# Largest "Right to Life" March ever



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

http://joemiller.us/2015/01/largest...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-bde1415cd5-230980529

2 of my g'daughters (from St Louis suburb) raised $$ & went to this. I am so proud.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

You should be. Hopefully with enough young people involved we can destroy this vicious sacrifice of innocent lives.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I really don't see how an event like this somehow helps a woman who is struggling with the decision to terminate a pregnancy. In 2008, researchers asked nearly a thousand women why they had sought an abortion. The answers?



> Researchers found 40% of these women mentioning something financial, 36% in some way discussing the bad âtimingâ of the pregnancy, 31% raising a partner issue, 29% speaking of âother children,â 20% talking of the child somehow interfering with future opportunities.


If you really want to deter abortions, these are the kinds of concerns you need to address. Or, better yet -- prevention being worth a pound of cure! -- work to see that reliable birth control is available to all who need it. 

I realize that is not nearly as exciting as marching and waving a sign, but that is what really saves fetuses (or prevents them from being created in the first place).


----------



## Jeffery (Oct 25, 2011)

Todays kids are the Pro-Life generation!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> I really don't see how an event like this somehow helps a woman who is struggling with the decision to terminate a pregnancy. In 2008, researchers asked nearly a thousand women why they had sought an abortion. The answers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*should all other cases of premeditated murder .....for personal gain be supported as freedom of choice?.....with celebrations .....when did peacefully marching,with out looting the death of unarmed people be viewed as a waste f time. Free condoms are easy to get....they are in bowls at the welfare office. Medicaid covers sterilization free. Is that not what the non profit planned parenthood claim to exist for.*

As to working to see that reliable birth control is used....are we to the point of such a lack of personal responsibility that we need to for a governmental agency to PUT THE FREE CONDOMS ON THE PENISES....a government worker in every bedroom and it thought TSA was invasive.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> I really don't see how an event like this somehow helps a woman who is struggling with the decision to terminate a pregnancy. In 2008, researchers asked nearly a thousand women why they had sought an abortion. The answers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Were civil rights events useless also?

I'll tell you what we are doing when not marching for life, getting abortion clinics closed, supporting pregnancy centers and the mothers and their children, teaching on life issues, helping to get counseling for the grieving mothers who have had an abortion.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I really don't see how an event like this somehow helps a woman who is struggling with the decision to terminate a pregnancy. In 2008, researchers asked nearly a thousand women why they had sought an abortion. The answers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The march is to raise awareness that a life is taken for these reasons. NONE of which warrant taking an innocent life.
There's "HUNDREDS" of programs, $$, help for those in situations like you described. Yet the "inconvenience" really trumps all.
So sad. 
However something is making a difference. Perhaps its getting out the word that AT LEAST at 20 weeks, the unborn child feels pain. Perhaps its the testimony of many who are terribly upset, cannot bring themselves to 'be ok' w/what they've done afterwards, one woman described hearing her baby's cries right before his head was punctured...maybe its just education regarding the FACTS: this is NOT just a blob of cells. This is NOT 'YOUR' body inside you. THis is NOT a 'women's health' issue.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> *should all other cases of premeditated murder .....for personal gain be supported as freedom of choice?.....with celebrations .....when did peacefully marching,with out looting the death of unarmed people be viewed as a waste f time. Free condoms are easy to get....they are in bowls at the welfare office. Medicaid covers sterilization free. Is that not what the non profit planned parenthood claim to exist for.*
> 
> As to working to see that reliable birth control is used....are we to the point of such a lack of personal responsibility that we need to for a governmental agency to PUT THE FREE CONDOMS ON THE PENISES....a government worker in every bedroom and it thought TSA was invasive.


Post of the century award.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Were civil rights events useless also?


In the case of a civil rights march, I don't see where organizers could have taken all the money spent that would have been spent by participants and put it to a better use in furthering their cause. 

Where abortion is concerned? Yeah, I think you could have. 

I don't know how much a couple of plane tickets to DC costs these days, but I suspect a couple thousand dollars -- enough to keep her from becoming homeless, or prevent her children from going hungry when she's out of work during her last trimester -- would probably be enough to sway most desperate women from aborting an unplanned pregnancy. 

So, you traded the opportunity to actually save some fetuses for the chance to parade around with signs and feel self-righteous. Useless grandstanding, IMO, but hey, it's a free country!


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Free condoms are easy to get....they are in bowls at the welfare office. Medicaid covers sterilization free. Is that not what the non profit planned parenthood claim to exist for.
> 
> As to working to see that reliable birth control is used....are we to the point of such a lack of personal responsibility that we need to for a governmental agency to PUT THE FREE CONDOMS ON THE PENISES....a government worker in every bedroom and it thought TSA was invasive.


If you really want to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies, you have to deal in reality, in the way people really think and behave. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of self-righteous blathering that, like abortion marches, makes the participants feel good without actually accomplishing anything. 

For instance, most young women are not going to choose to be sterilized simply to avoid an unintended pregnancy. They want to be mothers SOMEDAY, which is perfectly reasonable. To say it's their own fault if they get pregnant, because they didn't have a tubal ligation at 17, is a little harsh, don't you think?

And condoms, while excellent at preventing disease when used correctly, are not a very good first line of birth control. It's too easy for people to skip them in the heat of passion, or because someone forgot to stop at the drugstore, or even in a moment of "OMG I love you so much let's make a baby!" 

The best and most reliable forms of birth control are LARCs -- long-acting reversible contraceptives, including implants and IUDs. One of the reasons they haven't been more widely used up until now is because they're expensive. You CAN'T get them free from a bowl in a welfare office!

The good news is that you CAN get them free thanks to Obamacare. Studies have shown that when women are educated about all their birth control options, and cost is no barrier, a high percentage choose LARCs. 

So keep an eye on the statistics: I'll bet that within a decade, we'll begin to see a significant decline in abortion rates. And it won't be because some people were marching around and waving signs; it will be because women will have increase access to the most effective forms of birth control. And I think we can all agree that will be a good thing!


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Just a quick thought, if a woman is going to be so distraught over the idea of raising a baby, maybe she should keep he legs closed.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I can only imagine the outcome if wives all over America began taking your advice, Dixie!

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I personally know a woman who had an abortion because they rented a Beach house for the summer and did not want to be pregnant in a bathing suit. 

So how much vanity is worth the life of a child?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I guess some of us need to know what effective forms of b.c. are NOT available...FREE for the asking?
Also, needs to be pointed out that many groups are promoting adoption. 'Course that only works if the momtobe realizes there's a life inside, not a blob & needs to be unselfish enuf to carry to term.
This truly can be traced back to the liberal values of instant gratification. Me, Me, ME!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Planned Parenthood Head 'Proud' of Its Abortions
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards told reporters on Tuesday that her organization takes pride in providing millions of abortions at its affiliated clinics around the country.
"We proudly provide safe and legal abortion," Richards said.
"For young women in America, the idea that pregnancy alone would determine their destiny is unthinkable today. They fully expect that birth control and safe and legal abortion will be available to them, and they should."
Planned Parenthood clinics performed 327,653 abortions in fiscal year 2014, according to Planned Parenthood of America's latest annual report &#8212; 487 more than the previous year and an average of 37 abortions per hour.
Planned Parenthood received $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements last year, accounting for 41 percent of its revenue.
The federal government is barred from paying directly for abortions through Title X family planning grants and reimbursements, but federal funds do pay for Planned Parenthood operations, including the clinics where abortions are performed, CNS News reported.
Richards added that "politicians who are trying to erase women's progress are on the wrong side of history."
Documents filed with the IRS for 2012 showed that Richards received total compensation of $492,200 that year.
Also on Tuesday, Rep. Paul Tonko, a New York Democrat, would not say whether a 20-week-old fetus is a human being.
Asked by CNS News whether "an unborn child [is] a human being 20 weeks into a pregnancy," Tonko said: "I just want to see how it's defined in the bill," referring to the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act introduced in the House.
The bill, which has been shelved temporarily, would ban abortions after 20 weeks in all 50 states in cases other than incest involving a minor, rape, or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.
The White House said in a statement that the administration "strongly opposes" the measure.


----------



## vicki in NW OH (May 10, 2002)

willow_girl said:


> In the case of a civil rights march, I don't see where organizers could have taken all the money spent that would have been spent by participants and put it to a better use in furthering their cause.
> 
> Where abortion is concerned? Yeah, I think you could have.
> 
> ...


Your concern for the women is touching. 

No woman in our diocese would be denied help despite the cost of our bus ticket and the cost of the paper our messages are printed on.

We don't feel self-righteous. We're praying for the lives of the most vulnerable. 

I suggest you investigate in your area the resources available to pregnant women in a crisis situation, because the resources made available by prolife folks are considerable.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Planned Parenthood is especially proud of the number of Black babies they killed, as it was their original intent.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> I can only imagine the outcome if wives all over America began taking your advice, Dixie!
> 
> Be careful what you wish for.



No one has to imagine the brutal dismemberment painful death of a child found guilty of living in the mist of a mother with other plans


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> The best and most reliable forms of birth control


No, the most reliable thing is not having sex. If you don't want a baby, aren't ready for a baby, whatever the reason, just don't do it. It really is that simple. No innocent life should end because people act like animals. 

Too many excuses:

it just happened
it was the heat of passion
i just couldn't help myself

blah, blah, blah. 

No excuse in the world can justify the killing of an innocent human being. What if I became financially strapped now, can I use that as an excuse to kill my kids? I mean, gosh, if my life will be inconvenienced by them, shouldn't I be allowed to get rid of them. Afterall, I created them I should be able to do what I want to them. 

This is one place where I actually want to try to go sometime. I have had 2 micro preemies & it sickens me to think babies that size are killed everyday. I think it is wonderful that millions of people care enough to try to end this slaughter of innocent lives!


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

Bottom line... If you do not believe in abortions or do not want to have an abortion *DON"T!*


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I'm not touching this thread with a 10 ft pole except to say congrats to them for doing the work themselves and standing up for what they believe in.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If you do not approve of premeditated murder then don't murder......yea that will help society. Why is hands up so supported as good reason to riot, loot, burn injury people but to March against abortion is wrong.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Bottom line... If you do not believe in abortions or do not want to have an abortion *DON"T!*


Someone needs to speak up for innocent babies that can't speak for themselves.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> No, the most reliable thing is not having sex. If you don't want a baby, aren't ready for a baby, whatever the reason, just don't do it.


I see that sentiment expressed a lot. Usually it's phrased more along the line of Dixie Bee's comment that women should "keep their legs closed." Funny, though -- I don't think I've EVER heard someone suggest that MEN ought to solve the problem by KEEPING THEIR ZIPPERS UP! Now, why is that? :huh:

But in any case, it's simply not realistic to tell people, "Just say no." Imagine a couple in their 20s who just got hitched but want to postpone starting a family until their student loans are paid off. Do you think they're going to refrain from consummating their marriage for 5-7 years?

Or take the case of a couple of 40. Their oldest is in high school and the youngest just started kindergarten. They're content with the size of their family and really don't want any more kids. Do you want to be the one to break the news that they're expected to refrain from marital relations for the next 10-15 years, until the wife has safely passed menopause? 

Yeah, that's gonna go over well. :hysterical:

So, if you think you can solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies by telling people to keep their legs closed (or their zippers up), you can bask in the glow of self-righteousness, and meanwhile hundreds of thousands of unwanted fetuses will go on being aborted each year. 

_It simply doesn't work._ You might as well go around telling fat people that they just need to quit eating so much. There! You just solved our nation's obesity problem. Right?

And as far as "raising awareness," I don't think many abortion-seeking women are operating under the misconception that they're incubating an eggplant or an orangutan. I think they're aware that it's a _human fetus_ in there. Give them a little credit, eh?

The No. 1 way to prevent abortions, IMO, is to make it easy for women to obtain the best and most reliable contraceptives on the market. As I noted earlier, the Affordable Care Act should go a long way in this regard, although it may take awhile for doctors and patients to fully get up to speed. But I'm confident that within 5 years, we're going to see a significant drop in abortion rates as more women have access to better family planning alternatives. 

There are a few other things coming down the pike that could help as well, such as the President's proposal to require mandatory paid maternity leave. Now, I have some qualms about this sort of government meddling -- I don't think it's any of the government's business, for one, and I fear a backlash (for instance, employers being reluctant to hire young women who are likely to become pregnant at some point). 

However, it certainly has the potential to reduce the abortion rate! In fact, I'll bet you could cut the rate in half by simply giving women 6 months of paid maternity leave, enough that they could stay home for the latter part of their third trimester, and for a few months postpartum, without having to worry about becoming homeless or not being able to feed the rest of their children during their "down time." An alternative would be to have pregnancy declared a disability, making employed pregnant women temporarily eligible for Social Security.

Think about it -- when was the last time you saw a waitress, cashier or stock clerk working during her third trimester? If you answered, "Umm, _never_," which is entirely likely, don't think it's because waitresses, cashier and stock clerks don't become pregnant! More likely it's because if they choose to carry to term, at some point they become unable to do their jobs, or they experience health complications, or the boss simply takes them off the schedule because it's a buzzkill to have (for instance) a hugely pregnant bartender. For a woman already living on slim margins -- on a low-income, part-time job -- this can be financially disastrous. Is it any wonder so many choose to abort? 

So, in short, if you want to prevent abortions (which I believe is an admirable goal), dispense with the silly demonstrations, and start working on the reasons why women have unintended pregnancies in the first place, and the factors that lead so many of them to seek abortions. Admittedly that's tougher, and probably doesn't produce the same glow of self-righteousness, but again -- do you really want to solve the problem, or just yammer about it?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

There is no war on women but women are murdering humans and calling it freedom of choice.

Men do not get pregnant men have no say in the act of murder only the woman....

Keep telling people that they can't control sexual urges and some will believe it....how come we expect folks to resist the urge to shop lift...we do not come up with excuses to as a society to accept that behavior.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> But in any case, it's simply not realistic to tell people, "Just say no." Imagine a couple in their 20s who just got hitched but want to postpone starting a family until their student loans are paid off. Do you think they're going to refrain from consummating their marriage for 5-7 years?
> 
> Or take the case of a couple of 40. Their oldest is in high school and the youngest just started kindergarten. They're content with the size of their family and really don't want any more kids. Do you want to be the one to break the news that they're expected to refrain from marital relations for the next 10-15 years, until the wife has safely passed menopause?



There is a thing called natural family planning. We have used it our whole married life of soon to be 25 years. It really does work. You abstain during the times when you could get pregnant. It really is that easy. That usually only amounts to a few days. All of our kids were conceived when we chose by using this method. No artificial birth control (many of which are just early forms of abortion) & no harmful effects on our marriage. 
They even have ovulation predictor test kits out so you know when you are ovulating. When that times is, don't do it! If a husband & wife don't respect each other enough to be able to refrain for a few days then they have problems. 

I agree with you on the guy thing & they need to keep it in their pants. There are way, way too many guys that are out making babies with many different women & don't care one bit. 

There are however many, many guys that get no choice in if their child is killed or not & that is not right. That child is just as much a part of them as it is the mother, yet they have no say so if that child is murdered.

As far as resisting urges, I agree with the above poster. Should we excuse serial killers or pedophiles because afterall, they are just giving into their urges?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bottom line, some people have no problem killing babies, normal people think it's disgusting and evil.
In the end, we will all answer for what we believe.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Murder and kill have the same results but murder is no accident, is planned, calculated and their is motive........ money,status,comfort, punishment,........


How to wrap it up with a pretty bow to justify it.



Pro....a positive ....strong....
Progress, Professor , professional, productive.


Pro equals positive

Choice....freedom....optional...

Choice justifies that it is right for some but not others thus if you fail to agree your voice does not matter

Pro-choice....is prettier than pro death.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> No one has to imagine the brutal dismemberment painful death of a child found guilty of living in the mist of a mother with other plans


Post of the century award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JillyG said:


> Bottom line... If you do not believe in abortions or do not want to have an abortion *DON"T!*


Of course. And if you want more $$$ don't rob a bank.
And if you don't want your 1 mo old who cries all the time, don't kill him. Or if you change your mind & do not want to care for a handicapped child. Don't murder him.Yup, another reason I'm not a D. This is on their agenda.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> As far as resisting urges, I agree with the above poster. Should we excuse serial killers or pedophiles because afterall, they are just giving into their urges?


That is very nice rhetoric, but it doesn't do a thing to solve the problem. 

I mean, no one should give in to their urge to overeat, or drink too much, or smoke cigarettes, or use drugs, or gamble until they're broke. But people do these things all the time, and I don't think anyone has ever been stopped by someone telling them they really shouldn't. 

So certainly you can say those women (and men) should know better, that they should behave better, that it's all their own fault for being weak or irresponsible. You can feel good about your life and your decisions, which clearly have been so much better than theirs. And while you bask in the warm glow of self-righteousness, your fellow Americans will go right on aborting a couple hundred thousand fetuses each year. 

