisting my words, which I do believe you have done multiple times. Feel free to quote what I say and respond, or even to leave out a sentence or two that you do not want to respond to, but to change what I say into something else IMO is twisting my words to suit your own purposes.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> The part about not twisting my words, which I do believe you have done multiple times. Feel free to quote what I say and respond, or even to leave out a sentence or two that you do not want to respond to, but to change what I say into something else IMO is twisting my words to suit your own purposes.


I stated my synopsis of what you posted. I have every right to do so. What was wrong with my synposis?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BadOregon said:


> Whether I agree with abortion or not, I believe that by outlawing it and making women carry these "unwanted" children to term will just add to the children without homes.


while this doesn’t help with the abortion issue I think you may have solved the foster care problem! Just kill the buggers, no more problem!


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

BadOregon said:


> CC Pereira, I have read the posts about adoption and "orphanages". My point was that there are a lot of children available for adoption that are not being adopted. And I don't know where you live, but last I checked the United States doesn't have "orphanages" anymore. They have foster parents and group homes.
> It was not I who called them "damaged" but the OP who mentioned them. I was just using his words.
> And I still don't understand how it is that there are older (therefore less desirable) children are left to languish in the system because people want a newborn that is perfect. As mentioned before, natural parents don't get to return their children if they aren't perfect.
> Whether I agree with abortion or not, I believe that by outlawing it and making women carry these "unwanted" children to term will just add to the children without homes.


You're correct about orphanages. I used the wrong word to describe foster parents and group homes.

Older may mean undesirable to some, but not to all.

Perfection is a matter of personal opinion, unless by perfect you mean healthy.

If the Roe vs Wade case is overturned, it does not outlaw abortion. The result would simply be that the whether or not abortion is legal, and if so to what extent, would be up to each individual state. If some states decides to make unnecessary abortion illegal, and other states decide to make unnecessary abortion legal, that doesn't take the choice of abortion away from anyone. If a woman lives in a state where unnecessary abortion is illegal, she can go to a state where unnecessary abortion is legal.

No one forces people to be irresponsible. Unless raped, no one forces a woman to have sex, get pregnant, be pregnant, or give birth.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

CC Pereira said:


> The part about not twisting my words, which I do believe you have done multiple times. Feel free to quote what I say and respond, or even to leave out a sentence or two that you do not want to respond to, but to change what I say into something else IMO is twisting my words to suit your own purposes.


No one has twisted your words.
There’s an old joke where a man walks up to a woman in a bar and says, “Will you sleep with me for a million dollars?” She thinks for a second and then says, “Sure.” The man smiles and says, “Will you sleep with me for one dollar?” The woman tosses her drink in the man’s face and says, “What kind of girl do you think I am?” 

“We already know the answer to that,” replies the man. “Now we’re just negotiating price.”

YOU have already admitted you are okay with abortion. Now you’re just haggling over the cut-off.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Are you suggesting it is ok to abort if a baby is found to be deformed or unhealthy?


I don't see you adopting the poor thing.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

CC Pereira said:


> You're correct about orphanages. I used the wrong word to describe foster parents and group homes.
> 
> Older may mean undesirable to some, but not to all.
> 
> ...


Some states have trigger laws.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> You don't kill millions to avoid a few dozen who might be less than perfect. We will deal with them like we have been. It is unfortunate but, it keeps them from starving.


I think m9st of the aborted babies are not going to be healthy perfect babies. They're going to be addicted to drugs or suffer from alcohol issues.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Evons hubby said:


> the fetus is a unique living human being from conception forward. This is fact, not opinion.


In your opinion


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

coolrunnin said:


> I think m9st of the aborted babies are not going to be healthy perfect babies. They're going to be addicted to drugs or suffer from alcohol issues.


You think a drug addict is going to pay to abort their child when the government will give them money to keep it?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> In your opinion


What part is opinion? That it is alive, human, or unique? All three are facts that can be demonstrated.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

bubba42 said:


> Why do we worry when someone gets shot during a robbery? Regardless of of one’s views, empathy is still a factor and this broaches (at the least) one’s views on morals and views of right and wrong. I began this thread by asking when the right to a woman’s body was granted to the child by their mother (who did not choose to have an abortion), as the mother would presumably have that same right to choose (according to most pro-choice advocates). No one has answered that question. Clearly, and at the very least, pro choice advocates must then concede that this right to choose isn’t one they were born with. On the other hand, most pro-life advocates believe that the right to life is something that one is born with.



