# Prolife? Really? It looks a lot like pro choice to me.



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

The question has come up numerous times in other threads and derailed them so I thought maybe a thread of its own might be in order.

The question being are you really prolife, or really pro choice hiding behind some sort of smokescreen? Here is my thinking....

Life began thousands of years ago... There are a couple of theories floating around as to just how and when but that a whole nuther discussion irrelative to this one... Suffice it to say life is here now and has been for a very long time. 

Every living thing on the planet today is here because of the generation preceding it replicated itself passing that life onto the next generation. Thus there really is no "new" life, just a continuing cycle or recycling of the same life created thousands of years ago. All of the various life forms on our planet share one thing in common,,,, the ability to pass life on to a succeeding generation. All but one life form goes to great lengths to fullfill that task at every opportunity and the one exception to that is homosapiens. Yes dear reader "us". We are the only life form willing to stray away from gods plan or if you prefer natures way, and put our own wants ahead of future generations. We do so by choice!

We have devised numerous ways to accomplish this task, pills, potions, barriers such as condoms, IUDs, even abstaining from the process entirely... All with the common goal of NOT fulfilling our obligation to continue our portion of the life cycle. No matter how this pie gets sliced it comes down to yep you guessed it... "Choice". That's something to think on the next time you say you are prolife,,, the vast majority are really pro choice just like those they condemn for utilizing different options to prevent the natural life cycle from taking place.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

Preventing life from forming at all is not murder. Taking a life away from a living being is murder. My 3 month old cannot survive on his own outside of my womb.that doesnt mean he doesnt have a quality of life or that i should kill him because it is inconvenient for me to take care of him. If i hide him behind a sheet he is still there, still a fully formed human being. His age or appearance doesn't make him less human. If i never conceived him due to using contraceptives, he could not develop into a human being. The "ingredients" werent there to begin with. 

To put it lightly in another example, if i make a sandwich and then destroy it that is wasteful. If i dont make a sandwich in the first place there is nothing to destroy. But i would have to make a sandwich- think about it, get the ingredients, put it together- in order to destroy it.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

Also, most of us do make a choice to have sex which is what makes a baby. I would venture to say the majority is for sex. But the terms pro choice and pro life are really only used in this society when talking abortion. Everyone is making a choice whether they decide to let the baby live or kill it. Ironically, the women who have abortions say they felt they had "no choice"


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InTownForNow said:


> Preventing life from forming at all is not murder. Taking a life away from a living being is murder. My 3 month old cannot survive on his own outside of my womb.that doesnt mean he doesnt have a quality of life or that i should kill him because it is inconvenient for me to take care of him. If i hide him behind a sheet he is still there, still a fully formed human being. His age or appearance doesn't make him less human. If i never conceived him due to using contraceptives, he could not develop into a human being. The "ingredients" werent there to begin with.
> 
> To put it lightly in another example, if i make a sandwich and then destroy it that is wasteful. If i dont make a sandwich in the first place there is nothing to destroy. But i would have to make a sandwich- think about it, get the ingredients, put it together- in order to destroy it.


i think you missed the point. If you have all of the ingredients to make that sandwich available to you and you don't put them together you won't have lunch... If you refuse to make a sandwich when the time is right and let them rot... You have been every bit as wasteful had you made the Sammy and tossed it in the trash. Then end result is exactly the same. You made a choice either way.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

When the sperm and the egg get friendly - life begins. Until they do, they are just sperms and eggs. 

As far as being pro choice - God made us pro choice - when he gave us free will. He just keeps hoping we will make the right choice.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> When the sperm and the egg get friendly - life begins. Until they do, they are just sperms and eggs.
> 
> As far as being pro choice - God made us pro choice - when he gave us free will. He just keeps hoping we will make the right choice.


You think life did not exist before you were conceived? Those thousands of generations passing it down through the ages so your parents could make the choice to have you never occurred? Life began whenever it began and has kept regenerating itself ever since..... Or according to you life was just created the moment you were conceived. Do you honestly believe that egg and sperm aren't a very real part of carrying life forward? We're your parents not alive when they brought those "living" cells together? 