Abortion is an act of desperation. Want to end it? Make pregnant women less desperate. (Yes, that will probably necessitate more spending on the kinds of social programs you despise. How's that for a Catch-22?) Or, better yet, help to prevent them from becoming pregnant in the first place! Again, that will probably mean that society may have to chip in to buy birth control. Yes, I know that goes against everything you believe in, but -- do you want to reduce abortions, or not?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> That is very nice rhetoric, but it doesn't do a thing to solve the problem.
> 
> I mean, no one should give in to their urge to overeat, or drink too much, or smoke cigarettes, or use drugs, or gamble until they're broke. But people do these things all the time, and I don't think anyone has ever been stopped by someone telling them they really shouldn't.
> 
> ...


WG I would like to see birth control meds passed out on every corner and a means to make more permanent methods available. But my question is if they can't afford BC meds how do they pay for abortions?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Abortions should only be available as a solution to a medical problem not a social issue. You can talk all you want about making life easier for the poor waitresses or whatever you like to imagine but it's their choice. Men aren't told to keep their zippers up because once the deed is done they have no choice in the matter. They can want the child all over the place but it's only in her hands thus it's her legs that need to be kept shut. Let's see a man try and force an abortion when he doesn't want a baby... lets see how well that goes over and see if 'but I wanted an abortion' gets him out of paying child support. Want to know what the court will tell him? You made this choice, deal with the consequences. So should she.

Abortion for anything other than medical necessity is murder. Some people are okay with that. But it does no good to call a tiger a puppy... you'll still get eaten no matter what you call it.

ETA: Oh and the possibility of dangerous back alley abortions? Yeah I'm cool with that. I'm okay with someone having to risk their own life in order to commit murder.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> WG I would like to see birth control meds passed out on every corner and a means to make more permanent methods available. But my question is if they can't afford BC meds how do they pay for abortions?


I suspect in many cases, men weigh the cost of 18 years of child support, vs. coming up with a thousand bucks for an abortion, and decide the latter is certainly cheaper over the long run! 

It's also likely that women prioritize birth control and abortion differently. If a woman has sex infrequently, she may be reluctant to spend $1,000-$2,000 on an IUD. She may be more likely to use a cheaper option with a higher failure rate, or to use nothing at all. (Young women are especially prone to magical thinking, believing "It's only this one time," and "It couldn't possibly happen to me!") And after all, not every sex act -- even without birth control -- leads to conception. So it's not entirely irrational for a woman to believe she can have sex without adequate protection and "get away with it." Experience teaches her this, right up until ------- she winds up pregnant. Whoops!

Pregnancy creates a crisis that can't be ignored or postponed. Eliminating an unwanted pregnancy -- a pregnancy that could result in a woman losing her job, becoming homeless, perhaps losing custody of the children she has already -- becomes a much higher priority, one to which she's willing devote all her resources.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Let's see a man try and force an abortion when he doesn't want a baby... lets see how well that goes over and see if 'but I wanted an abortion' gets him out of paying child support. Want to know what the court will tell him? You made this choice, deal with the consequences.


Actually, I think it would be more fair if men were given a choice, too, ideally in the early stages of pregnancy, when the woman could make an informed decision as to whether to go through with the pregnancy even without the man's support.

If choice is good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander, too. No?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Well I definitely agree that the price and rate of coverage of IUD's is outrageous. I use the plain copper one because I want my eggs to run out in a natural time frame (best birth control of all is no longer having baby seeds!). But even with really good insurance the co pay is 400$.

And it's a wonderful BC option, no remembering pills no side effects from hormones. Yeah ectopic pregnancy is a possibility but it's really rare.

Oh and the thing lasts for 10 years.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

However... the IUD thing, one more thing.

It shows the inconsistency in organizations like Planned Parenthood. It should be at least as easy to get funding to get women IUD's as give them an abortion and it's not. They choose how they spend their money and efforts.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I suspect in many cases, men weigh the cost of 18 years of child support, vs. coming up with a thousand bucks for an abortion, and decide the latter is certainly cheaper over the long run!
> 
> It's also likely that women prioritize birth control and abortion differently. If a woman has sex infrequently, she may be reluctant to spend $1,000-$2,000 on an IUD. She may be more likely to use a cheaper option with a higher failure rate, or to use nothing at all. (Young women are especially prone to magical thinking, believing "It's only this one time," and "It couldn't possibly happen to me!") And after all, not every sex act -- even without birth control -- leads to conception. So it's not entirely irrational for a woman to believe she can have sex without adequate protection and "get away with it." Experience teaches her this, right up until ------- she winds up pregnant. Whoops!
> 
> Pregnancy creates a crisis that can't be ignored or postponed. Eliminating an unwanted pregnancy -- a pregnancy that could result in a woman losing her job, becoming homeless, perhaps losing custody of the children she has already -- becomes a much higher priority, one to which she's willing devote all her resources.



Guess it is a skewed priority for some. Well next month I'm getting my tubes tied, I don't have kids and decided to wait until I was 35 to get that permanent option.

Just wondered since some of my friends and family seem to think BC is pretty cheap.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I have a copper IUD, too, and the last one (inserted in 2012) cost $2,000. Luckily, I had insurance at the time. 



> It shows the inconsistency in organizations like Planned Parenthood. It should be at least as easy to get funding to get women IUD's as give them an abortion and it's not.


I haven't had good luck with PP and IUDs. At 16 I wanted one, and PP initially consented to do an insertion, but after I had the necessary exam, they declared I wasn't a good candidate due to my age and history of multiple partners. I was determined, though, having done my research and decided than an IUD was right for me. (I was very reluctant to, and in fact have never used, a hormonal form of birth control.) I found a physician in private practice who was willing to do the procedure for a couple hundreds bucks (this was in the early 1980s).

I almost certainly would have gotten pregnant in my teenaged years otherwise. 

Incidentally, LARCs (including IUDs and implants) are now being RECOMMENDED as the first line of birth control for young women, because of their extremely low failure rate, and the near-absence of failure due to user error. Gee, as a high school junior, I figured that out! It only took the medical establishment another 30 years to catch on! :doh:

In 2012, when I got my last IUD, I initially went to PP, but their clinician was unable to do the insertion. I don't know if her level of skill was lacking, or what the problem was, but she couldn't get the job done. Grrrr. She referred me to a physician in private practice, who didn't have any difficulty at all, although her services were much more costly, and I wouldn't have been able to afford them had I been uninsured (this was prior to Obamacare, which mandates free contraceptive coverage).

I'll add that PP didn't bill me for the failed attempt, which I felt was decent of them. 

But this goes to show that obtaining a LARC isn't always simple and easy, even if you have a PP clinic nearby, transportation to it, and money to pay the sliding-scale fee. Lacking any of those things, I imagine it's even more difficult.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> Actually, I think it would be more fair if men were given a choice, too, ideally in the early stages of pregnancy, when the woman could make an informed decision as to whether to go through with the pregnancy even without the man's support.
> 
> If choice is good for the goose, it ought to be good for the gander, too. No?


Yep, also as one of my guy friends said he wants male BC for men other than just condoms. He made a bad mistake in a short term relationship. He asked the woman repeatedly if she was on BC, as she did not like condoms. He said she showed him her pills after a while even took them in front of him. He was contacted about a year later in a child support suit. He fought it, got a paternity test and found he wasn't the father. She later in anger told him she was taking baby aspirin not BC. He fought it because the timing of the child's birthday was suspicious, as he would have been deployed in the time frame of conception.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Just wondered since some of my friends and family seem to think BC is pretty cheap.


For some, it can be; for others, not so much.

If you're able and willing to take The Pill, especially a generic version, and use it reliably, I imagine it's pretty inexpensive. But not all women are good candidates for The Pill. Me, I've always been afraid to tinker with my hormones that way. :teehee:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I've taken them including the long term type. Yeah, it took a couple of tries to find a fit. I can be a bit aggressive with my hormones out of balance :hair


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Yep, also as one of my guy friends said he wants male BC for men other than just condoms. He made a bad mistake in a short term relationship. He asked the woman repeatedly if she was on BC, as she did not like condoms. He said she showed him her pills after a while even took them in front of him. He was contacted about a year later in a child support suit. He fought it, got a paternity test and found he wasn't the father. She later in anger told him she was taking baby aspirin not BC. He fought it because the timing of the child's birthday was suspicious, as he would have been deployed in the time frame of conception.


I pity that man. What a nightmare!

It's a good thing he wasn't married to the woman. In many states, a baby born to a married couple is automatically presumed to be the husband's, and he is on the hook for child support, even if paternity tests show otherwise. 

I have met a lot of men who are VERY casual about birth control. I can't count the number who have asked -- AFTERWARDS! -- "You're on the Pill, right?" The looks on their faces when I replied, "Umm, no," was always priceless. (I had an IUD, and this was back in the day before AIDS was a concern.)

You'd think men would be more careful, with the prospect of 18 years of child support looming over their heads, but many are NOT! :huh:

I've also heard female friends advise other women that if you want a(nother) baby but your husband/boyfriend doesn't, just go off your birth control and don't tell him. Pretend it's an accident. Don't worry -- he will love it once it's born!

I have always believed that to be very questionable advice. And I pity the partners of women who have taken it! :teehee:


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

A P.S. of sorts: Recently I came across some valuable advice to men on a lifehacking site. It said if you're going to break up with your girlfriend, do it while she's on her period, so later if she comes back and tries to tell you that she's pregnant and it's yours, you'll know that she's faking. ound:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> For some, it can be; for others, not so much.
> 
> If you're able and willing to take The Pill, especially a generic version, and use it reliably, I imagine it's pretty inexpensive. But not all women are good candidates for The Pill. Me, I've always been afraid to tinker with my hormones that way. :teehee:


BC is _always_ cheaper than a baby. But I see a lot of the difficulties being in the way people raise their children. They have no sense of frugality. My children are taught how to figure unit prices, per oz or whatever and compare. Also to bulk up on items when they are at their cheapest as not to be taken advantage of when prices are not cheap. It's actually an easy concept to teach because you show how the more money you save on items you need the more you can spend on items you want.

I would estimate the cost (without subsidy or discount and allowing that cost of living is variable too) of a child per year to be about 15k. 15,000 dollars. At that rate even 2k every ten years for BC is a whole lot cheaper. Think of the cruises one could take... the clothes and jewelry one could afford--- the less hours worked. If one would only decide to practice a little prevention.

It also goes with the falling cost of sex. Dudes don't have to work nearly as hard as they used to to get it and thus they do not. If modern chicks would understand fully the risks they are taking with every sex act and slip of self control they'd be charging their dudes a far higher price for the 'cookie'. Yeah sex is fun and has multiple health benefits but I see an extreme failure in the modern teachings. They do not educate a female enough about her processes to practice anything but intervention birth control, instead of learning her cycle. And I think that is a horrible negligence in education. STDs are a phantom menace at best. And well abortions are relatively easy to come by so why bother with being too careful. Oh... and of course there is the prince charming theory where having a baby will cure all of one's life ills.

Raising and education. People are sucking at it or this wouldn't even be an issue.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> If modern chicks would understand fully the risks they are taking with every sex act and slip of self control they'd be charging their dudes a far higher price for the 'cookie'.


Umm, thanks for implying that we're all prostitutes! 

I have always regarded sex as an act of mutual pleasure, and not something that I "charge for." 

Our culture is steeped in this parlance, though. How many times have you heard the phrase, "Don't sell yourself too cheaply"? Implying ... what? That it's OK to "sell yourself" if the price is right? Or, "She should have held out ..." For what? More money? A better offer? 

Grrrr.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Umm, thanks for implying that we're all prostitutes!


Not at all. That's a very simplistic view. All human exchanges come at a 'price'. Putting it in practical terms is not calling us all prostitutes. I think you are being deliberately obtuse in order to just dismiss the entire idea out of hand. 

Sex costs a lot in potential risk for a woman. that is a fact.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Every day you get up and go to work you sell yourself to your boss. I guess that makes you a prostitute? 

Of course it's okay to sell yourself... It's how business gets done. You decide the price of your time vs what someone will pay you for and what you need to live. It happens every day.

High risk tasks should not be purchased for a single drink at the bar or a couple of complimentary texts. In sex, mutual enjoyment is not assured for a female. I've not had any trouble but I hear a lot of guys really aren't all that good at it. And for a few sweaty minutes if he's not any good you get what? Potential diseases, potential pregnancy and a waste of one's time. Yeah I better have gotten something in exchange that I won't feel entirely taken advantage of for a poor experience.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Every day you get up and go to work you sell yourself to your boss. I guess that makes you a prostitute?


No -- I don't have sex with my boss! :huh:



> Of course it's okay to sell yourself... It's how business gets done.


Is a relationship a business, though? 



> And for a few sweaty minutes if he's not any good you get what?


But what if YOU'RE the one who isn't any good? ound:

(Generic "you're," of course.) 

And, ehh, you're certainly welcome to "sell yourself" if you please! (It's a free country.) 

I'll continue to "give it away" and take my chances. It's worked for me so far!


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> No -- I don't have sex with my boss! :huh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because sex is the only thing one sells. As I said; deliberately missing the point. It's not clever it's trite.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Because sex is the only thing one sells.


:huh:

I have nonsexual skills and abilities, and ways of making a living other than prostituting myself.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Umm, no, I guess I don't. :huh:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In many states, a baby born to a married couple is automatically presumed to be the husband's, and he is on the hook for child support, even if paternity tests show otherwise. 

[/QUOTE]

No longer in the state of Alaska....I worked on getting that law changed from 1994 thru 1997......we came up working th tri paternity papers .......talk about birth control cost doing that added to adopting my son's legal fee to the run of 27 thousands dollars. I got him at six weeks ...I was to pick him up at birth also ng with the bio dad....but due to legal dad being in jail the hospital social worker took action to make the child a ward of the state.

Why is it that money is the most talked about reason for murdering an unborn human when there people ...like myself that are willing to cover the costs .....waiting to cover the cost of maternity, birth and legal fees. 

As a member in BIRTH RIGHT since 1979 I know it never cost the women.

Homes were provided if wanted, medical care provided, clothing provided, transportation provided legal fees provided.



Will finish later.....I have to report to mom duty....


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Honestly, I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. 

You seem to be suggesting that sex should be a monetized commodity, and women should not participate unless they receive something of value in exchange for their favors. 

And that is not an unusual notion -- as I said, our culture is steeped in its parlance, in the idea that women should "hold out" or shouldn't "sell themselves short," etc. 

The way this idea is expressed runs the gamut, from blatant acts of prostitution to more benign examples in which a wife telegraphs to her husband that there won't be any lovin' unless he checks off a few items on the "honeydo" list! ound:

Certainly there are cases in which it is appropriate to trade one's services for money. I milk my bosses' cows and he pays me in legal tender. This does not make me a prostitute (I don't have sex with him!), it makes me a cow milker. 

Is it appropriate to demand money (or goods or services) for sex within the context of a social relationship? As I said, it's a free country, and you're certainly welcome to do so if you please, but I find it inadvisable. I don't see sex as a "job," but rather something that is done for mutual gratification, or out of the desire to please someone that you like or love. I'd think that monetizing the exchange would make it a rather dreary business. JMO. :shrug:


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

JillyG said:


> Bottom line... If you do not believe in abortions or do not want to have an abortion *DON"T!*


Exactly, not to mention that abortion has been legal for the last 42 years, longer in some states. All the money spent on marches, rallies, and lawsuits for those four decades could have helped a lot of women AND children.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> All the money spent on marches, rallies, and lawsuits for those four decades could have helped a lot of women AND children.


There are plenty of people that would pay all medical expenses to be able to adopt these children yet they are still murdered by the thousands everyday. It really isn't an issue of money. There are plenty of places & options for a woman to go to. Shoot, you can drop your baby off at a hospital or police station & leave it with no penalty. So why exactly does anyone choose to murder their child when there are plenty of available options? There wouldn't be any financial difficulties if the adoptive parents pay the medical expenses. Most excuses are just that, excuses. Any reason to try to find to make yourself feel it's ok to take a life.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So why exactly does anyone choose to murder their child when there are plenty of available options?


I would guess that it's for the same reason that you don't see people lining up to serve as surrogate mothers for strangers at no cost:

Because very few people are willing to risk their lives and endure a great deal of suffering for something that has no benefit to them.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Carrying a pregnancy is not normally risking your life. It's more risky driving to work everyday.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I don't think Crater Cove was talking about a "price" in dollars, rather a "price" in interest and commitment. If all a guy has to do is spend a couple of hours in a bar, buy a few drinks and tell a girl she's pretty and that gets him the "cookie" then that's quite a lower "price" then showing an interest in a woman, going on a few dates and possibly expressing some sort of interest in a relationship with a woman. If a woman is going to engage in an activity with such serious consequences it would be better for her to expect a higher "price" for access to the Promised Land.

Of course, we're assuming here that the end goal is simply sex. If the guy is only out for a quick shag then he has equal responsibility to make sure he is as protected as the woman. There is always the possibility of contraceptive failure, no matter how remote, so if one is going to engage in sex in the first place they should be ready to accept that.

The bottom line is that both the man and the woman have equal responsibility to be aware of, try and prevent and be prepared to accept the consequences before tab A goes into slot B. Unfortunately that is not the case in many circumstances and the more information and access to BC there is out there will increase the likelihood of wiser decisions by those less responsible, thus hopefully reducing the incidence of abortion in the first place.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Carrying a pregnancy is not normally risking your life. It's more risky driving to work everyday.