“ I began this thread by asking when the right to a woman’s body was granted to the child “

I answered it way up in the thread. It’s simple. When born. No idea why so many want to make things complicated.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> If they can choose to have an abortion, they can choose to let the born child go for adoption. Every healthy infant is wanted and then some. The problem is when people have children and don't put them up for adoption then proceed to damage them beyond repair. The vast majority of aborted babies would have been healthy infants and there are currently 35 couples, give or take, waiting for every healthy infant available. While I do believe those who choose abortion are sick sadistic twists, I am told that they are usually well adjusted, well informed, good people, so, which is it?


How do you make SURE its a health baby ? Lock the potential mom up under 24/7 supervision?


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Farmerga said:


> You think a drug addict is going to pay to abort their child when the government will give them money to keep it?


So we should send pregnant addicts and drunks off to camp to be cared for so the baby is healthy. Same with any women who don’t practice a safe pregnant lifestyle.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> How do you make SURE its a health baby ? Lock the potential mom up under 24/7 supervision?


Most infants are healthy. Those who do not take care of themselves enough to expect that, will likely not seek abortion as they stand to get more government assistance for each child they have.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> They are sometimes ignored because they tend to be damaged. Most children, in foster care, are not given up, they are taken from their parents because of abuse, neglect, or, other damaging event.


Why would any child be allowed to be left behind. Proper administrated adaptions could easily solve these problems. Sign up for the drawings, take home the child you draw. Simple. No need to be picky. Does the parents to be want a child or not ?


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> How do you make SURE its a health baby ? Lock the potential mom up under 24/7 supervision?


Yeppers. Same with pregnant people who won’t stop skiing, playing rough sports, eating McDonalds exclusively, etc. Lock them up for the baby’s sake.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> Why would any child be allowed to be left behind. Proper administrated adaptions could easily solve these problems. Sign up for the drawings, take home the child you draw. Simple. No need to be picky. Does the parents to be want a child or not ?


Making adoption easier would certainly help, but, there needs to be a good match. It takes skills that not everyone has to care for some children.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Making adoption easier would certainly help, but, there needs to be a good match. It takes skills that not everyone has to care for some children.


Same skills might be needed with your own genetic offspring. Signing up for parenthood means you accept that.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> More than 100,000 and 20,000 age out every year without being adopted.
> 
> People will go to other countries to adopt instead of looking after the children here first. Why are these children not as important?





Chief50 said:


> Take a good look at the breeding stock those children come from.





Chief50 said:


> Supply and demand. If you wanted a watermelon would you settle for a tomato?


So its ok to be selective after birth, but bad to be selective before birth. Wow


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Same skills might be needed with your own genetic offspring. Signing up for parenthood means you accept that.


If that were true, there wouldn't be so many disabled children in the system.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> So its ok to be selective after birth, but bad to be selective before birth. Wow


I don't see anyone calling for the extermination of these children.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If that were true, there wouldn't be so many disabled children in the system.


It is a problem. Exacerbated by allowing people to pick and choose. Obviously not all children are wanted. Why should we force people who don't want them to have them?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

painterswife said:


> Just pay for all men to be snipped and their swimmers stored. Less intrusive of an operation.





Farmerga said:


> If they don't want to be father's, sure. Why not? I did say "any person".




So why select only those that wish to be fathers to be left out? All sperm can easily be stored ahead of time. Provided as needed. Preferably only if the parents to be meet the proper qualifications of course.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> It is a problem. Exasperated by allowing people to pick and choose. Obviously not all children are wanted. Why should we force people who don't want them to have them?


Because they deserve to live. Do you wish to thin the disabled herd by gas chamber?
And all children are wanted, the problem is finding those who want them and making the procedure easy enough to not have those people quit out of frustration.


----------



## BadOregon (12 mo ago)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Yeppers. Same with pregnant people who won’t stop skiing, playing rough sports, eating McDonalds exclusively, etc. Lock them up for the baby’s sake.


Are you for real?!