I agree that God hopes we all make the right choice... Which according to my bible is to continue the life he brought forth all those centuries ago. Any effort to disrupt that plan does not sit well with him. He doesn't seem to be all that concerned about how we sidestep the plan or any excuses we make. He wants us to choose life.

"It's just sperm and eggs" sound so similar to "its just a blob of cells"


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You think life did not exist before you were conceived? Those thousands of generations passing it down through the ages so your parents could make the choice to have you never occurred? Life began whenever it began and has kept regenerating itself ever since..... Or according to you life was just created the moment you were conceived. Do you honestly believe that egg and sperm aren't a very real part of carrying life forward? We're your parents not alive when they brought those "living" cells together?
> 
> I agree that God hopes we all make the right choice... Which according to my bible is to continue the life he brought forth all those centuries ago. Any effort to disrupt that plan does not sit well with him. He doesn't seem to be all that concerned about how we sidestep the plan or any excuses we make. He wants us to choose life.
> 
> "It's just sperm and eggs" sound so similar to "its just a blob of cells"


Sperm and eggs same as blob of cells? That's a new one. 

Of course life - as whole existed - but the individual life is created when the sperm and egg meet. 

God did tell us to 'replenish the earth' - another discussion - but 'replenish' that would assume we had 'plenished' it before.

He did tell us to do that thing. He didn't tell us how often we had to contribute to the 'replenishing'. 

He also said we shouldn't kill. 

I don't buy He condoned the Hebrew Children's slaughtering others to get the promised land.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

Im not sure what your point is yvonnes hubby. According to the new testament we are all under grace, pro choicers and pro lifers, abortionists, mothers, fathers, children, and the aborted. The reason for the punishment for whoever it was "spilling their seed" in the old testament was that it went against a specific plan of God continuing a lineage. In the old testament , they (we) were under the burden of the law which could never make us perfect. In the new testament/ under the new covenent, we are in the freedom of grace. No longer bound to sin. That is, those whose sins are washed clean. We all have a choice in how we live our life. We were made that way. We all screw up. We werent made that way but with freedom of choice comes the freedom to sin. I choose to say im pro life because given the CHOICE i would choose life everytime. I guess we could start calling it pro death but that wouldnt make pretty headlines would it?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InTownForNow said:


> Im not sure what your point is yvonnes hubby. According to the new testament we are all under grace, pro choicers and pro lifers, abortionists, mothers, fathers, children, and the aborted. The reason for the punishment for whoever it was "spilling their seed" in the old testament was that it went against a specific plan of God continuing a lineage. In the old testament , they (we) were under the burden of the law which could never make us perfect. In the new testament/ under the new covenent, we are in the freedom of grace. No longer bound to sin. That is, those whose sins are washed clean. We all have a choice in how we live our life. We were made that way. We all screw up. We werent made that way but with freedom of choice comes the freedom to sin. I choose to say im pro life because given the CHOICE i would choose life everytime. I guess we could start calling it pro death but that wouldnt make pretty headlines would it?


My point is that a great many who claim to be prolife are not. I think it's safe to say that nearly all of them choose against life far more than they chose life simply by practicing some version of birth control, thus deliberately denying a child it's right to life. It appears that they don't mind making these choices as long as they get to be the ones setting the perameters. IE... They get to decide what choices others have to choose from.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

InTownForNow said:


> Also, most of us do make a choice to have sex which is what makes a baby. I would venture to say the majority is for sex. But the terms pro choice and pro life are really only used in this society when talking abortion. Everyone is making a choice whether they decide to let the baby live or kill it. Ironically, *the women who have abortions say they felt they had "no choice"*


I suspect very few of them say that at all.



> Im not sure what your point is yvonnes hubby. *According to the new testament* we are all under grace, pro choicers and pro lifers, abortionists, mothers, fathers, children, and the aborted.


Not everyone follows your religion, so what that book says makes no difference in what choices others make, any more than what the Koran says stops you from having a pork chop for lunch during Ramadan.