There is still a risk, however small. Then there are the bodily changes, labor pains, even the embarrassment of having to be visibly and publicly pregnant if your social circle frowns on that sort of thing, perhaps because you already have child(ren) that you can't support adequately. (I've read that typical abortion-seeker is already a poor single mother.) There is a lot of unkindness in this world.

All to leave the hospital with empty arms. It's no surprise that many women choose to have an abortion and end the nightmare quickly and privately.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I don't think Crater Cove was talking about a "price" in dollars, rather a "price" in interest and commitment. If all a guy has to do is spend a couple of hours in a bar, buy a few drinks and tell a girl she's pretty and that gets him the "cookie" then that's quite a lower "price" then showing an interest in a woman, going on a few dates and possibly expressing some sort of interest in a relationship with a woman. If a woman is going to engage in an activity with such serious consequences


Are the consequences that serious, though? For most of my life, I've used a BC method with 99-point-something percent effectiveness. An unplanned pregnancy was something I didn't really have to worry about.

I've read that women are more likely to contract an STD from a man than the other way around, for anatomical reasons, but if neither has a disease, or if a condom is used correctly, that risk is pretty much canceled out, too. 

So if the risk is pretty much the same for both parties, and both presumably desire a sexual encounter, why should the man be required to jump through hoops? :huh:

I think there is an underlying assumption here that all women are seeking "relationships," while men are just looking for one-night-stands, but that isn't always the case.

There were plenty of times in my younger years when I went out, like Gretchen Wilson, with the intent to "get me some"! And didn't particularly care if I ever saw the fella again, well not unless he really rang my chimes ... then he might be allowed to stick around for awhile if he was so inclined. 

Yeah, I was kind of a wild child. ound:


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

> There are plenty of people that would pay all medical expenses to be able to adopt these children yet they are still murdered by the thousands everyday. It really isn't an issue of money. There are plenty of places & options for a woman to go to. Shoot, you can drop your baby off at a hospital or police station & leave it with no penalty. So why exactly does anyone choose to murder their child when there are plenty of available options? There wouldn't be any financial difficulties if the adoptive parents pay the medical expenses. Most excuses are just that, excuses. Any reason to try to find to make yourself feel it's ok to take a life.


You do realize that murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person, right? Abortion is totally legal and has been for at least 42 years. An abortion is not murder.

It is an issue of money, unless the woman finds someone that is suitable to adopt and they cover all expenses, and that's not as easy as you seem to believe. 

Your other scenarios involve carrying the pregnancy to term which does cost money, and as Willow girl said, "All to leave the hospital with empty arms."



> Carrying a pregnancy is not normally risking your life. It's more risky driving to work everyday.


You must have had very normal and uncomplicated pregnancies. There are risks to being pregnant and more in delivery. In many woman those risks are significantly higher than driving to work.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Are the consequences that serious, though? For most of my life, I've used a BC method with 99-point-something percent effectiveness. An unplanned pregnancy was something I didn't really have to worry about.
> 
> *I think the possibility of bringing a new life into the world and being responsible for it for the rest of one's life (or at least eighteen years) would be an extremely serious consequence. Unless the BC is proven 100% effective there is always the chance, no matter how slim, of a pregnancy.*
> 
> ...


I was also somewhat wild and consider myself lucky to not have had that knock on the door (yet!).


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

1murÂ·der noun \&#712;m&#601;r-d&#601;r\
: the crime of deliberately killing a person

: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

Murder is for personal gain, killing is for survival. There are more than legal definitions. Some people are limited in their scope in my experience.

Abortion is legal, it is also murder. I wouldn't mind so much people defending the act if they would just accept the reality that ending a human life without it being directly tied to your immediate survival is murder. You gain they lose.

Many evil acts or acts that visit evil upon others are legal. If a person's only measure of right or wrong is legal definitions then I might suggest they seek treatment as a sociopath. The law is an attempt to standardize morality and give it weight and consequences but it falls short, often, or there wouldn't need to be juries and a range of sentencing for different crimes.

All the rest of the conversation is just supposes and whatnot and not really pertinent in my opinion. Abortion is not and never should have been listed as a 'women's rights' issue. It's a human rights issue. There is a big difference between accepting that a thing will be done no matter the legislation involved and condoning it too. I don't have to condone any behavior or action just because it's legal. Anyone who wants to can still object.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Unfortunately, it seems it's usually the woman who bears the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, physical, financial, social and otherwise regardless of who initiated the encounter.


Maybe, maybe not.

My second husband paid child support for almost 19 years on his daughter from his first marriage. The assessment was one-quarter of his income before taxes.

His ex lived off welfare for 16 of those years.

Granted that she endured pregnancy and childbirth, and had primary custody of the child, but he worked awfully hard to support it.

I'm not convinced that the burden fell primarily on her.


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

Wendy said:


> There is a thing called natural family planning. We have used it our whole married life of soon to be 25 years. It really does work. You abstain during the times when you could get pregnant. It really is that easy. That usually only amounts to a few days. All of our kids were conceived when we chose by using this method. No artificial birth control (many of which are just early forms of abortion) & no harmful effects on our marriage.
> They even have ovulation predictor test kits out so you know when you are ovulating. When that times is, don't do it! If a husband & wife don't respect each other enough to be able to refrain for a few days then they have problems.
> 
> I agree with you on the guy thing & they need to keep it in their pants. There are way, way too many guys that are out making babies with many different women & don't care one bit.
> ...


 My mom was a huge believer in family planning and trying to time it correctly. well she had three oops due to that type planning. just before a period just after a period and at another "safe" time. there are no "safe" times for some. we just happen to be very fertile. in fact dh was rather wanting to have to try a little harder for us to be pg. nope only took once each time even after many years on the pill due to other medical issues.

I always wonder why it is never brought up that guys need to be very careful with their sperm as they can control pg so easily. guys get a free pass while it is always the woman's problem. guys need to be more choosy as to who is going to be the mother of their children.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

okiemom said:


> My mom was a huge believer in family planning and trying to time it correctly. well she had three oops due to that type planning. just before a period just after a period and at another "safe" time. there are no "safe" times for some. we just happen to be very fertile. in fact dh was rather wanting to have to try a little harder for us to be pg. nope only took once each time even after many years on the pill due to other medical issues.
> 
> *I always wonder why it is never brought up that guys need to be very careful with their sperm as they can control pg so easily. guys get a free pass while it is always the woman's problem. guys need to be more choosy as to who is going to be the mother of their children.*


Could not agree with the highlighted more.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

CraterCove said:


> 1murÂ·der noun \&#712;m&#601;r-d&#601;r\
> : the crime of deliberately killing a person
> 
> : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
> ...


Since you have insinuated that I am a sociopath I'm not going to play with you today. It's just not nice. 

However, since you are being deliberately obtuse regarding the legal definition of murder, I'll copy it for you. It's from this link: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1303

murder
n. the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority. In those clear circumstances, this is first degree murder. By statute, many states consider a killing in which there is torture, movement of the person before the killing (kidnapping) or the death of a police officer or prison guard, or it was as an incident to another crime (as during a hold-up or rape), to be first degree murder, with or without premeditation and with malice presumed. Second degree murder is such a killing without premeditation, as in the heat of passion or in a sudden quarrel or fight. Malice in second degree murder may be implied from a death due to the reckless lack of concern for the life of others (such as firing a gun into a crowd or bashing someone with any deadly weapon). Depending on the circumstances and state laws, murder in the first or second degree may be chargeable to a person who did not actually kill, but was involved in a crime with a partner who actually did the killing or someone died as the result of the crime. Example: In a liquor store stick-up in which the clerk shoots back at the hold-up man and kills a bystander, the armed robber can be convicted of at least second degree murder. A charge of murder requires that the victim must die within a year of the attack. Death of an unborn child who is "quick" (fetus is moving) can be murder, provided there was premeditation, malice and no legal authority. Thus, abortion is not murder under the law. Example: Jack Violent shoots his pregnant girlfriend, killing the fetus. Manslaughter, both voluntary and involuntary, lacks the element of malice aforethought.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> You must have had very normal and uncomplicated pregnancies. There are risks to being pregnant and more in delivery.



My pregnancies were all normal & uncomplicated except the first. It was normal up until the day I delivered my twins at 24 weeks for no known reason. Why is it, that once they were born at 24 weeks they were considered humans with rights, but had I killed them by abortion the day before it would have been fine? 

It is a sad, sad world we live in when killing defenseless, unborn babies is ok & even encouraged. When excuse after excuse is made to try to make people feel better about taking a human life. You might not like the term murder, but no matter what you call it, a life is taken. A lot of times at a point in pregnancy where the baby would live, but is instead tossed aside to die.The pictures I have seen aren't pictures of blobs lying in the trash. They were perfectly formed babies with all their fingers, toes, etc. At what magic moment do they become human? I always hear that it's the mother's body. Since when does a woman's body have 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts, & 2 different DNA?? 

By the way, my twins are going to be 24 this year & are healthy, happy contributing members of society.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Cool was a temperature and still is
Chick was a baby bird and still is
Illegal immigrants were persons who entered and stayed with out the right to...and still is
Adult was a person 18 and older responsible for their own actions, debts etc and still is
.........Murder is to take a life for a personal gain...

Too bad it it harder to view abortion realistically when it has been fuzzy wuzzyed into a freedom choice.

Murder, which it is impacts people to the truth.

As for pregnancy being and embarrassment......it is simply a not a great excuse or justification to murder.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> My second husband paid child support for almost 19 years on his daughter from his first marriage. The assessment was one-quarter of his income before taxes.
> 
> ...


I think for every story like that there are a dozen stories of women being pregnant and left to fend for themselves. I could start with one of my sisters who ended up living with me for a few years because her ex husband left when my nephew was very young and went working under the table so they couldn't garnish any child support from him. There are a huge amount of deadbeat dads out there that owe millions of dollars in child support. I know a few single moms personally and I can't think off the top of my head of any single dads that I know.

I agree that contraception should be widely and freely available. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


----------



## HOTW (Jul 3, 2007)

I am a BC pill baby so was my brother, not sure about my other sib bu pretty sure they might have been too of different methods. All thre of my kids were BC babiesand i did practice avoiding unsafe days as well...when my DH wanted to get the V done he was told it wasnt covered by our insurance and would cost $800- money we did not have to spare , then along came number three who was actually number four due to a miscarriage. So to thosewho preach that there are ways to avoid preganancy i say NOPE not if your fertility is high as is our family. I managed to get medicaid to help pick up the bill for my tubal after baby three but it was only because i was not working that we were eligible- the only time we were ever eligible for any aid. Top it off with copayments on hospital bills and one can see why people turn to abortion especially when you cant get free BC because you make to much supposedly. When DH lost his job we werent able to get any help from welfare or food stamps if we didnt kearn about fod banks we would have starved because we were told to spend our cash reserve by the welfare office in order to be eligible then they turned us down-how nice of them!

Education is the best way to prevent abortions but wait us schools only teach abstinance not very educational! With the media an our advertising promoting sex constantly is it any surprise that pregnancies occur a often as they do? We need more male BC methods that work and that are more lasting than the only one available, the condom, but most men like to say the woman is the one who should take BC but who puts all the pressure on women to have sex? I doubt most of the ads promoting women as sexual objects are written by women..... 

Frankly if abortion were to become illegal again a lot more women would die trying to rid themselves of fetusses and it wont be pretty either. Sticking one head in the sand does not fix the problem education and real access to tools to prevent pregnancy for ALL is the only way to help the issue.to assume everyone knows about social programs or is able to get help is wrong as well, i neve knew what WIC was until I was PG with my third and was using a clinic because it was cheaper than a private Dr! 

I believe keeping abortion legal is the lesser of two evils, if people want to lower the abortion rate then they have to change the way society thinks an the way society deals with all its citizens..


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

800 dollars.....
Less than 3 dollars a day 

Did you shop around?

Pressure....car salesman pressure people to spend as much as they can get out of a person.

Saying no should be easier that volunteering to allow a murder.

Thumbs up human lives matter.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wendy said:


> There are plenty of people that would pay all medical expenses to be able to adopt these children yet they are still murdered by the thousands everyday. It really isn't an issue of money. There are plenty of places & options for a woman to go to. Shoot, you can drop your baby off at a hospital or police station & leave it with no penalty. So why exactly does anyone choose to murder their child when there are plenty of available options? There wouldn't be any financial difficulties if the adoptive parents pay the medical expenses. Most excuses are just that, excuses. Any reason to try to find to make yourself feel it's ok to take a life.


I sorta get it why SOME selfish women will not carry to term. A big 'bother', huh. Not wanting anyone to 'see' it, not wanting to 'ruin' their body. Not wanting parents to know, etc. All b/c of MEMEME!
But what I cannot understand is why it is not prevented. Just cannot understand that. Too many free methods...& I'd far rather see 'em taking the am after pill than allowing a pregnancy to happen. In this day & age there should be about 100 abortions a year, if women actually had a thought in their heads...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I would guess that it's for the same reason that you don't see people lining up to serve as surrogate mothers for strangers at no cost:
> 
> Because very few people are willing to risk their lives and endure a great deal of suffering for something that has no benefit to them.


So do you see education as being one of the problems? B/c there really is enuf 'surrogates' for those having abortions.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> You do realize that murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another person, right? Abortion is totally legal and has been for at least 42 years. An abortion is not murder.
> 
> It is an issue of money, unless the woman finds someone that is suitable to adopt and they cover all expenses, and that's not as easy as you seem to believe.
> 
> ...


All very good reasons to practice birth control! Readily available, education in all our schools, who is it that is getting pregnant these days? How come there are sooo many abortions every day?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wendy said:


> My pregnancies were all normal & uncomplicated except the first. It was normal up until the day I delivered my twins at 24 weeks for no known reason. Why is it, that once they were born at 24 weeks they were considered humans with rights, but had I killed them by abortion the day before it would have been fine?
> 
> It is a sad, sad world we live in when killing defenseless, unborn babies is ok & even encouraged. When excuse after excuse is made to try to make people feel better about taking a human life. You might not like the term murder, but no matter what you call it, a life is taken. A lot of times at a point in pregnancy where the baby would live, but is instead tossed aside to die.The pictures I have seen aren't pictures of blobs lying in the trash. They were perfectly formed babies with all their fingers, toes, etc. At what magic moment do they become human? I always hear that it's the mother's body. Since when does a woman's body have 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts, & 2 different DNA??
> 
> By the way, my twins are going to be 24 this year & are healthy, happy contributing members of society.


Its futile, Wendy. pro abortionites believe life begins at birth. Unless something goes wrong & the baby is born alive, somehow missing the puncture in the brain to kill it...then I guess ya have to kill it real quick.
So, those who believe in souls, believe the soul comes to the baby when it takes its 1st breath. Or, well, not sure about the crying b/4 the puncture...


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Its futile, Wendy. pro abortionites believe life begins at birth. Unless something goes wrong & the baby is born alive, somehow missing the puncture in the brain to kill it...then I guess ya have to kill it real quick.
> So, those who believe in souls, believe the soul comes to the baby when it takes its 1st breath. Or, well, not sure about the crying b/4 the puncture...


If I was to believe in souls I would tie it to the first moment those developing frontal lobes begin to light up with activity. First breath is irrelevant. You can observe infants reacting in the womb and twins taking comfort from each other's presence. 

And there is a sect of abortionists who do not believe life begins at birth. You can look around and find scientists who argue that a child is not human and deserves no protections as such until around five years of age.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> So do you see education as being one of the problems? B/c there really is enuf 'surrogates' for those having abortions.


No, not really. I think most people know that there is a shortage of babies available for adoption.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

> My pregnancies were all normal & uncomplicated except the first. It was normal up until the day I delivered my twins at 24 weeks for no known reason. Why is it, that once they were born at 24 weeks they were considered humans with rights, but had I killed them by abortion the day before it would have been fine?
> 
> It is a sad, sad world we live in when killing defenseless, unborn babies is ok & even encouraged. When excuse after excuse is made to try to make people feel better about taking a human life. You might not like the term murder, but no matter what you call it, a life is taken. A lot of times at a point in pregnancy where the baby would live, but is instead tossed aside to die.The pictures I have seen aren't pictures of blobs lying in the trash. They were perfectly formed babies with all their fingers, toes, etc. At what magic moment do they become human? I always hear that it's the mother's body. Since when does a woman's body have 2 heads, 4 arms, 4 legs, 2 hearts, & 2 different DNA??
> 
> By the way, my twins are going to be 24 this year & are healthy, happy contributing members of society.


You are assuming that I support late trimester abortions, and I don't unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is so damaged that it would not live. The majority pro choice people don't support it. I didn't assume that you were the type of pro lifer that would bomb abortion clinics and/or murder abortion doctors. Please give me the same courtesy. 

I'm not pro abortion, I feel that I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body. Frankly, I don't think I could have an abortion so I've made very sure that I never became pregnant. It's not like it's a mystery how a pregnancy occurs...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> If I was to believe in souls I would tie it to the first moment those developing frontal lobes begin to light up with activity. First breath is irrelevant. You can observe infants reacting in the womb and twins taking comfort from each other's presence.
> 
> And there is a sect of abortionists who do not believe life begins at birth. You can look around and find scientists who argue that a child is not human and deserves no protections as such until around five years of age.