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Blackberry Jam said:


> So we should send pregnant addicts and drunks off to camp to be cared for so the baby is healthy. Same with any women who don’t practice a safe pregnant lifestyle.


Using drugs is against the law. Women have been locked up before for using drugs when they were pregnant.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Yeppers. Same with pregnant people who won’t stop skiing, playing rough sports, eating McDonalds exclusively, etc. Lock them up for the baby’s sake.


Those things are not against the law.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> So why select only those that wish to be fathers to be left out? All sperm can easily be stored ahead of time. Provided as needed. Preferably only if the parents to be meet the proper qualifications of course.


That is actually using force. Not like outlawing abortion. No woman is forced to become pregnant by government. Government should step in to protect her offspring from those who would do it harm, even the parents.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> Why would any child be allowed to be left behind. Proper administrated adaptions could easily solve these problems. Sign up for the drawings, take home the child you draw. Simple. No need to be picky. Does the parents to be want a child or not ?


Too many parents would decide not to adopt.


----------



## Chief50 (10 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> So its ok to be selective after birth, but bad to be selective before birth. Wow


It is much easier after birth. No one would wish for a baby with mental or health problems. All parents want healthy babies, even those who adopt.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I get it now.

Force all pregnant women to carry the pregnancy to term. All birth parents can choose to give the damaged ones to the government for warehousing and only the perfect ones get adopted. If it turns out not perfect return it. Keep trying them out new ones until you are sure they are perfect and return the defective ones.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Farmerga said:


> Making adoption easier would certainly help, but, there needs to be a good match. It takes skills that not everyone has to care for some children.


Your qualified to adapt or not. Sign up or not. Picking babies like a pet is just wrong.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Chief50 said:


> Too many parents would decide not to adopt.


so ?


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Well it beer break time for me. You all have fun.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Redlands Okie said:


> Your qualified to adapt or not. Sign up or not. Picking babies like a pet is just wrong.


It is not a matter of being qualified. It is a matter of what you have to go through to adopt, qualified or not. 
Killing them because some might have to spend their lives in the system is far more wrong.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I get it now


No you don't.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

Chief50 said:


> Those things are not against the law.


That’s easy enough to change. Anything bad for the unborn baby should be illegal. A skiing or riding accident could cause a miscarriage. I think that the woman carrying the fetus should be held responsible for the health of the child she is carrying, don’t you?
Once abortion is rightfully illegal (praise our holy Father) women will find other ways to get out of their pregnancies. We must think ahead and plug holes ahead of time. Loopholes, I mean.🙏


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

coolrunnin said:


> I think m9st of the aborted babies are not going to be healthy perfect babies. They're going to be addicted to drugs or suffer from alcohol issues.


Personal opinion, not fact. I too, have posted many of my own opinions, so I do not post this without that understanding.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> “ I began this thread by asking when the right to a woman’s body was granted to the child “
> 
> I answered it way up in the thread. It’s simple. When born. No idea why so many want to make things complicated.


My body my choice ... which does not include the body of another. A pregnant woman does not own an unborn child that lives within her body, any more than an unborn child or anyone else owns the body of a woman. A parent does not own their children, but is (or should be) responsible for them until they are adults. Does that answer your question?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is a problem. Exacerbated by allowing people to pick and choose. Obviously not all children are wanted. Why should we force people who don't want them to have them?


There goes that very inaccurate 'force' word again.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Taking away my right to an abortion is forcing me to stay pregnant. Very accurate.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is a problem. Exacerbated by allowing people to pick and choose. Obviously not all children are wanted. Why should we force people who don't want them to have them?


I do have to agree with something here though ... I don't think people who want to adopt should be allowed to pick and choose, because most pregnant women and the men who impregnate them do not get to choose ... but on the other hand, women also do not give birth to half grown children.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I get it now.
> 
> Force all pregnant women to carry the pregnancy to term. All birth parents can choose to give the damaged ones to the government for warehousing and only the perfect ones get adopted. If it turns out not perfect return it. Keep trying them out new ones until you are sure they are perfect and return the defective ones.


This is a perfect example of how you have been twisting the words of others into something else.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> This is a perfect example of how you have been twisting the words of others into something else.


Not one twisted word. Synopsis of several posts in my own words with some sarcasm thrown in.

You never addressed my synopsis of your stance on abortion si I assume I was right on point.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

wr said:


> But I would still like to know what Pro Life opinion is correct? Is an IUD or any form of birth control okay, because some have said no IUD and others have indicated that abstinence is the only suitable birth control.
> 
> Is the Plan B pill okay, because we are getting conflicting opinions on that.
> 
> ...


These have been answered. Abstinence. Its not rocket science, so dont try to muddy the water. Its what I tried to teach my kids. I really don’t think “you can see the forest for the trees”, or that you really want to learn what pro-life advocates truly believe. If someone doesn’t want the responsibility for a life, then that individual shouldn’t initiate the activities that would result in the creation of life.

No matter how often you repeat yourself, or how often you attempt to validate what you think pro-life advocates believe, it boils down to life, and our view of ones responsibility regarding that life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bubba42 said:


> These have been answered. Abstinence. Its not rocket science, so dont try to muddy the water. Its what I tried to teach my kids. I really don’t think “you can see the forest for the trees”, or that you really want to learn what pro-life advocates truly believe. If someone doesn’t want the responsibility for a life, then that individual shouldn’t initiate the activities that would result in the creation of life.
> 
> No matter how often you repeat yourself, or how often you attempt to validate what you think pro-life advocates believe, it boils down to life, and our view of ones responsibility regarding that life.


There are several paths to not being pregnant. Yours is not the only one.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Taking away my right to an abortion is forcing me to stay pregnant. Very accurate.


Aside from rape, no one forces anyone to have sex, which everyone knows is what causes pregnancy, which everyone knows results in birth. No force necessary, it's just the way nature is. No one forces anyone to have sex irresponsibly, to get pregnant (unless raped), to be pregnant, to stay pregnant, or to give birth. We've all already described multiple times, all of the options already available to people, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and even additional options after becoming pregnant. So to say that a woman who is not raped, is pregnant because someone else forces her to be, is just a big fat lie, which IMO does not justify the murder of an innocent unborn child.

This thread is also titled 'Roe/Wade', not 'do you believe in abortion, and if so or not why'.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Not one twisted word. Synopsis of several posts in my own words with some sarcasm thrown in.
> 
> You never addressed my synopsis of your stance on abortion si I assume I was right on point.


Most of those words were twisted into knots.

I do not want to read through all 25 pages again, but I will admit that it is possible that your synopsis was at least partially accurate, with or without the word twisting.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Never have I claimed anyone but those raped are forced to have sex. People have sex because they enjoy it. That in no way means their rights to decide when to stay pregnant should be taken away. That is force.

You have already said abortion is acceptable to you as long as it meets your guidelines. So you are fine with murder as you called it, if it meets your terms. Right there in your own post. My synopsis.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

painterswife said:


> More than 100,000 and 20,000 age out every year without being adopted.
> 
> People will go to other countries to adopt instead of looking after the children here first. Why are these children not as important?


You present a false narrative, and i must admit i am fighting back anger regarding the ignorance of your comment.

People would much prefer to adopt “here”. The government makes it so onerous to adopt, with costs so enormous that most parents could not afford to adopt “here”, even if they were permitted to. There have been restrictions to adoptions recently enacted that can, and often, limit the parents options to only those children of the same race. That is nonsense.

My sister had to adopt from China through a church group as US adoptions are so extraordinarily expensive.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

bubba42 said:


> You present a false narrative, and i must admit i am fighting back anger regarding the ignorance of your comment.
> 
> People would much prefer to adopt “here”. The government makes it so onerous to adopt, with costs so enormous that most parents could not afford to adopt “here”, even if they were permitted to. There have been restrictions to adoptions recently enacted that can, and often, limit the parents options to only those children of the same race. That is nonsense.
> 
> My sister had to adopt from China through a church group as US adoptions are so extraordinarily expensive.


Adopting a child out of foster care costs little to nothing.
Why are you so angry?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Perfect infants cost more. Supply and demand. Older imperfect children not as expensive because they are not wanted.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Never have I claimed anyone but those raped are forced to have sex.


Excellent.




painterswife said:


> People have sex because they enjoy it.


Agreed.




painterswife said:


> That in no way means their rights to decide when to stay pregnant should be taken away. That is force.