You are so right. Many on the left are pushing for some kind of mandate about parents being able to 'euthanize' their child up to a certain age.

I guess I shouldn't say its futile to argue, I've changed my mind on many things after some good arguements.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> You are so right. Many on the left are pushing for some kind of mandate about parents being able to 'euthanize' their child up to a certain age.


Do you have a link that details this mandate? If so, would you please indicate what it is? I try to keep current on the "liberal" agenda but I haven't read anything about this.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> You are assuming that I support late trimester abortions, and I don't unless the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is so damaged that it would not live. The majority pro choice people don't support it. I didn't assume that you were the type of pro lifer that would bomb abortion clinics and/or murder abortion doctors. Please give me the same courtesy.
> 
> I'm not pro abortion, I feel that I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body. Frankly, I don't think I could have an abortion so I've made very sure that I never became pregnant. It's not like it's a mystery how a pregnancy occurs...



Actually, my post was not directed at you. It was just a general post wondering why is it ok to kill a baby at that gestational age, but if they happen to be born naturally they have rights. 

It's not about her body, it is about another human's body that she just happens to be carrying. 

God knew us before we were even formed in the womb. When the Word became flesh, God was an embryo. I believe life begins at conception. Nothing is added after the sperm & egg unite. Everything needed for a human being is there. All that is needed is growth. Thus my question of, at what stage does it magically become a human? No one seems to have a good answer. Instead it's excuse after excuse as to why it is allowed & should be allowed. There are other options available that have been pointed out. There is no need for abortions at all. 

Trying to end the killing of millions of innocent lives is no different than trying to help any other innocent person. They are human beings with all of the parts that you or I have. They deserve to have a chance at life just as you & I do. If people could get past thinking of only themselves & how it will affect them, maybe the world would be a better place.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Thus my question of, at what stage does it magically become a human? No one seems to have a good answer.


How about, "Birth"? That seems to be the answer reflected in the law of the land. It's pretty clear-cut. I like it. I say we go with it!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ok, birth but How can any one be charge , as they have in this country time and time again when a pregnant woman is murdered and her group of cells in her womb die ....courts of this land accept charges against the prep for a charge of manslaughter .....of a baby along with charges for the mother....why call her a mother cause it's just cells of something.


We mere mortal have no clue what those cells are...maybe it could be a car...at which point rather than mother maybe owner ..would be a better relationship label.

Denying the fact that all fetus are human life is an excuse to create an emotional distance to allow murder.

Not much different than a person chowing down on a big Mac while spewing the savageness of the killing of farm animals. I simply see a illogical disconnect.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I love the "When does life begin" line. Life began a long long time ago. It's an unbroken circle. We can talk this and we can talk that, but lets just face it. Some people get off on killing babies. Its a control thing, playing God thing, and justified brutality thing, all rolled into one.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> Do you have a link that details this mandate? If so, would you please indicate what it is? I try to keep current on the "liberal" agenda but I haven't read anything about this.


Peter Singer is the main leader in this 'cause'.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/young-case-against-peter-singer/4199120

Singer, who is arguably better known for his views on animal rights, has views about disability that have been discussed far less here in Australia than they have in the US where he lives and works. I am open about not being a fan of Singer's work, a statement that's often met with confusion among friends and colleagues. "But he does such great things for animal liberation!" they exclaim.

While that may be true, animal liberation is not the only subject of Singer's work. He also believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies killed after they are born. His argument is not about the right to terminate pregnancy based on the presence of a disabled fetus, although he does believe this as well, but the active killing of babies born with particular disabilities.

In his book Practical Ethics, Singer argues the case for selective infanticide. He deems it unfair that "At present parents can choose to keep or destroy their disabled offspring only if the disability happens to be detected during pregnancy. There is no logical basis for restricting parents' choice to these particular disabilities. If disabled newborn infants were not regarded as having a right to life until, say, a week or a month after birth it would allow parents, in consultation with their doctors, to choose on the basis of far greater knowledge of the infant's condition than is possible before birth."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Some more:

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/life3.html

Changing attitudes toward infanticide

Peter Singer, who recently was seated in an endowed chair at Princeton&#8217;s Center for Human Values, said, &#8220;Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.&#8221;
In May 1973, James D. Watson, the Nobel Prize laureate who discovered the double helix of DNA, granted an interview to Prism magazine, then a publication of the American Medical Association. Time later reported the interview to the general public, quoting Watson as having said, "If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice only a few are given under the present system. The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering. I believe this view is the only rational, compassionate attitude to have."
In January 1978, Francis Crick, also a Nobel laureate, was quoted in the Pacific News Service as saying "... no newborn infant should be declared human until it has passed certain tests regarding its genetic endowment and that if it fails these tests it forfeits the right to live."
At a population-control conference in Washington D.C. one speaker saw "no reason why anyone who accepted abortion should balk at infanticide." Another urged certain medical qualifying tests for all newborns. These would determine their genetic characteristics and, thus, whether their right to life should be forfeited. Of course, at present only a few hold these ideas, but unfortunately they are presenting these ideas again and again. Taken a little more seriously each time, they become just a little more thinkable each time.
Forty-two percent of women studied in a medical study in France said that if they gave birth to a severely deformed baby, they would favor killing the child. Twenty percent said no, and the rest were undecided.
Certain segments of the church are also not without a positive opinion on the subject of infanticide. A task force of the Anglican Church of Canada reached a conclusion in a 1977 report that it could be morally right to terminate the lives of newborn infants with severe brain damage. The callousness of the report is evident in its phraseology: "Our sense and emotions lead us to the grave mistake of treating human-looking shapes as if they were human, although they lack the least vestige of human behavior and intellect. In fact the only way to treat such defective infants humanely is not to treat them as human." Happily, the general synod of the Anglican Church in Canada did not approve the report, but that such a report came forth from an official group of a major denomination in our day says much about the direction taken by certain segments of the church in regard to infanticide.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

If anyone actually wants to be educated about what views are out there about infanticide and the murder of the unborn they could find it themselves. Never once have I encountered someone who does that 'cite your sources' kind of thing ever really want to know more. They just want to obfuscate. To me, the only proper response these days to the 'links please' passive aggressive tact is to reply with 'Google is your friend'. And leave it at that.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Infantcide???? I think I just Puked in my mouth a little!
The ways things are going in this country, and world, I am starting to question my role as a loving parent by introducing my children into a world of self rightous hatred.
I love my children dearly, but I almost feel as though I should appologize to them for what they will be subject to as they continue to grow up.

Infantcide????!!!!!????? Why stop there? Why not just kill off every disabled person, elderly person, etc. Only let the absolute perfect people live. Yeah, that's the ticket, let's kill everyone who isn't perfect, I'm sure the planet would be better off with absolutely no people.

Infantcide, I'm sure adolf Hitler would be proud.....


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> If anyone actually wants to be educated about what views are out there about infanticide and the murder of the unborn they could find it themselves. Never once have I encountered someone who does that 'cite your sources' kind of thing ever really want to know more. They just want to obfuscate. To me, the only proper response these days to the 'links please' passive aggressive tact is to reply with 'Google is your friend'. And leave it at that.


A claim about any given topic without sources is practically meaningless. Where they got their info is important for context too.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> A claim about any given topic without sources is practically meaningless. Where they got their info is important for context too.


It can be. But it's become a knee jerk 'I don't believe you' or passive aggressive tactic to just demand sources.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Shh. It's like holding a mirror up to a mirror. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+'let+me+google+that+for+you'+a+passive+aggressive+website?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> If anyone actually wants to be educated about what views are out there about infanticide and the murder of the unborn they could find it themselves. Never once have I encountered someone who does that 'cite your sources' kind of thing ever really want to know more. They just want to obfuscate. To me, the only proper response these days to the 'links please' passive aggressive tact is to reply with 'Google is your friend'. And leave it at that.


I agree. Usually I say I'm not your googlegrama. But I started the thread & its something I care about so thought I'd post some links. Heard about it quite some time ago & just thought most informed folks knew. 
Such monsters on the left, coming up w/great ideas, huh.

Back b/4 ObummerUNcare was passed, there was bunches of info on the crafters of the law. What they believed in. John Holgren believes in forced abortion for babies who are not 'perfect'. Thought b.c. in the water supply was a great idea. Just had no idea how to dose it right.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

2dogs-mom said:


> Shh. It's like holding a mirror up to a mirror.
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Is+'let+me+google+that+for+you'+a+passive+aggressive+website?


omg... that is funny!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> A claim about any given topic without sources is practically meaningless. Where they got their info is important for context too.


Hmmmm...denial...River in Egypt?
Singer is a pretty 'respected' leftie psychologist, widely published & listened to by the left. I should've said do your own research but too many libs either won't or don't know how?
So we have Singer, Watson, Crick, as well as part of the Anglican Church, possibly more who are not so renowned& didn't make the google cut.
Still meaningless?
None so blind as those who will not see.
More reasons I am no longer a D.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

I'm sorry, you are completely correct, the massive and overwhelming evidence you linked absolutely proves your statement that, "Many on the left are pushing for some kind of mandate about parents being able to 'euthanize' their child up to a certain age." I especially liked the one that announced the decree. 

Stating an inflammatory comment without a cite is just an opinion. To be taken seriously it needs to be quantified. Common courtesy dictates that if you state something give a link that indicates it has at least in a nodding acquaintance with the truth. Using a link to a "funny" is rather low brow humor, but I guess some like it.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tiempo said:


> A claim about any given topic without sources is practically meaningless. Where they got their info is important for context too.


Exactly. Anyone with an education has been taught that you always cite your sources.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> I'm sorry, you are completely correct, the massive and overwhelming evidence you linked absolutely proves your statement that, "Many on the left are pushing for some kind of mandate about parents being able to 'euthanize' their child up to a certain age." I especially liked the one that announced the decree.
> 
> Stating an inflammatory comment without a cite is just an opinion. To be taken seriously it needs to be quantified. Common courtesy dictates that if you state something give a link that indicates it has at least in a nodding acquaintance with the truth. Using a link to a "funny" is rather low brow humor, but I guess some like it.


So is this a thank you or a poopoo? Ever see anyone on the right calling for infanticide? Total left reasoning, more of 'no responsibility', sorta stuff in "The Complete Lives System". One basis for ObummerUNcare.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Yes, let's lump an entire political party together because of the words of a few select extremists. That's always accurate.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Yes, let's lump an entire political party together because of the words of a few select extremists. That's always accurate.


Which party is nearly all in favor of aborton on demand? Which party hold these doctors in esteem? A FEW extremists? There's a pretty good supply of them out there. None are conservatives.

It's always just a few who are aligned with the communist party. Just a "few" who are aligned with the socialist party...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Seems like a raw nerve of reality....now it is time for dismissing the sources, numbers and to toss the strawman. Yet rather than allow the topic to shift stay the course. This IS impacting the mindset of some. If we wake just one person. If just one life is saved by removing the vail of accecptance, the distancing of the reality of murder then there is a movement of change. One pebble tossed into the ocean ripples in all directions.

Now, since there is a real reality that every child's parentS, yes mother and father are not ready or willing to raise the child we might come up with sources, means, to make adoption of the child something to celebrate.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

It's like talking to a wall...I swear.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

We understand those profiting from murder will be vocal.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Why is there a need for a Right to Life March? What is the purpose of the Abortion procedure, why would someone need to have abortions to be readily available? Is it per chance that these people do not wish to take responsibility for their actions beforehand and then in retrospect, try to solve the issue using drastic and harmful means?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

MDKatie said:


> It's like talking to a wall...I swear.


With a wall there can be an echo of intelligence.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Trying to end the killing of millions of innocent lives is no different than trying to help any other innocent person.


Does participating in a march really count as "try to end the killing of millions of innocent lives," though?

It seems as if the Washington, D.C., march was designed to try to persuade politicians to change the law. But changing the law won't stop abortion. There are plenty of sources that estimate abortion was just as prevalent prior to Roe v. Wade as afterwards; the only difference is that it went from being illicit and unsafe to being safe and legal.

So it might be more accurate to say that the marchers were marching in support of unsafe, illegal abortions instead of legal ones. That's an improvement? :huh:

Now, I suppose there are some in the ranks whose hearts are filled with joy at the thought of loose women dying from the consequences of an unsafe abortion. In Jesus' time, those sorts were known as "Pharisees," and he had more than a few choice words for them. Seems they're still around today. 

The bottom line is that if you really want to stop abortion, you have to reach out to pregnant women who very often are damaged, hurting, frightened and needy, and you have to meet their needs to the extent that they no longer feel that their best option is to abort their baby.

Of course, doing so probably means that some not-very-virtuous women are going to get things that they didn't earn and probably don't deserve. And that's wrong, isn't it? Goes against everything you believe in, doesn't it?

Ahh, but when you consider the very nature of salvation ...

But I'll leave you to ponder that one on your own. I have to go to work, and I'm not a Christian anyway.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

We've told everyone "HUNDREDS" of Xs that right to life groups DO reach out to those who do not want their babies but it falls on deaf ears. The easier way -of COURSE-no pregnancy, not fat belly, no bother-is to kill it. Where do you get the idea that Christians would relish in the death of anyone?
WG, that is beyond you to state that.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Sure seems a bit of a stretch that Jesus would support abortion... Seems like an attempt to stir the big poopy pot to me instead of engage in honest discussion.

I don't consider myself Christian either but it seems a pretty low thing to suggest either that people who really subscribe to Christian beliefs revel in the thought of 'loose' women dying or equating people who want to not murder children as Pharisees.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> Does participating in a march really count as "try to end the killing of millions of innocent lives," though?
> 
> It seems as if the Washington, D.C., march was designed to try to persuade politicians to change the law. But changing the law won't stop abortion. There are plenty of sources that estimate abortion was just as prevalent prior to Roe v. Wade as afterwards; the only difference is that it went from being illicit and unsafe to being safe and legal.
> 
> ...



Well said, I agree.
And the disease of hypocrisy is an equal opportunity offender.
The amount of time and money poured into both sides of the abortion issue would be far better spent having the supporters of Planned Parenthood sit down with groups running homes for unwed mothers and the medical profession, like in-vitro fertilization doctors, and concentrate all efforts to help the women and future children affected by all of this.
There are many people everyday doing their part to actually help, they just don't make the papers.:bored:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It got people talking....ok so maybe they did NOT burn down and stores or harm anyone but those marcher ....just like the Selma marchers PEACEFULLY stood up and stood for what the believed in. 

My son is twenty ...twenty years ago he was to be diced in the womb and such out.
My best friend has a 35 year old son and two grandchildren. She could have done the dice and suck but went to Birthright and lived with a professor's family ...while attending a Christian college. She was supported by church member. 
19 years later ALL birth and bio parents got together. They meet all together during the final days of the wife of the professor's. Missy had me on the phone. Marilyn saved many lives as a homemaker she never made the headlines....Her life mattered

Please check out right to life groups should their be a need. Support is there, be the need for shelter, a friend, a ride, legal people volunteer time, sorry yes they are Faith based of many different denomination. Religion is not pushed but lived.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Well said, I agree.
> And the disease of hypocrisy is an equal opportunity offender.
> The amount of time and money poured into both sides of the abortion issue would be far better spent having the supporters of Planned Parenthood sit down with groups running homes for unwed mothers and the medical profession, like in-vitro fertilization doctors, and concentrate all efforts to help the women and future children affected by all of this.
> There are many people everyday doing their part to actually help, they just don't make the papers.:bored:


PP has been approached to help w/this, they refused. Only interested in the killing. do not want advocates for adoption anywhere near their clinics.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

For those who think there's only a 'few' on the left who follow/support Peter Singer & his ilk, here's some links to consider.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/12/17/reviews/001217.17schneet.html

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1053194/Peter-Singer

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/singerp




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics atPrinceton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specializes inapplied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarianperspective. He is known in particular for his book, Animal Liberation (1975), a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory. For most his career, he supported preference utilitarianism, but in his later years became a classical or hedonistic utilitarian, when co-authoring The Point of View of the Universe withKatarzyna de Lazari-Radek.
On two occasions Singer served as chair of the philosophy department atMonash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996 he stood unsuccessfully as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004 he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies, and in June 2012 was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his services to philosophy and bioethics.[2] He serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal. He was voted one of Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals in 2006.[3] Singer currently serves on the advisory board of Academics Stand Against Poverty (ASAP).


https://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/

Also has 50K followers on 'twitter'.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Does participating in a march really count as "try to end the killing of millions of innocent lives," though?
> 
> It seems as if the Washington, D.C., march was designed to try to persuade politicians to change the law. But changing the law won't stop abortion. There are plenty of sources that estimate abortion was just as prevalent prior to Roe v. Wade as afterwards; the only difference is that it went from being illicit and unsafe to being safe and legal.
> 
> ...



Sorry I do not find where your assumptions is based on facts....I volunteered for years at birthright in dodge city Kansas..not looking for fame or glory just want folks to know that there really are people willing to help.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why do so many that post here think that only those on the left ( or even all of those on the left) are pro abortion? I know quite a few conservatives ( even Christians conservatives) that are not against abortion.

Every time I read these generalizations saying the right is this and the left is that, I think I am reading opinions by people that have blinders on so they can preach their point of view with out looking at the entire story.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

More 'followers' & advocates of infanticide:

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/06/writers-defend-infanticide-so-called-after-birth-abortions/
In addition some of the world&#8217;s most famous living philosophers have written about its merits and justification over the last 40&#8197;years, including Michael Tooley, Jonathan Glover, Peter Singer, Jeff McMahan and John Harris.

Four of these five have contributed to this issue of JME and the full text of their articles is currently available on line.

McMahan argues that the permissibility of infanticide in some circumstances is not only implied by certain theories, but by beliefs that are widely held and difficult to reject.

Michael Tooley&#8217;s book is entitled Abortion and infanticide.
Peter Singer wrote a book in 1985 with Helga Kuhse called Should the baby live?

Jonathan Glover&#8217;s landmark Causing death and saving lives notes that &#8216;Dr Francis Crick (the Nobel Laureate who discovered DNA with Jim Watson in 1956) once proposed a two-day period for detecting abnormalities, after which infanticide would not be permissible&#8217;.

At least 2 are Nobel winners.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Why do so many that post here think that only those on the left ( or even all of those on the left) are pro abortion? I know quite a few conservatives ( even Christians conservatives) that are not against abortion.
> 
> Every time I read these generalizations saying the right is this and the left is that, I think I am reading opinions by people that have blinders on so they can preach their point of view with out looking at the entire story.


Thanks for your study of "quite a few".
Anyone would be hard pressed to find a larger or even equal representation of abortion advocates in the conservative group.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Here's some on the other nobel winner, James D Watson:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Eugenics

Distinguished geneticists including Nobel Prize-winners John Sulston ("I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world")[18] and Watson ("Once you have a way in which you can improve our children, no one can stop it")[19] support genetic screening. Which ideas should be described as "eugenic" are still controversial in both public and scholarly spheres. Some observers such as Philip Kitcher have described the use of genetic screening by parents as making possible a form of "voluntary" eugenics.[20]
Some modern subcultures advocate different forms of eugenics assisted by human cloning and human genetic engineering, sometimes even as part of a new cult (see RaÃ«lism, Cosmotheism, or Prometheism). These groups also talk of "neo-eugenics." "conscious evolution," or "genetic freedom."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Thanks for your study of "quite a few".
> Anyone would be hard pressed to find a larger or even equal representation of abortion advocates in the conservative group.


That may be true as non conservatives are a larger percentage of our population. That however does not make my statements in the previous post untrue.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I have a clue that rights and Christians eat, drink, sin, and act as humans.

Lord live a duck birthright meeting area ....was on the grounds of a private Catholic college.....why because college girls get knocked up and it is scary for them. The temptation to hide is normal and with society handing out gift certs for murder being their was important to prevent shame a guilt by finding away for good to come out instead.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

One Christian's points on abortion:

http://christian-apologetics.org/2012/abortion-hard-questions-real-answers/

An excerpt:

The notion that people have inherent rights just in virtue of the fact that they are human beings, regardless of their race, class, religion, caste, or station in life, is based in the inherent moral value of human beings. This truth is recognized as well in the Declaration of Independence, which affirms that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, such as the right to life, to liberty, and to the pursuit of happiness. Most of us, when we reflect upon it, would come to a similar conclusion: Yes, human beings do possess intrinsic moral value.

Now what this implies is that if the developing fetus is a human being, then he or she is endowed with intrinsic moral worth and therefore possesses inherent human rights, including the right to life. As the Canadian abortionist Henry Morgentaler concedes, &#8220;If indeed there were a human being present from conception, then interfering with its growth or removing it from its human support system would be tantamount to killing a human being.&#8221;1 Abortion would be a form of homicide, and against such attacks the innocent and defenseless fetus would have every right to the protection of the law.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Anyone changed their mind yet?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> PP has been approached to help w/this, they refused. Only interested in the killing. do not want advocates for adoption anywhere near their clinics.


Yep, I already knew that.
It makes my point that the hypocrites, obstructionists, and those in it for the money really do a disservice to the silent, unselfish, hard-working ones who have true care and compassion as their priority.
And I mean for that statement to go equally to both sides, BTW.
If you want to do some good then do it, if you just want to march with a sign for either opposing view, then you might want to take a long hard look at the heart of the matter.
IOW, if your heart IS in the right place, maybe it's your hands and feet that need some better direction......


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> PP has been approached to help w/this, they refused. Only interested in the killing. do not want advocates for adoption anywhere near their clinics.


I know most of you won't go there but here is the planned parenthood stance on adoption from their own website. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what/adoption. They don't seem to hide it as an option and even seem willing to steer women to where they can find more information and support.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Abortion is not murder.

A fetus under 12 weeks ( and maybe a few weeks later) is still just cells and has no higher cortical activity. It will possibly become a person but that is not a certainty. As someone who lives on the land, life is neither a given or requirement because an egg becomes fertilized.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Anyone changed their mind yet?


I will never know but I believe that evil does best where people do nothing.....whether they do nothing out of fear or apathy does not matter.

I do not need to know if anyone changed their mind.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

DNA proves that a human dies when aborted.

Death caused by intent is murder when the action is not to save lives. Murder is not a kind word but it is the correct term....I know vacation would be a nice pleasant word but.....


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Wlover said:


> Abortion is not murder.
> 
> A fetus under 12 weeks ( and maybe a few weeks later) is still just cells and has no higher cortical activity. It will possibly become a person but that is not a certainty.
> 
> As someone who lives on the land, life is neither a given or requirement because an egg becomes fertilized.


Just because you agree with it doesn't make it not murder. 

I wish I believed in a hell. I don't. Evil is done regularly and with nonchalance, the universe doesn't care. It all ends in heat death anyway. At least one can take comfort from that notion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Murder equals unlawful. Abortion is lawful.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Just because you agree with it doesn't make it not murder.
> 
> I wish I believed in a hell. I don't. Evil is done regularly and with nonchalance, the universe doesn't care. It all ends in heat death anyway. At least one can take comfort from that notion.


I could say the same words to you.

Death does not equal murder.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Fertilized eggs that do not develop and are expelled are miscarriages. Some are so early they are not even noticed others give pause for morning the live dies and that is the same result but how is the difference. With and abortion the goal is to cause death.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wrong abortion is just legalized murder.
Just as pot is legalized in some states ...it is still illegal federally.

A rose is a rose no matter what you call it.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Wlover said:


> Murder equals unlawful. Abortion is lawful.


"Death does not equal murder." 

I wonder how an aborted child would define the procedure?

But wait........they don't get to give their opinion.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Death does not equal murder.
Death is natural.

An abortion is not natural there is a deliberate procedure done with the desired out come of death. Murder.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> I know most of you won't go there but here is the planned parenthood stance on adoption from their own website. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what/adoption. They don't seem to hide it as an option and even seem willing to steer women to where they can find more information and support.


Yes. When I used to go there, they were advocates for reproductive health in general with information regarding prevention in the first place. Granted, this was about 20 years ago and it's possible things may have changed but back then it was an affordable place to go to explore options, expecially for teens who didn't feel comfortable talking to their doctors (for fear of them spilling the beans to their parents). I know they've helped a lot of women. I remember seeing many brochures for a local pregnancy crisis center for help with adoption information.

Note - I said I wouldn't touch this thread but it seemed to be getting personal and I'd hate to see it closed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I have never been called a sociopath with no conscience before. I will have to do a facebook update with my new status.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

A class of people with something in common have been labeled.....no name connected....just assumptions. If one out themself well that is the right in a free nation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A distinction without a difference. Is that not what they say all the time these days.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And is the Taliban a terrorist organization.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Until someone can prove to me that life is an animalistic experience alone with no soul involved whatsoever then I must consider life a gift. Any soul that is in someone is their gift. For one to take away someone else's gift rises to the highest order of crimes. Think of the dreams that were never realized. 

For anyone to have an opinion about abortion means that they have no first hand experience to make an informed decision regarding that subject. They have not experienced an abortion that has been performed with them as a target.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Shine said:


> Until someone can prove to me that life is an animalistic experience alone with no soul involved whatsoever then I must consider life a gift. Any soul that is in someone is their gift. For one to take away someone else's gift rises to the highest order of crimes. Think of the dreams that were never realized.
> 
> For anyone to have an opinion about abortion means that they have no first hand experience to make an informed decision regarding that subject. They have not experienced an abortion that has been performed with them as a target.


Maybe you need to prove there is a soul first.

That second paragraph is a bit ambiguous. You can't have an opinion or you are not allowed to have an opinion unless you were aborted?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Wlover said:


> Maybe you need to prove there is a soul first.


Extremely difficult to "prove" especially for a layperson, but it might surprise you to find out there are actually scientists working on it......

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/qu...roof-soul-exists/story-fneszs56-1226507452687


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Extremely difficult to "prove" especially for a layperson, but it might surprise you to find out there are actually scientists working on it......
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/qu...roof-soul-exists/story-fneszs56-1226507452687


Not surprised one little bit.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Wlover said:


> Maybe you need to prove there is a soul first.
> 
> That second paragraph is a bit ambiguous. You can't have an opinion or you are not allowed to have an opinion unless you were aborted?


Sorry, I have felt the proof with regards to the soul/spirit and am comfortable with the answer to that question. You might have a question there but I cannot help you with your answer.

The second part was somewhat ambiguous on purpose. It was a play on words to demonstrate that the act of abortion is one that produces a finality, I feel that this is the killing of a soul. 

Also, it is another presumption of mine that upon conception, the soul is created, not 2 weeks, not 6 weeks or whenever that "clump of cells" has made it to this point or that point, upon conception the soul is present.

So while I might not force my views upon someone in this matter, I can speak out when my perspective might allow someone that is struggling with that decision and they are open to opinions...


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

no really said:


> WG I would like to see birth control meds passed out on every corner and a means to make more permanent methods available. But my question is if they can't afford BC meds how do they pay for abortions?


 I assume that this has changed, but I once worked for the State of NY. The health insurance plan didn't cover birth control, but it did cover abortions. I think that the insurance plan was called the Empire Plan, if I'm not mistaken. I was told that it later changed to cover BC, but that was long after I no longer was a state employee.


----------



## harvestmoon1964 (Apr 24, 2014)

What we need to do is be able to take the embryo out of the uterus of the unwilling pregnant woman and be able to implant it into the uteri of anti-choice volunteers. 
Then there would be far more babies to adopt and everyone would be happy. :happy2:

How many here would volunteer if the medical community found a means to do this?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Confusing respect for life as anti choice is odd for life is always a choice.
I would gladly take an embryo had I a functioning uterus.....cancer leave a mark.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Abortion is not murder.
> 
> A fetus under 12 weeks ( and maybe a few weeks later) is still just cells and has no higher cortical activity. It will possibly become a person but that is not a certainty. As someone who lives on the land, life is neither a given or requirement because an egg becomes fertilized.


Ah, the old "just a blob of cells" argument.
That's been proven wrong-long ago. I was taught in biology the stages of fetal development. 12 wks? ya gotta be kiddin'. Anyone can see pics of unborn at that stage & KNOW its not a blob of cells. And if 'its' not going to become a 'person'? What WILL 'it' become? A toothbrush? Coffee cup? Puppy? Its the left, the "Ds" who are full of excuses to encourage killing the unborn.
Then next came the "can do whatever I want w/MY body". Also disproven.
So now its: "womens' health". Ha. What does killing the unborn got to do w/womens' health?
IF the mother's life is in danger-of even just a health issue-abortion has always been available.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Fertilized eggs that do not develop and are expelled are miscarriages. Some are so early they are not even noticed others give pause for morning the live dies and that is the same result but how is the difference. With and abortion the goal is to cause death.


This is my argument as to when the soul enters. I believe the soul does not come til firmly attached/growing in the uterus. I just don't believe a loving God would allow that many souls not to survive.
I know many believe the soul is there at conception. Sooo...do identical twins then share a soul? they split several days down the road...?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

About fifty percent of all abortion are deadly to females.....true or false.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

harvestmoon1964 said:


> What we need to do is be able to take the embryo out of the uterus of the unwilling pregnant woman and be able to implant it into the uteri of anti-choice volunteers.
> Then there would be far more babies to adopt and everyone would be happy. :happy2:
> 
> How many here would volunteer if the medical community found a means to do this?


Many already do!! Its called surrogate mothers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, the old "just a blob of cells" argument.
> That's been proven wrong-long ago. I was taught in biology the stages of fetal development. 12 wks? ya gotta be kiddin'. Anyone can see pics of unborn at that stage & KNOW its not a blob of cells. And if 'its' not going to become a 'person'? What WILL 'it' become? A toothbrush? Coffee cup? Puppy? Its the left, the "Ds" who are full of excuses to encourage killing the unborn.
> Then next came the "can do whatever I want w/MY body". Also dis-proven.
> So now its: "womens' health". Ha. What does killing the unborn got to do w/womens' health?
> IF the mother's life is in danger-of even just a health issue-abortion has always been available.


Science does say it is just cells. They are moving towards the possibility of being a person but there is no cortical activity at that time only the hope that there will be. Pro life factions like to proclaim that lies, but Science has proven them wrong. Joking and laughter and being facetious just will not make it so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Many already do!! Its called surrogate mothers.


They do not. The egg is removed before fertilization.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

> About fifty percent of all abortion are deadly to females.....true or false.


There is a metric ton of information needed to form a remotely cognizant answer to the question. It's so vague that there is no way to answer it, or was that the point?

Also, I've never understood the "defend the unborn; defund the born" mentality of the extreme pro-lifer. Why is it the unborn need to be defended and funded, but the born are not worth benefits for food, health care, education, and shelter? In my opinion, once a child is born (generally to low income parent(s)) there are NO marches, and any money (through taxes, etc.) is grudgingly given and complained about vehemently.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

harvestmoon1964 said:


> What we need to do is be able to take the embryo out of the uterus of the unwilling pregnant woman and be able to implant it into the uteri of anti-choice volunteers.
> Then there would be far more babies to adopt and everyone would be happy. :happy2:
> 
> How many here would volunteer if the medical community found a means to do this?


I would hazard to guess there wouldn't be a lot of volunteers when it came right down to the implantation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Doggonedog said:


> I would hazard to guess there wouldn't be a lot of volunteers when it came right down to the implantation.


I agree. There is a certain portion of the population that would welcome the chance to have a child by any means but there a litany of reasons that the majority of aborted fetuses would never be claimed for this procedure.

Health situation of the mother to cost of the procedure. Look at the Duggers as an example. They could have been adopting instead of having their own.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

[NOTE THE CHANGE OF SUBJECT....STANDARD



QUOTE=Doggonedog;7363258]There is a metric ton of information needed to form a remotely cognizant answer to the question. It's so vague that there is no way to answer it, or was that the point?

Also, I've never understood the "defend the unborn; defund the born" mentality of the extreme pro-lifer. Why is it the unborn need to be defended and funded, but the born are not worth benefits for food, health care, education, and shelter? In my opinion, once a child is born (generally to low income parent(s)) there are NO marches, and any money (through taxes, etc.) is grudgingly given and complained about vehemently.[/QUOTE]


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is my argument as to when the soul enters. I believe the soul does not come til firmly attached/growing in the uterus. I just don't believe a loving God would allow that many souls not to survive.
> I know many believe the soul is there at conception. Sooo...do identical twins then share a soul? they split several days down the road...?


I know what I'll be pondering in the ice house for awhile. Can't wait to lay this on my cell mates. That's some deep thinking TG, thanks. It gets really boring talking about the same subjects day after day, hockey and women.:happy2:


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

> [NOTE THE CHANGE OF SUBJECT....STANDARD
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

I don't understand? Isn't it typical for topics to drift? Are all posts supposed to remain rigidly on one topic with no variation? Is this a HomesteadingToday rule, or just something you wanted to announce?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is my argument as to when the soul enters. I believe the soul does not come til firmly attached/growing in the uterus. I just don't believe a loving God would allow that many souls not to survive.
> I know many believe the soul is there at conception. Sooo...do identical twins then share a soul? they split several days down the road...?



Although some on the forum hate it when religion enters a scientific discussion, I feel compelled to point out what God has to say about the soul and conception, and to make another correction that might ease your mind about it.

Jeremiah 1:5 is one of many, but the most clear.
"I knew you _before_ you were formed in the womb...."

This and other verses clearly indicate that all souls are with the Father and have been since the beginning of time. They are placed in mortal bodies at the moment of conception, remain here until we die, and then return to Him.

Ecclesiastes 12: 6,7.
6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern.

7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.


NO souls have been destroyed as of this writing. I repeat, none.
All remain with Him until Judgement Day, which is still sometime in the future and all have had an opportunity to accept His gift of eternal life.

That means that an aborted human still has their soul, and perhaps father knew they were too good to be here, or couldn't stand the suffering or some other reason that He saw fit. That, I don't know.
There are many other different beliefs about this that are vehemently taught and followed in today's churches, however when you read what it is written, there should be no doubt about it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is my argument as to when the soul enters. I believe the soul does not come til firmly attached/growing in the uterus. I just don't believe a loving God would allow that many souls not to survive.
> I know many believe the soul is there at conception. Sooo...do identical twins then share a soul? they split several days down the road...?