I believe that a woman has that right for a limited amount of time. Is it really so difficult to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or to at least end unwanted pregnancies within a reasonable time, so as to avoid abortion? I don't think so.

Force is making someone do something (such as getting pregnant). Being pregnant is simply the natural result of unprotected sex, or in rare cases, protected sex. Birth is the natural result of pregnancy, unless there is a problem during pregnancy, such as abortion.




painterswife said:


> You have already said abortion is acceptable to you as long as it meets your guidelines. So you are fine with murder as you called it, if it meets your terms. Right there in your own post. My synopsis.


Yes, I have said that I believe abortion can be acceptable, under certain (but generally rare) circumstances, which I have already explained multiple times.

Can you agree that there is a difference between killing and murder?

Here are some examples of what I would consider is killing:


Self defense or defense of another, to prevent self or another from being killed
Killing an animal (that is not human), to prevent starvation
Ending a pregnancy within 8 weeks of pregnancy
Removing someone from life support, to prevent them from living the rest of their lives on life support
Not resuscitating someone who does not want to be
Accidentally killing someone

Here are some examples of what I would consider murder:


Intentionally causing someone else to die, if not by killing
Medically unnecessary abortion after 8 weeks of pregnancy
Suicide


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Perfect infants cost more. Supply and demand. Older imperfect children not as expensive because they are not wanted.


No one is perfect or imperfect. Healthy or unhealthy, young or not. sure. But not imperfect because of their age. Some people prefer babies, others are willing to adopt any child they can, no matter the age.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You meaning of force is incorrect. Your meaning for murder is based on your personal preferences, not law.

Your find abortion acceptable on your terms.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> No one is perfect or imperfect. Healthy or unhealthy, young or not. sure. But not imperfect because of their age. Some people prefer babies, others are willing to adopt any child they can, no matter the age.


Not according to those who want a newborn with nothing wrong with it instead of an older child that may be damaged mentally or physically.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Here are some adoption options I'd like to just list here for future reference:

adoption from an adoption agency (usually very expensive, difficult, and time consuming)
adoption from another country (maybe not as expensive, difficult, and time consuming, as the first option)
adoption from a foster care facility or group home (much more affordable, less difficult, and less time consuming than the first option)
surrogate (can be expensive, but not as expensive, difficult, or as time consuming, as the first option)

Feel free to add any options I may have missed.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> You meaning of force is incorrect. Your meaning for murder is based on your personal preferences, not law.
> 
> Your find abortion acceptable on your terms.


Force: to make someone do something against their will.

You have agreed that sex (unless raped) is not forced. Can you not admit that sex causes pregnancy, which causes birth? If so, then no force is involved in this scenario.

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Not just my personal preferences. Listing examples of killing and murder does not change facts into opinions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Force: to make someone do something against their will.
> 
> You have agreed that sex (unless raped) is not forced. Can you not admit that sex causes pregnancy, which causes birth? If so, then no force is involved in this scenario.
> 
> Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Not just my personal preferences. Listing examples of killing and murder does not change facts into opinions.


Having sex is not the same act as having or not an abortion. You can't say that because you had sex, you don't have the right to an abortion. Sex, may cause a pregnancy but that does not mean you have to continue the pregnancy. Yes it is force to make a woman carry a pregnacy to term against her wishes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Redlands Okie said:


> In your opinion


Um nope, it’s fact. Biology 101.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

I believe in the American Way. That is to say, whatever you think about abortion is irrelevant to this discussion. The government should not be involved at any level in any manner.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Having sex is not the same act as having or not an abortion. You can't say that because you had sex, you don't have the right to an abortion. Sex, may cause a pregnancy but that does not mean you have to continue the pregnancy. Yes it is force to make a woman carry a pregnacy to term against her wishes.


Yet not having sex prevents abortion. I didn't say that having sex means you do not have the 'right' to an abortion. Your words, not mine. There are multiple ways to prevent both unwanted pregnancy, and abortion (which BTW, is rarely medically necessary). I disagree. Except in the case of rape, no one forces a woman to have sex, to not use already mentioned options to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or from ending an unwanted pregnancy within a reasonable time -- and therefore, no one forces a woman to get, be, or stay pregnant. You are free to believe otherwise, but your difference in opinion or belief will not change mine.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Vjk said:


> I believe in the American Way. That is to say, whatever you think about abortion is irrelevant to this discussion. The government should not be involved at any level in any manner.