That brings us down to the fundamental question of this entire thread. What makes your opinion more valid than those who believe the soul enters at fertilization or those who believe life begins much later? Why should your views be the basis of law that affects everyone? If the argument is that all life is precious shouldn't you be erring on the side of caution? If there is even a remote chance that life begins at conception the only intellectually honest view would be to make illegal abortion or anything that may prevent implantation. The consequence of being wrong makes you no better than those who advocate late term abortion. And what of the medical exemption for a mother's health? What gives any mortal human the right to make that decision and possibly override God's will by choosing a woman's life over that of the fetus. Who's more worthy of living, someone who has yet to make a mistake or someone who has maybe already proven they are flawed. What right do you have to make that choice. More importantly, what right do you have to force any of these choices on another because of your beliefs?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I don't understand?[/QUOTE]

Noted


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thou shall not murder


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> That brings us down to the fundamental question of this entire thread. What makes your opinion more valid than those who believe the soul enters at fertilization or those who believe life begins much later? Why should your views be the basis of law that affects everyone? If the argument is that all life is precious shouldn't you be erring on the side of caution? If there is even a remote chance that life begins at conception the only intellectually honest view would be to make illegal abortion or anything that may prevent implantation. The consequence of being wrong makes you no better than those who advocate late term abortion. And what of the medical exemption for a mother's health? What gives any mortal human the right to make that decision and possibly override God's will by choosing a woman's life over that of the fetus. Who's more worthy of living, someone who has yet to make a mistake or someone who has maybe already proven they are flawed. What right do you have to make that choice. More importantly, what right do you have to force any of these choices on another because of your beliefs?


Exactly. Comment of the year award!


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

> I don't understand?


Noted[/QUOTE]

OK. Thank you. So, you are either mocking me, or just want to make sure that everyone knew I added another question (that was completely on point with the discussion of abortion) on my post that tried to answer the question, "About fifty percent of all abortion are deadly to females.....true or false."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"Thou shalt not murder"

A religious quote that has no bearing in reality in my discussion. I am discussing abortion which is legal.

Those who wish to follow the laws of their God are free to do so, it just has no bearing on the laws of this Nation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Thou shall not murder


Then the answer is simple for you, don't commit murder as you define it and offend your god. I'm not going to argue the validity of your beliefs. That you believe something is good enough for me to applaud you for living by those beliefs. Others believe differently. I give them the same benefit. I don't tell vegans they are wrong to to value the life of a chicken as much as they value their own. Their beliefs. I simply ask that they not try to force those beliefs on me. If there is a God she will deal with each of us about our beliefs and decisions at the proper time. It's not for me to make those judgements.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Food stamps...snap
Food banks
Lunch programs
Breakfast programs
Dinner programs
Wic

Love Inc.

Section 8
Low income housing
Homeless shelters
Temp housing transitional homes
Foster care
Covalent housing
Love Inc.

Goodwill
Salvation army
St. Paul's
Mormon out reach
Birth Right
Right to life 
Samaritan purse
Good Samaritans
Bridging the gap

It's not just prebirth lives but lives. Not understanding that there is more help and offers to aid than just planned parenthood is part of some rational for murder.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

And the answer is now apparent.

If abortion is murder, or at the least manslaughter, and if there is a Judgment Day awaiting us all, we'll all have that day to face. I know the Judge and trust His judgement.
One question that always fascinates me is, how does a person that doesn't believe in God, know that murder is inherently wrong?
I mean, the first words out of their mouth is, "Don't make your religious laws apply to me", yet no one advocates violating THAT one.
Ever wonder how that core belief got into our minds to begin with?

BTW, the answer is known to believers, how it got there.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Publicly stating info does not stop someone's freedom
Murdering them does.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> And the answer is now apparent.
> 
> If abortion is murder, or at the least manslaughter, and if there is a Judgment Day awaiting us all, we'll all have that day to face. I know the Judge and trust His judgement.
> One question that always fascinates me is, how does a person that doesn't believe in God, know that murder is inherently wrong?
> ...


Why does everyone that believes in a God believe that those that don't, do not have the brain capacity to figure it out for themselves? Just as humans evolved and acquired the knowledge of modern day science, they have the metal capacity to figure out right from wrong with out their parents telling them what to believe.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> They do not. The egg is removed before fertilization.


They also have transplanting of embryoes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> There is a metric ton of information needed to form a remotely cognizant answer to the question. It's so vague that there is no way to answer it, or was that the point?
> 
> Also, I've never understood the "defend the unborn; defund the born" mentality of the extreme pro-lifer. Why is it the unborn need to be defended and funded, but the born are not worth benefits for food, health care, education, and shelter? In my opinion, once a child is born (generally to low income parent(s)) there are NO marches, and any money (through taxes, etc.) is grudgingly given and complained about vehemently.


Sorry, you have no link to support your argument, and its false.
Conservatives do far more than libs when it comes to charity-more giving of $$, time, and even blood. Adopt more, give more shelter/$/comfort/support to unwed moms & children.
More reasons I'm not a "D".


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> And the answer is now apparent.
> 
> If abortion is murder, or at the least manslaughter, and if there is a Judgment Day awaiting us all, we'll all have that day to face. I know the Judge and trust His judgement.
> One question that always fascinates me is, how does a person that doesn't believe in God, know that murder is inherently wrong?
> ...


And it's a belief that is violated on a daily basis by believers and non believers of a wide variety if beliefs on a daily basis. Always has been, always will. I tend to believe that when ancient man first began to organize in social groups they soon recognized that kiling each other was often counterproductive and learned to codify that. Of course, the killing of outsiders was more socially acceptable and allowed and even codified into the rules of war as societies advanced. You believe it was god, I believe it was basic human evolution. I'm not sure how we prove either one right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> They also have transplanting of embryoes.


Embryo's that are created in a petri dish, not embyros that have been fertilized in the womens body and attached to her uterus.

Not even in the same realm.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

One doesn't have to be a Christian to know that murder is wrong. Human beings are perfectly capable of making moral decisions without the help of a divine being. 

Abortion for convenience is wrong. I think there is an awful lot of money wasted on both sides by everyone debating for or against it which could be spent on social and support programs for the new mothers and birth control availability which would reduce the number of decisions in the first place.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Although some on the forum hate it when religion enters a scientific discussion, I feel compelled to point out what God has to say about the soul and conception, and to make another correction that might ease your mind about it.
> 
> Jeremiah 1:5 is one of many, but the most clear.
> "I knew you _before_ you were formed in the womb...."
> ...


I respect your reasoning, but I fail to see where anything points to WHEN the soul enters. 
Seems we might be speaking of re-incarnation in one verse, controversial.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Killing can be very productive.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Murder is for person gain


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> That brings us down to the fundamental question of this entire thread. What makes your opinion more valid than those who believe the soul enters at fertilization or those who believe life begins much later? Why should your views be the basis of law that affects everyone? If the argument is that all life is precious shouldn't you be erring on the side of caution? If there is even a remote chance that life begins at conception the only intellectually honest view would be to make illegal abortion or anything that may prevent implantation. The consequence of being wrong makes you no better than those who advocate late term abortion. And what of the medical exemption for a mother's health? What gives any mortal human the right to make that decision and possibly override God's will by choosing a woman's life over that of the fetus. Who's more worthy of living, someone who has yet to make a mistake or someone who has maybe already proven they are flawed. What right do you have to make that choice. More importantly, what right do you have to force any of these choices on another because of your beliefs?


Really? wow. 
Not sure who's forcing who but you're implying no one can have an opinion.
Err on the side of caution? Like the left does, ok-ing killing right up to the moment of birth?
Any idiot can see that ain't right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Killing can be very productive.


That does seem to be said here a lot. "Kill your enemies" seems to be repeated quite a bit. I wonder if abortion is all right for those of religions that some don't agree with? That would solve a few problems some here have.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Murder is for person gain


If I shoot an intruder in my house and kill them have I not gained personally from not having to replace what they might have taken. Even if it is to prevent the loss of my life or the life of a loved one have I not gained personally? Why is that not murder according to your definition? And why does man's law treat it differently?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Why does everyone that believes in a God believe that those that don't, do not have the brain capacity to figure it out for themselves? Just as humans evolved and acquired the knowledge of modern day science, they have the metal capacity to figure out right from wrong with out their parents telling them what to believe.


I think so too. And I think most folks can figure out some point where it becomes definetly not right to kill the unborn.
Right to lifers would be pretty happy w/not killing after a certain term...12 wks? Tried to get it passed that 20 wks could be the cut-off but that failed, much to many's sorrow.
If we're going w/science here, SCIENCE has determined that the unborn can feel pain at 20 weeks. So I'll ask the pro choice group here...are you willing to make the cut off at 20 weeks? If not, are you not believing the science? Or just don't care about a 'blob of cells' feeling pain b/c 'its' not human?
Providing for rape, harm to mother, incest, severe defects...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Really? wow.
> Not sure who's forcing who but you're implying no one can have an opinion.
> Err on the side of caution? Like the left does, ok-ing killing right up to the moment of birth?
> Any idiot can see that ain't right.


You can have any opinion you wish. You can have Ã ny beliefs you wish. I haven't called your opinion wrong or questioned your beliefs. But by advocating for laws that give your beliefs the force of law you are trying to impose those beliefs on others. You don't believe that life begins at the union of egg and sperm. Others of your religous bent believe it does. Are you willing to live by their beliefs and outlaw all birth control measures that prevent implantation? Why not? What makes your beliefs more valid other than you believe them. Why should I, or others, have to live by your beliefs? You can make any personal choice you wish about birth control or abortion and I'll support that choice. Try to limit the choices of others and I'll likely oppose you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

A person in acting to harm you or another for which you respond in taking their life is killing..... it is done to be safe and to preserve life. It is a response to a threat. Thus respect for life is given

Murder is not a response to a threat but is instigated for personal gain without regard for life. Thus the is no reguard for life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I can only speak for myself.

I would be happy to have a cutoff date where after that date abortions can only be performed for medical reasons. This discussion however shows how difficult a consensus on the date and what medical reasons should be.

PS, pain is not a good cutoff point. We kill lots of animals everyday who feel pain and I am sure a way for a fetus to feel no pain and be aborted could be found.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I think so too. And I think most folks can figure out some point where it becomes definetly not right to kill the unborn.
> Right to lifers would be pretty happy w/not killing after a certain term...12 wks? Tried to get it passed that 20 wks could be the cut-off but that failed, much to many's sorrow.
> If we're going w/science here, SCIENCE has determined that the unborn can feel pain at 20 weeks. So I'll ask the pro choice group here...are you willing to make the cut off at 20 weeks? If not, are you not believing the science? Or just don't care about a 'blob of cells' feeling pain b/c 'its' not human?
> Providing for rape, harm to mother, incest, severe defects...


Are you willing to use the "feeling of pain" as the definition that no life should be taken? Going to be hard to eat that steak tonight. And why is that life less precious for the reasons you exempt? Cannot those blobs of cells also feel pain?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

It is sorta like get a car by buying
Vs
Getting a car by stealing someone

In both cases you end up with a car .....is on way morally better.


----------



## harvestmoon1964 (Apr 24, 2014)

How about all abortions after a certain period (say 12 weeks) be required to be performed via C-section and if the fetus lives, then it is the will of God. Same if it dies. 
Because who are we to say that a woman's body be required to act as an incubator when she doesn't want it to?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

harvestmoon1964 said:


> How about all abortions after a certain period (say 12 weeks) be required to be performed via C-section and if the fetus lives, then it is the will of God. Same if it dies.
> Because who are we to say that a woman's body be required to act as an incubator when she doesn't want it to?


That would work. The Government can then cover all the costs until a parent is found.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Often times the better choice IS doing what we do not want to.

Working 
Cleaning
Taking meds
Getting an education
Evacuating during a forests fire, flood, tornadoes
Getting up in the morning

Being responsible


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I don't know if I should be a member of the march or a heckler on the sideline. There are some things I do not understand, and not likely to find an answer to. Sort of hard to choose sides.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I suspect that having an abortion is not what most women would *want* to do.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Government better get a job cause really worker thru taxes more the ones paying.
Government needs to work has a new meaning.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> A person in acting to harm you or another for which you respond in taking their life is killing..... it is done to be safe and to preserve life. It is a response to a threat. Thus respect for life is given
> 
> Murder is not a response to a threat but is instigated for personal gain without regard for life. Thus the is no reguard for life.


So it's a little but more complicated than you first stated? So a woman whose life is threatened by pregnancy isn't a murderer. How about that guy in your house with his hand in your cookie jar where you've hidden your butter and eggs money. Killing or murder?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, it's not more complicated. 

Life threatened or not
Goal to preserve life 
Or
Goal to take a life
INTENTIONS


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

life threatened or.....not
Is the intention to to preserve life
Or
Is the intention to end a life

THE WHY IS VERY IMPORTANT


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> No, it's not more complicated.
> 
> Life threatened or not
> Goal to preserve life
> ...


And in the case of a woman's health. You may have to take a life to preserve a life. Who decides?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Doggonedog said:


> There is a metric ton of information needed to form a remotely cognizant answer to the question. It's so vague that there is no way to answer it, or was that the point?
> 
> Also, I've never understood the "defend the unborn; defund the born" mentality of the extreme pro-lifer. Why is it the unborn need to be defended and funded, but the born are not worth benefits for food, health care, education, and shelter? IN MY OPINION, once a child is born (generally to low income parent(s)) there are NO marches, and any money (through taxes, etc.) is grudgingly given and complained about vehemently.





Tricky Grama said:


> Sorry, you have no link to support your argument, and its false.
> Conservatives do far more than libs when it comes to charity-more giving of $$, time, and even blood. Adopt more, give more shelter/$/comfort/support to unwed moms & children.
> More reasons I'm not a "D".


Please read my post again, it's very clearly a question and my opinion, I'm not stating fact. Although in my opinion it is correct.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Wlover said:


> I suspect that having an abortion is not what most women would *want* to do.


Another comment of the day award.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Intent.

Aborting a fetus under 12 weeks of age is not killing a person therefore no intent, therefore no murder.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

If it is not a person, what is it??


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

It depends on what how old the product of pregnancy is, the main distinctions are: zygote, embryo, and fetus.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Wendy said:


> If it is not a person, what is it??


Isn't that the question? When does a mass of cells attain personhood? At the point egg and sperm come together? At the point it takes its first breath on its own? At some arbitrary point in between? Who decides?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> And it's a belief that is violated on a daily basis by believers and non believers of a wide variety if beliefs on a daily basis. Always has been, always will. I tend to believe that when ancient man first began to organize in social groups they soon recognized that kiling each other was often counterproductive and learned to codify that. Of course, the killing of outsiders was more socially acceptable and allowed and even codified into the rules of war as societies advanced. You believe it was god, I believe it was basic human evolution. I'm not sure how we prove either one right.



Yes, that has been the general answer I've been given by those that don't believe it has been given to us from God.
The theory is that codifying murder was a logical way of self-preservation of the species. God isn't needed, we figured this out on our own and it makes perfect sense and is a way to ensure our species survives.
An amoral way of coming to the same conclusion about murder being wrong or harmful.
Fair enough.
This now brings me to the awkward question about abortion.

If, without morality, we agree that killing our own will hurt the species and therefore have made it illegal for our own good.........how does one defend abortion on those same logical, scientific and amoral grounds?

I'll go ahead and concede that in the cases of severe birth defects or it will kill the mother, you have a perfectly reasonable answer, but in the other cases of terminating a normal, healthy pregnancy what logical reason could there be to violate this law that we both agree is there for our own good?

THAT'S a philosophical pickle that's going to be hard to swallow.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> I suspect that having an abortion is not what most women would *want* to do.


Then why do they. Wait list for babies on adoption is not news.
Why did we just face folks who wanted to celebrate abortion day.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Then why do they. Wait list for babies on adoption is not news.
> Why did we just face folks who wanted to celebrate abortion day.


Due to the circumstances in their life, it is the best decision for them.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I respect your reasoning, but I fail to see where anything points to WHEN the soul enters.
> Seems we might be speaking of re-incarnation in one verse, controversial.


You are correct, it does not specify when the soul enters, only that it was already created, living in spirit with God until entering our mortal body.
One could argue at conception or some other time, and I could give you a perfect example in Christ's case, but maybe later.
As far as reincarnation, no.



Hebrews 9:27King James Version (KJV)

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:



It's a simple concept and not controversial as far as scripture goes, our souls are not permanently connected to these flesh bodies and return to God after our time here is up.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Then why do they. Wait list for babies on adoption is not news.
> Why did we just face folks who wanted to celebrate abortion day.


There may be a wait list for babies but until there are no more children of any age to adopt on that wait list, I do not see that as a compelling reason for every women to bring every fertilized egg to term.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> If I shoot an intruder in my house and kill them have I not gained personally from not having to replace what they might have taken. Even if it is to prevent the loss of my life or the life of a loved one have I not gained personally? Why is that not murder according to your definition? And why does man's law treat it differently?


If you keep something you already have (a life , possessions, etc), hopefully that is not what you consider a "gain", as in addition to what I already have.

As far as the difference between murder and self defense, I also hope that doesn't need further explanation.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, that has been the general answer I've been given by those that don't believe it has been given to us from God.
> The theory is that codifying murder was a logical way of self-preservation of the species. God isn't needed, we figured this out on our own and it makes perfect sense and is a way to ensure our species survives.
> An amoral way of coming to the same conclusion about murder being wrong or harmful.
> Fair enough.
> ...