If it is okay for government to protect born people from being murdered, why should it be any different for the unborn?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Yet not having sex prevents abortion. I didn't say that having sex means you do not have the 'right' to an abortion. Your words, not mine. There are multiple ways to prevent both unwanted pregnancy, and abortion (which BTW, is rarely medically necessary). I disagree. Except in the case of rape, no one forces a woman to have sex, to not use already mentioned options to prevent unwanted pregnancies, or from ending an unwanted pregnancy within a reasonable time -- and therefore, no one forces a woman to get, be, or stay pregnant. You are free to believe otherwise, but your difference in opinion or belief will not change mine.


It is still force to make someone do something they don't want to.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is still force to make someone do something they don't want to.


True. I have already said that in a previous post.


----------



## Vjk (Apr 28, 2020)

CC Pereira said:


> If it is okay for government to protect born people from being murdered, why should it be any different for the unborn?


that is quite ignorant. the government does not protect anyone from being murdered. in certain circumstances, government punishes people for committing murder, but the only thing that protects me from being murdered is a Glock.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Vjk said:


> that is quite ignorant. the government does not protect anyone from being murdered. in certain circumstances, government punishes people for committing murder, but the only thing that protects me from being murdered is a Glock.


True, true ... I meant, if there are laws to protect the born people from being murdered, why should it be any different for the unborn people?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

coolrunnin said:


> I think m9st of the aborted babies are not going to be healthy perfect babies. They're going to be addicted to drugs or suffer from alcohol issues.


My friend is raising 4 that the system didn’t even want. All 4 were born addicted to crack and 3 of the four are a danger to society. 

One likes fire, kills small animals and was sexually assaulting little girls by the time he was 12. 

One is extremely violent and was expelled for all public schools in the province after he put a teacher in the hospital, broke a girl’s are for fun and the psychologists feel he’s likely to ‘harm someone badly’ sooner or later. 

The daughter left home at 16 for a life of drugs and prostitution and the last I head, she was doing time for attempted robbery. 

In light of all that, the youngest is not well enough to work but he’s a pretty handy petty thief. 

All but one is aged out of the system so she no longer has teams of specialist and assistance for expensive medications for them and she’s not wealthy enough to cover all of their expenses.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> True, true ... I meant, if there are laws to protect the born people from being murdered, why should it be any different for the unborn people?


Your opinion of what is murder with regards to abortion is subjective, dependent on your view of when abortion should be allowed. Would you want plan B to be murder?


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Adopting a child out of foster care costs little to nothing.
> Why are you so angry?


When they adopted their infant daughter, that was not the case. She is 17 now, and it would have cost many tens of thousands of dollars just in adoption fees alone. For anyone who has ever actually attempted to use the system, they know the costs. Their total fees for adopting within the US at that time would have exceeded $50,000. Based on a quick search, they absolutely still are NOT little to nothing: How Much Does Adoption Cost? - Adopting.org.

It makes me angry when folks such as you, who assume a “little to nothing” cost and comment as if you actually know what others are paying for adoptions, is what makes me angry.


----------



## bubba42 (Jan 5, 2014)

Insult deleted


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Your opinion of what is murder with regards to abortion is subjective, dependent on your view of when abortion should be allowed.


Yes painterswife, I admit, this is correct.



painterswife said:


> Would you want plan B to be murder?


No I would not. Understand though, that Queen Anne's Lace, the plan B / morning after pill, or an equivalent, does not require a medical procedure to abort, and if it is used, it can (and should) be done within days, not weeks, let alone months. Remember, I have already said that I believe abortion to be a bit of a gray area, not only black or white.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Insults and name calling remain against the rules and are exactly why these threads get closed


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Yes painterswife, I admit, this is correct.
> 
> 
> No I would not. Understand though, that Queen Anne's Lace, the plan B / morning after pill, or an equivalent, does not require a medical procedure to abort, and if it is used, it can (and should) be done within days, not weeks, let alone months. Remember, I have already said that I believe abortion to be a bit of a gray area, not only black or white.


So my synopsis again is that you are okay with abortion if it fits your narrow guidelines. Killing a fetus is acceptable and not murder if it fits your guidelines.


----------