First of all you'll have to explain to me why, because man came up with the concept of murder being a bad thing, it is somehow amoral. Morality can exist just as easily without your god, or any god, as with them.

Secondly carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a child may not always be to the benefit of the species or the tribe. Times of famine, war, nomadic travel and a myriad of other circumstances can make pregnancy itself a detriment to the tribe or adding another mouth to feed with already limited resources problematic. Natural abortifacients were known to many ancient peoples. Probably not by accident. The same choices of how to best allocate resources is cited by many women today for their decision.

Third, you presume I support abortion. I wish it never happened. But I know the decision is not mine to make for others. If asked for my advice I will almost always advocate for other choices. But I will never advocate for taking any of those choices away.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> If you keep something you already have (a life , possessions, etc), hopefully that is not what you consider a "gain", as in addition to what I already have.
> 
> As far as the difference between murder and self defense, I also hope that doesn't need further explanation.


So it's acceptable to kill someone to keep what you already have?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> So it's acceptable to kill someone to keep what you already have?


If you mean keeping my life, absolutely.
I won't be sucked into a gotcha game, if that's where this is going.
The post that started this line of thought referred to someone breaking into your house to rob or kill.
It may not be acceptable to kill a thief simply for stealing possessions, but if that thief has a weapon and intends to use it, I suppose that could also be twisted into a viewpoint of killing him over the possessions rather than the concurrent action of defending your life at the same time.

Now that I answered yours, how about mine?

Is keeping what you already have a gain, loss or net zero?:bored:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> If you mean keeping my life, absolutely.
> I won't be sucked into a gotcha game, if that's where this is going.
> The post that started this line of thought referred to someone breaking into your house to rob or kill.
> It may not be acceptable to kill a thief simply for stealing possessions, but if that thief has a weapon and intends to use it, I suppose that could also be twisted into a viewpoint of killing him over the possessions rather than the concurrent action of defending your life at the same time.
> ...


I postulated no weapon or threat of one. In some states it's perfectly legal to shoot someone who has broken into your home even though they have no weapon. Why is that not murder. It's certainly not self defense.

Overall it's a net gain. By not having to replace what was lost you have gained the time, effort and money that would otherwise be needed to replace it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You can have any opinion you wish. You can have Ã ny beliefs you wish. I haven't called your opinion wrong or questioned your beliefs. But by advocating for laws that give your beliefs the force of law you are trying to impose those beliefs on others. You don't believe that life begins at the union of egg and sperm. Others of your religous bent believe it does. Are you willing to live by their beliefs and outlaw all birth control measures that prevent implantation? Why not? What makes your beliefs more valid other than you believe them. Why should I, or others, have to live by your beliefs? You can make any personal choice you wish about birth control or abortion and I'll support that choice. Try to limit the choices of others and I'll likely oppose you.


No one is advocating outlawing birth control, but nice obfuscation. The only 'law' argued for is killing the unborn. 
Its futile, tho, since the left feels its not a human til birth. Will be hard to change that even if we could get the 20 wk law. My fear is that the many who advocate infanticide will get a foot hold & convince the abortion on demand crowd that its ok to kill babies they don't want, as well. Already far too many cased of 'failed' abortions where the newborn is killed w/scissors into the spinal cord.
But, hey, who am I to judge.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And in the case of a woman's health. You may have to take a life to preserve a life. Who decides?


This rarely happens but being in the med. profession, I can assure you any good OB/Gyn would know.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> First of all you'll have to explain to me why, because man came up with the concept of murder being a bad thing, it is somehow amoral. Morality can exist just as easily without your god, or any god, as with them.
> 
> Secondly carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a child may not always be to the benefit of the species or the tribe. Times of famine, war, nomadic travel and a myriad of other circumstances can make pregnancy itself a detriment to the tribe or adding another mouth to feed with already limited resources problematic. Natural abortifacients were known to many ancient peoples. Probably not by accident. The same choices of how to best allocate resources is cited by many women today for their decision.
> 
> Third, you presume I support abortion. I wish it never happened. But I know the decision is not mine to make for others. If asked for my advice I will almost always advocate for other choices. But I will never advocate for taking any of those choices away.



Just to clarify, I never said because man may have come up with the idea, that it was amoral.
That distinction I reserved for the pure scientific atheists who have hypothesized that morality was not a necessity, it could well have been a decision based on pure survival of the species.

But your answer on allocating resources is a logical one.
It _does_ however support the idea that it is one based on amoral logic, rather than grounded in a man-made morality.
That was my premise.
If it IS immoral to murder, then it should be for all.
If it ISN'T immoral, it still doesn't fit the amoral decision on self preservation.

And finally, I never presumed you supported abortion, simply asked a question regarding the origins of moral decisions.
I think the decision about an abortion would be agonizing. And that is between the woman and her Maker, not me.
The very fact that it is so hard, should remove all doubt that morals are in play, whether we like it or not.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

harvestmoon1964 said:


> What we need to do is be able to take the embryo out of the uterus of the unwilling pregnant woman and be able to implant it into the uteri of anti-choice volunteers.
> Then there would be far more babies to adopt and everyone would be happy. :happy2:
> 
> How many here would volunteer if the medical community found a means to do this?


Just reread this. Goodness. 
Leave it to the left to come up w/something that cannot be done! What a "strawman".
However, I'll say if it were possible there'd be women who cannot conceive lining up for it.
My other 'question' of when does the soul enter also involves frozen embryoes...I don't believe they have souls yet. JMHO. Can't freeze a newborn & thaw it out. Cannot freeze you or me, & thaw...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> No one is advocating outlawing birth control, but nice obfuscation. The only 'law' argued for is killing the unborn.
> Its futile, tho, since the left feels its not a human til birth. Will be hard to change that even if we could get the 20 wk law. My fear is that the many who advocate infanticide will get a foot hold & convince the abortion on demand crowd that its ok to kill babies they don't want, as well. Already far too many cased of 'failed' abortions where the newborn is killed w/scissors into the spinal cord.
> But, hey, who am I to judge.


A few people that might believe those statements does not make up the entire left and are not even only on the left but if labeling makes you happy go for it. It won't support you position.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I postulated no weapon or threat of one. In some states it's perfectly legal to shoot someone who has broken into your home even though they have no weapon. Why is that not murder. It's certainly not self defense.


No, I did, and the poster you replied to originally.
I would have to research that, about states' laws. I'm pretty sure that most if not all require that you be in fear for your life, weapon or not.
But, to answer your question, "Why is that not murder?", I'll do my best.

To murder, as it is written on the ten commandments, is from the Hebrew.
To lie in wait, with malice.
Now, if I'm minding my own business in my own home, not expecting company thru the door, not wishing anyone harm.....how can I be guilty of murder?




mmoetc said:


> Overall it's a net gain. By not having to replace what was lost you have gained the time, effort and money that would otherwise be needed to replace it.


I was hoping you weren't actually going to say that as your reasoning.:huh:

The only thing I can say is, you have a great future in gov't accounting.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> A few people that might believe those statements does not make up the entire left and are not even only on the left but if labeling makes you happy go for it. It won't support you position.


Doesn't have to be 'the entire left', only a majority. Or a judge like Roe vs Wade.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> No one is advocating outlawing birth control, but nice obfuscation. The only 'law' argued for is killing the unborn.
> Its futile, tho, since the left feels its not a human til birth. Will be hard to change that even if we could get the 20 wk law. My fear is that the many who advocate infanticide will get a foot hold & convince the abortion on demand crowd that its ok to kill babies they don't want, as well. Already far too many cased of 'failed' abortions where the newborn is killed w/scissors into the spinal cord.
> But, hey, who am I to judge.


Not an obfuscation at all. Some believe that life begins the second sperm and egg unite. Birth control that prevents the implantation of this union by definition kills the unborn. These folks would have these methods of birth control outlawed. My concerns about their wishes are as valid as yours about infanticide. I have asked you a number of direct questions without getting a direct answer. I'll repeat this one -Why is the standard that life begins at conception any less valid than yours and would you be willing to live by those beliefs?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> No, I did, and the poster you replied to originally.
> I would have to research that, about states' laws. I'm pretty sure that most if not all require that you be in fear for your life, weapon or not.




I did find ten states that allow killing in defense of robbery.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/3/2/13A-3-23


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I did find ten states that allow killing in defense of robbery.
> 
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/3/2/13A-3-23


They do in Ms. It is encouraged.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I did find ten states that allow killing in defense of robbery.
> 
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/alcode/13A/3/2/13A-3-23


To put it bluntly if a homeowner can kill to protect his big screen tv why can't a woman to protect her future earnings?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I'll go ahead and concede that in the cases of severe birth defects or it will kill the mother, you have a perfectly reasonable answer, but in the other cases of terminating a normal, healthy pregnancy what logical reason could there be to violate this law that we both agree is there for our own good?
> 
> THAT'S a philosophical pickle that's going to be hard to swallow.


The authors of "Freakonomics" built a case that crime rates in the U.S. began to drop about 18 years after Roe v. Wade. The drop was experienced even earlier in the states that had legalized abortion ahead of the Supreme Court decision. In addition, the states with the highest rates of abortion in the 1970s experiences the greatest decreases in crime in the 1990s.

They wrote,



> One study has shown that the typical child who went unborn in the earliest years of legalized abortion would have been 50 percent more likely than average to live in poverty; he would have also been 60 percent more likely to grow up with just one parent. These two factors -- childhood poverty and a single-parent household -- are among the strongest predictors that a child will have a criminal future. Growing up in a single-parent home roughly doubles a child's propensity to commit crime. So does having a teenage mother.
> 
> ... In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years -- the years during which young men enter their criminal phase -- the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chances of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Just to clarify, I never said because man may have come up with the idea, that it was amoral.
> That distinction I reserved for the pure scientific atheists who have hypothesized that morality was not a necessity, it could well have been a decision based on pure survival of the species.
> 
> But your answer on allocating resources is a logical one.
> ...


Because a quandary might not have a perfect answer doesn't make a bad choice amoral. Which is the more amoral choice- dooming your tribe because your pregnancy weakens them or ending the pregnancy? Some would say the moral choice is saving the most lives. Having two children starve or ending the life of one not yet born? No good choices but choices that sometimes have to be made. Morals that in my opinion man is as perfectly capable of defining as your god. 

If I misinterpreted your use of the term amoral so be it.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Why is the standard that life begins at conception any less valid than yours and would you be willing to live by those beliefs?


For that matter, egg and sperm cells are unique in that they contain half the genetic material needed to make a new human being! In that respect, they're different from mere skin or liver cells (for instance). 

What right have we to deny an egg the privilege of being fertilized, or a spermatazoon from going about its business? :huh:


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> To put it bluntly if a homeowner can kill to protect his big screen tv why can't a woman to protect her future earnings?


Here in lies the biggest problem now-a-days. Everything is about money. People do not want to give up money to save a human life. I would never kill someone to protect my big screen TV. If someone were threatening my family, I would protect them. As far as my material things, I won't be taking them along with me when I die, so I put very little value on them. People are to materialistic & all about me, me, me. It's really sad.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

From Webster's


amorÂ·al adjective \(&#716&#257;-&#712;m&#559;r-&#601;l, (&#716a-, -&#712;mÃ¤r-\
: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
Quick read: 10 gorgeous winter quotes Â»

Full Definition of AMORAL

1
a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral &#8212; W. S. Thompson>
b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2
: being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> To put it bluntly if a homeowner can kill to protect his big screen tv why can't a woman to protect her future earnings?


And as we all know, she can.

You asked me to define murder, I did.
You didn't ask me whether something defined as legal, is also moral.
I think everyone can find examples where this is not true.
I would never say killing someone to protect your property is morally right, but it is legal in 10 states.
Once again, the killer, the killee and God will have to thrash that one out, not me. I would just say that before one commits a serious act, some soul searching should be done. Sometimes there isn't time, so it's best to know how to act beforehand.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> From Webster's
> 
> 
> amorÂ·al adjective \(&#716&#257;-&#712;m&#559;r-&#601;l, (&#716a-, -&#712;mÃ¤r-\
> ...


I was aware of the definition. You brought it into the conversation.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> The authors of "Freakonomics" built a case that crime rates in the U.S. began to drop about 18 years after Roe v. Wade. The drop was experienced even earlier in the states that had legalized abortion ahead of the Supreme Court decision. In addition, the states with the highest rates of abortion in the 1970s experiences the greatest decreases in crime in the 1990s.
> 
> They wrote,


That's interesting.
I wonder why the rate wasn't even higher?
While abortion could be a solution to the crime rate, perhaps teaching hard work, a good education and good morals might be another.........


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I was aware of the definition. You brought it into the conversation.


Ok, I wasn't sure by your statement about misinterpreting it.
When you used moral right and wrong about tribal decisions, bad choices, etc. and then used "amoral" I was definitely confused then.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Not an obfuscation at all. Some believe that life begins the second sperm and egg unite. Birth control that prevents the implantation of this union by definition kills the unborn. These folks would have these methods of birth control outlawed. My concerns about their wishes are as valid as yours about infanticide. I have asked you a number of direct questions without getting a direct answer. I'll repeat this one -Why is the standard that life begins at conception any less valid than yours and would you be willing to live by those beliefs?


No none has to live by those beliefs nor have they ever had to. 
That standard is no less valid & is probably held by far more than mine is.
I'll say it again, most who are for life would settle for a ban after 12 wks.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> To put it bluntly if a homeowner can kill to protect his big screen tv why can't a woman to protect her future earnings?


Somehow I see this as a 'kill an innocent vs kill a thief' argument & wondering how it remotely equates...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> The authors of "Freakonomics" built a case that crime rates in the U.S. began to drop about 18 years after Roe v. Wade. The drop was experienced even earlier in the states that had legalized abortion ahead of the Supreme Court decision. In addition, the states with the highest rates of abortion in the 1970s experiences the greatest decreases in crime in the 1990s.
> 
> They wrote,


I'd like to see who did the study, if it was replicated, if the researchers were valid...I guess b/c more black babies are aborted, this seems very racist.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Because a quandary might not have a perfect answer doesn't make a bad choice amoral. Which is the more amoral choice- dooming your tribe because your pregnancy weakens them or ending the pregnancy? Some would say the moral choice is saving the most lives. Having two children starve or ending the life of one not yet born? No good choices but choices that sometimes have to be made. Morals that in my opinion man is as perfectly capable of defining as your god.
> 
> If I misinterpreted your use of the term amoral so be it.


You sound like the supporters of Singer.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Ok, I wasn't sure by your statement about misinterpreting it.
> When you used moral right and wrong about tribal decisions, bad choices, etc. and then used "amoral" I was definitely confused then.


You seem to hold the belief that any decision made by man or any group of men not based on biblical, or at least religous, grounds have no moral basis ( you brought up term amoral). I disagree. What is the biblically, Christian based moral answer to the question of deciding between the life of an unborn child ( your definition) and the life of the tribe?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> No none has to live by those beliefs nor have they ever had to.
> That standard is no less valid & is probably held by far more than mine is.
> I'll say it again, most who are for life would settle for a ban after 12 wks.


They would settle for now. Then continue the fight for a total ban on abortions. Why wouldn't they. It is their belief and they should fight for them. If they truly believe they shouldn't be willing to settle for a compromise. I can respect that stance while disagreeing and working to counter it. You still haven't answered my question. Would you be willing to live in a world where all abortions were banned and where all forms of birth control which prevented implantation of a fertilized egg were illegal?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> You seem to hold the belief that any decision made by man or any group of men not based on biblical, or at least religous, grounds have no moral basis ( you brought up term amoral). I disagree.


Yes I do.
And when I ask how the decision could be made otherwise, the standard answer I've been given in the past is the one based on self preservation, the only answer that is amoral. I simply pointed out that the amoral, self preservation answer is in direct conflict with abortion as well. So moral, or amoral they should come to the same conclusion.

I can't honestly say that I know of a society of people anywhere in history that *didn't* have a deity of some sort they based their morals on, so if you know of one, please share the info so I can learn about them.





mmoetc said:


> What is the biblically, Christian based moral answer to the question of deciding between the life of an unborn child ( your definition) and the life of the tribe?


Since there are no examples of such in the Bible, that would be an extremely difficult question for me to definitively answer. 
And I suspect that if I don't give a 100% satisfactory answer......well, we know the drill.:croc:

The _closest_ scenario off the top of my head, would be the 40 years that the tribe of Israel wandered after fleeing Egypt.
To the best of my knowledge, there were no abortions, they were at times in enemy territory, and they never lacked for anything.
So......the biblical answer is, trust the Lord and He will provide, with the understanding of course that YOU are doing YOUR part.
Ahhhh, those pesky little details.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd like to see who did the study, if it was replicated, if the researchers were valid...I guess b/c more black babies are aborted, this seems very racist.


Not necessarily black but most assuredly low income. Low income (not color) is the key factor in crime.

I've seen reference to the study, but haven't read "Freakonomics." It's been on my list for eons but I just haven't got round tuit.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> They would settle for now. Then continue the fight for a total ban on abortions. Why wouldn't they. It is their belief and they should fight for them. If they truly believe they shouldn't be willing to settle for a compromise. I can respect that stance while disagreeing and working to counter it. You still haven't answered my question. Would you be willing to live in a world where all abortions were banned and where all forms of birth control which prevented implantation of a fertilized egg were illegal?


I told you-that has never been the case nor will it be. No one will live by that nor have they, so it is moot.
But obviously you are willing to live w/law that says infanticide is just fine.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Doggonedog said:


> Not necessarily black but most assuredly low income. Low income (not color) is the key factor in crime.
> 
> I've seen reference to the study, but haven't read "Freakonomics." It's been on my list for eons but I just haven't got round tuit.


We've already posted that %-wise, more black babies are aborted-gave links.

Here we are desparate to save the unborn, w/few resstrictions on safe, necessary abortions. 

Already its been stated that allowing for incest, rape, mother's health is imperative. Those for abortion still seem to want it on demand...'choice'. I'm really wondering why & after seeing the push for infanticide, the slippery slope is already in place...no one is concerned? The lie is still repeated by some that pro-life would cause abortion to be illegal in EVERY case? No where has this been established. Its not an issue.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

> I told you-that has never been the case nor will it be. No one will live by that nor have they, so it is moot.
> But obviously you are willing to live w/law that says infanticide is just fine.


You insist that at least the majority of pro choice advocates are pro abortion, and they simply aren't. I don't know how to make this statement more simple, "we are pro choice that does not mean pro abortion." 

"We've already posted that %-wise, more black babies are aborted-gave links."

So sorry, I didn't realize you decreed that there would be no more discussion on the topic. I'll be more careful in the future to insure that I follow your demands.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes I do.
> And when I ask how the decision could be made otherwise, the standard answer I've been given in the past is the one based on self preservation, the only answer that is amoral. I simply pointed out that the amoral, self preservation answer is in direct conflict with abortion as well. So moral, or amoral they should come to the same conclusion.
> 
> 
> ...


And I pointed out the flaw in that logic earlier. Repeating your stance doesn't mitigate that it can be about the perseveration of the tribe or of other members of the tribe neither of which are self preservation. 

There is no 100% good answer to a dilemma such as this. There are only bad choices and worse choices. Your answer is consistent with your beliefs and that makes it good enough for me. Of course I've seen the results of some of those who have waited for a god to provide. The outcome isn't always pretty. I tend to fall more in The Lord will help those who help themselves camp. And sometimes helping oneself requires a tough, non optimal decision.

As for ancient deities and their influence. There have been far more social structures than we have record of. How all of them came to their morality is just conjecture. Maybe they all derived it from your god. Or maybe they derived it from the countless deities we do have record of that bear little or no resemblance to yours. Or maybe they were just able to figure it out on their own.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> And I pointed out the flaw in that logic earlier. Repeating your stance doesn't mitigate that it can be about the perseveration of the tribe or of other members of the tribe neither of which are self preservation.
> 
> There is no 100% good answer to a dilemma such as this. There are only bad choices and worse choices. Your answer is consistent with your beliefs and that makes it good enough for me. Of course I've seen the results of some of those who have waited for a god to provide. The outcome isn't always pretty. I tend to fall more in The Lord will help those who help themselves camp. And sometimes helping oneself requires a tough, non optimal decision.
> 
> As for ancient deities and their influence. There have been far more social structures than we have record of. How all of them came to their morality is just conjecture. Maybe they all derived it from your god. Or maybe they derived it from the countless deities we do have record of that bear little or no resemblance to yours. Or maybe they were just able to figure it out on their own.


Thank you for being the voice of sanity in a crazed world.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I told you-that has never been the case nor will it be. No one will live by that nor have they, so it is moot.
> But obviously you are willing to live w/law that says infanticide is just fine.


It's not moot as long as people are working towards that outcome. I'm guessing more than a few that your granddaughters marched alongside would differ with your hopes. It's a simple yes or no question. Why the difficulty answering it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Doggonedog said:


> Thank you for being the voice of sanity in a crazed world.


I'm just a different kind of crazy.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> I'm just a different kind of crazy.


Aren't we all?


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

Wlover said:


> Please just stop with your hopped up cries of the left is all for infanticide. You are wrong. You have no proof, no facts just crap that you are spraying and it is beneath you.
> 
> I will also note that you are willing to have laws that allow abortion up to 12 weeks. That would make you as Pro Abortion as I am. Definitely not Pro Life.


Absolutely, positively not pro life. Anyone that thinks that abortion up to 12 weeks OK is definitely pro choice. 

All the name calling and nastiness by a few on this thread is making me slightly nauseous. I don't understand the need for it nor the fact that's even allowed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Doggonedog said:


> Absolutely, positively not pro life. Anyone that thinks that abortion up to 12 weeks OK is definitely pro choice.
> 
> All the name calling and nastiness by a few on this thread is making me slightly nauseous. I don't understand the need for it nor the fact that's even allowed.


Don't take it personally. Don't get caught up in the nastiness yourself. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and the mods do a good job of not letting it get out of hand( too good sometimes). Some here are very adept at pushing buttons. How you react to those pushes is up to you.


----------



## wes917 (Sep 26, 2011)

I'm not reading this whole thread. Sometimes it's a necessary medical procedure. There's times when fetuses have problems, like when no brain develops, or when intestines form outside the body, and the mother is in danger due to these complications. When someone goes to a clinic to have a procedure for their safety, they should not have to deal with the vile of the protestors. Sorry abortion protestors are some of the most vile, disgusting humans out their. They spit their insults, along with their actual spit at people going into clinics, but have no idea that the person going in has two children and was trying for a third with their husband. Instead they call them whores, hit their cars and spit at their windows. And he's this happened to a family member of mine.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It's not moot as long as people are working towards that outcome. I'm guessing more than a few that your granddaughters marched alongside would differ with your hopes. It's a simple yes or no question. Why the difficulty answering it.


No. That is NOT the goal. No. I nor no one else would live under that.
How are you w/infanticide? I guess if its a law, then it would be ok w/most on the left.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Please just stop with your hopped up cries of the left is all for infanticide. You are wrong. You have no proof, no facts just crap that you are spraying and it is beneath you.
> 
> I will also note that you are willing to have laws that allow abortion up to 12 weeks. That would make you as Pro Abortion as I am. Definitely not Pro Life.


Please show me where I said "ALL the left". Please. 
My proof is all there in this thread, do you think those psychologists are right wing? And their thousands of supporters? Do you think those 'distinguished' guys & nobel winners are not advocating for it? Do you think all I posted is untrue? What parts? Have they not published that killing your newborn should be allowed?
Laws that make abortion on demand illegal b/4 12 wks would be a start. Have to take 'baby' steps, pardon the pun. I will fight forever for it to not happen after 6 wks, or whenever science can determine there is a soul. I believe that will come.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> No. That is NOT the goal. No. I nor no one else would live under that.
> 
> How are you w/infanticide? I guess if its a law, then it would be ok w/most on the left.



This is obviously a passionate subject but I think people might be more receptive to your message if you didn't make assumptions about those with differing viewpoints.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I'd like to see who did the study, if it was replicated, if the researchers were valid...I guess b/c more black babies are aborted, this seems very racist.


Here ya go:
http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-...8&qid=1422804882&sr=8-1&keywords=freakonomics

A bit dated, but lots of interesting stuff in there!

Or, if you prefer a video clip: [youtube]zk6gOeggViw[/youtube]

Also, I believe your facts are bit off -- black women have a disproportionately high abortion rate, but make up a fairly small percentage of the population; thus it might be more accurate to say that a black baby is _more likely to be aborted_. According to the statistics I've seen, of the babies who are aborted, about a third of the mothers are black; a third are white; 20 percent are Hispanic, and the remainder are mixed-race, unknown or other.

And I'm not sure where "racism" enters the picture if one is merely reporting on statistics freely generated by the group in question. (That is, it doesn't appear that anyone is forcing black women to have abortions!) Is it "racist" to point out that black women are more likely to choose abortion than white, Latina or Asian women? I don't think so. The situation is what it is. :shrug:


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

> No. That is NOT the goal. No. I nor no one else would live under that.
> How are you w/infanticide? I guess if its a law, then it would be ok w/most on the left.


You must be OK with it as in your post #235 you indicated you are pro choice up to 12 weeks.



Tricky Grama said:


> No none has to live by those beliefs nor have they ever had to.
> That standard is no less valid & is probably held by far more than mine is.
> I'll say it again, most who are for life would settle for a ban after 12 wks.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

wr said:


> This is obviously a passionate subject but I think people might be more receptive to your message if you didn't make assumptions about those with differing viewpoints.


Thank you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> No. That is NOT the goal. No. I nor no one else would live under that.
> How are you w/infanticide? I guess if its a law, then it would be ok w/most on the left.


Apparently Mr. Akin didn't get your memo. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/10/669771/todd-akin-ban-morning-after-pill/

But at least we agree that we wouldn't want to live under those rules. Thanks for joining the pro choice side. Welcome.

Infanticide is already illegal. I'm not working to change that nor would I approve of such changes and I would work to oppose any changes to current law to allow it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> So is this a thank you or a poopoo? Ever see anyone on the right calling for infanticide? *Total left reasoning*, more of 'no responsibility', sorta stuff in "The Complete Lives System". One basis for ObummerUNcare.





Tricky Grama said:


> Please show me where I said "ALL the left". Please.
> My proof is all there in this thread, do you think those psychologists are right wing? And their thousands of supporters? Do you think those 'distinguished' guys & nobel winners are not advocating for it? Do you think all I posted is untrue? What parts? Have they not published that killing your newborn should be allowed?
> Laws that make abortion on demand illegal b/4 12 wks would be a start. Have to take 'baby' steps, pardon the pun. I will fight forever for it to not happen after 6 wks, or whenever science can determine there is a soul. I believe that will come.


Implying that this is a "Total left reasoning" and not an individual decision says more than enough. Stop stating that you know what individuals believe by grouping them by politics.

How about you ask each person if they are or are not all right with infanticide instead of telling them they are because it fits your agenda.


I am not all right with infanticide.


----------



## squirrelwhisper (Jul 3, 2011)

Here is the answer to your ??

* Jeremiah 31:33
*

33 âThis is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,â declares the Lord.
*âI will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.*
I will be their God,
and they will be my people




mmoetc said:


> You seem to hold the belief that any decision made by man or any group of men not based on biblical, or at least religous, grounds have no moral basis ( you brought up term amoral). I disagree. What is the biblically, Christian based moral answer to the question of deciding between the life of an unborn child ( your definition) and the life of the tribe?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Along the way to posting the above, I discovered THIS:

How Colorado's teen birth rate dropped by 40 percent over 4 years: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ados-teen-birthrate-dropped-40-in-four-years/

Perhaps more germane to this discussion, the teen abortion rate also fell by 35 percent!

So, how'd they do it? Did the state somehow convince young women to (as one poster so elegantly put it)_ keep their legs closed_? 

:umno:


> Since 2009, the state has provided 30,000 contraceptive implants or intrauterine devices (IUDs) at low or no cost to low-income women at 68 family-planning clinics across Colorado through the Colorado Family Planning Initiative. The effort was funded by a five-year commitment of $23 million from an anonymous donor.
> 
> 
> At participating clinics, the percentage of young women receiving IUDs or implants quadrupled, according to a press release from Gov. John Hickenlooper (D).
> ...


It is discouraging that Right To Life and other conservative religious groups are speaking out against a program that has done so much good. 

_It's hard to resist the conclusion that they're really not so much interested in reducing abortions as they are in compelling women to keep their legs closed ... _:huh:


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Doggonedog said:


> Thank you.



I worked in a campaign office one time and the first lesson was, you can't sway the other side or the undecided if you assume you know what they're thinking.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

squirrelwhisper said:


> Here is the answer to your ??
> 
> * Jeremiah 31:33
> *
> ...


And what of before that time? And all the other peoples of the world. Where did they get their laws and their morality?


----------



## harvestmoon1964 (Apr 24, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> _It's hard to resist the conclusion that they're really not so much interested in reducing abortions as they are in compelling women to keep their legs closed ... _:huh:


Seems to be an logical conclusion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Levels of what is acceptable with regards to procreation

No birth control what so ever
No stopping the implantation of a fertilized egg because it is now a child
No abortion action after an egg is attached to the uterus
No abortion after a set number of weeks (8-12)
No abortion after 20 weeks because the fetus feels pain
Abortion all the way to delivery
Infanticide


Pro-lifers have levels of what they find acceptable. Pro Choice have levels of what they find acceptable. Pro lifers and Pro Choice-rs may have the same level and think they are are not on the same team.

We are individuals, we believe different things even if you try to categorize us in sweeping groups. It does no one any good in the long run to do this. It puts walls up. It creates hard feelings. It solves nothing.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Wlover, you left out "Abortion acceptable in cases of rape or incest."

I've found that even the vast majority of "pro-life" people find something objectionable about forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby to term. 

I have no doubt that 99.9 percent would become "pro choice" at least temporarily if the victim were his or her daughter, and she was threatening to kill herself if denied an abortion. 

One might say that's where the rubber meets the road!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am sure there are more levels. My level is not really there.

I have said it once and will say it again. Until there is a waiting list to adopt every child of every age in this world, no matter their health I can never say no to abortion.

Maybe we should have a law that no one can have a second natural child until they have adopted a child into their family.


----------



## squirrelwhisper (Jul 3, 2011)

* Genesis 3 
*

*The Fall*

3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, âDid God really say, âYou must not eat from any tree in the gardenâ?â
2 The woman said to the serpent, âWe may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, âYou must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.ââ
4 âYou will not certainly die,â the serpent said to the woman. 5 *âFor God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.â*







mmoetc said:


> And what of before that time? And all the other peoples of the world. Where did they get their laws and their morality?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Wlover said:


> Levels of what is acceptable with regards to procreation
> 
> No birth control what so ever
> No stopping the implantation of a fertilized egg because it is now a child
> ...



It seems to me that it's the extremes on both sides that makes it difficult to find middle ground. 

From an objective standpoint, the extreme opinions on both sides skew things tend to overshadow to real issues. 

I may be misinformed but I don't think abortion statistics will be reduced until society finds a way to resolve some critical issues that directly affect women, some of which are cultural and some social.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

squirrelwhisper said:


> * Genesis 3
> *
> 
> *The Fall*
> ...


Your creation myth. Not mine. I'll leave you to live by your religous rule if you leave me to live by mine.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Apparently Mr. Akin didn't get your memo. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/10/669771/todd-akin-ban-morning-after-pill/
> 
> But at least we agree that we wouldn't want to live under those rules. Thanks for joining the pro choice side. Welcome.
> 
> Infanticide is already illegal. I'm not working to change that nor would I approve of such changes and I would work to oppose any changes to current law to allow it.


I just love it. You won't deny infanticide & you call me pro choice.
BWhahaha!
I do not believe in abortion at any time. DO NOT. However If laws were so that only under certain circumstances, none would be legal b/4 12 weeks, I'd be more happy than the was they are now, b/c I believe that is the best we can do at this time. I'd still fight for none after 6 wks, all this I've said b/4.
I'm now outta crayons & puppets, no more explaining.
Any other mis-representing of my beliefs will be referred to this post. 

Mr Aikin isn't making any laws, IIFC. And your link is yrs old. Who listened to him? Did he get re-elected?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> I just love it. You won't deny infanticide & you call me pro choice.
> BWhahaha!
> I do not believe in abortion at any time. DO NOT. However If laws were so that only under certain circumstances, none would be legal b/4 12 weeks, I'd be more happy than the was they are now, b/c I believe that is the best we can do at this time. I'd still fight for none after 6 wks, all this I've said b/4.
> I'm now outta crayons & puppets, no more explaining.
> ...


You've said many things in this thread. Some that directly contradict each other and some that have been easily proven false. I'll leave you to your battle not to force your beliefs on others by limiting their choices.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> I am sure there are more levels. My level is not really there.
> 
> I have said it once and will say it again. Until there is a waiting list to adopt every child of every age in this world, no matter their health I can never say no to abortion.
> 
> Maybe we should have a law that no one can have a second natural child until they have adopted a child into their family.


That's the ticket! Lets go the way of other communist countries!
After all, several of Obama's advisors wrote on being in favor of forced abortions. Holgren & others.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I just love it. You won't deny infanticide & you call me pro choice.
> BWhahaha!
> I do not believe in abortion at any time. DO NOT. However If laws were so that only under certain circumstances, none would be legal b/4 12 weeks, I'd be more happy than the was they are now, b/c I believe that is the best we can do at this time. I'd still fight for none after 6 wks, all this I've said b/4.
> I'm now outta crayons & puppets, no more explaining.
> ...


Abortion is "murder" but you are fine with allowing murder up to 12 weeks because it is the best you can hope for.

That I can not understand.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Farmer is a writer who I feel is very good at presenting information in a thought provoking way.

I wonder if farmer has had teaching opportunities in the past.....I am so avoiding gender .


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> That's the ticket! Lets go the way of other communist countries!
> After all, several of Obama's advisors wrote on being in favor of forced abortions. Holgren & others.


If you are talking about Holdren you need some better news sources. Maybe some more research using other than those same right wing websites that gave you those "infanticide" talking points.


----------



## Doggonedog (Dec 4, 2014)

I just don't know how this statement could be misinterpreted: 



Tricky Grama said:


> I'll say it again, most who are for life would settle for a ban after 12 wks.


----------