"Pro-choice/Pro-life" isn't about "religion".
It's about the individual rights of the mothers

If you want to be "religious" about it all, there should be no birth control used, since it's not "natural" as the OP has suggested.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Sperm and eggs same as blob of cells? That's a new one.
> 
> Of course life - as whole existed - but the individual life is created when the sperm and egg meet.
> 
> ...


So you agree that God told us several times to be fruitful... Can you refer me to any verse anywhere in old or new testaments where we are told to not procreate... For any reason?

I have no idea what the connection would be between propagating our species and condoning the slaughter of the enemies of his chosen ones? The way I remember that particular story God did not condone it... He commanded it.


----------



## InTownForNow (Oct 16, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect very few of them say that at all.
> 
> 
> Not everyone follows your religion, so what that book says makes no difference in what choices others make, any more than what the Koran says stops you from having a pork chop for lunch during Ramadan.
> ...


Op was referencing the bible, i responded


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

InTownForNow said:


> Also, most of us do make a choice to have sex which is what makes a baby. I would venture to say the majority is for sex. But the terms pro choice and pro life are really only used in this society when talking abortion. Everyone is making a choice whether they decide to let the baby live or kill it. Ironically, the women who have abortions say they felt they had "no choice"


I can go along with having sex is an important step in having a child playing with a puppy, but it certainly is not all that is required to make a child. And it certainly not the beginning step. Many things have to happen in preparation for the act to have the desired affect.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you agree that God told us several times to be fruitful... Can you refer me to any verse anywhere in old or new testaments where we are told to not procreate... For any reason?
> 
> I have no idea what the connection would be between propagating our species and condoning the slaughter of the enemies of his chosen ones? The way I remember that particular story God did not condone it... He commanded it.


So they say - 

If you believe in a loving God and we are all created by Him and all part of the same life - do you believe He would command the Hebrew Children to slaughter those people just to get their land?

At that time, everyone on earth was an enemy of the Hebrews - if you mean not of their faith.

I will admit that I'm quite a bit skeptical of the Old Testament, as taking it as absolutes. It seems to me to be a narrative of a group of people and their relationship with their God.  A God, we Gentiles have accepted. I'm not denying it - I just read it with the thought in mind, it was a narrative of Hebrews.


Also, I see so much that seems to contradicts the teachings of Jesus.

I'm not sure about the steps - but it is the act that produces the child - we can 'prepare' all day, but we won't produce a child.

We need to talk further about your puppy fixation.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Trixie said:


> When the sperm and the egg get friendly - life begins. Until they do, they are just sperms and eggs.
> 
> As far as being pro choice - God made us pro choice - when he gave us free will. He just keeps hoping we will make the right choice.


If you believe in god. I used my own common sense to realize that I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body. So I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, not an abortion advocate. Pro-choice, her body her choice.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The question has come up numerous times in other threads and derailed them so I thought maybe a thread of its own might be in order.
> 
> The question being are you really prolife, or really pro choice hiding behind some sort of smokescreen? Here is my thinking....
> 
> ...


7 billion people on the planet and the population is growing exponentially. I don't think we are having any trouble with "gods'" plan or nature's plan. We might be fulfilling it a little too well IMO.

Thats whats so great about freedom and CHOICE. You don't have to agree with me, I dont have to agree with you. I do what I think is right and responsible, and you can be free to follow whatever belief system you choose for yourself. It is absolutely none of my business what you do since you arent being forced to follow my moral compass, and vice versa.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Interesting "choice" of wording. Maybe you can help me with one question.
Y'all attempt to distinguish between "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice".
"Pro life" is self explanatory. So, explain "Pro Choice" to me. Because I see it as
a "Choice" to allow a fetus/baby to "Live" or "Kill it".
That kind of "Pro Choice"?
I've noticed you have chosen to assume that while the eggs are attempting to swim upstream, and if one "chooses" to use the pill to kill the egg before it gets there. Then that makes everyone a killer. Correct?
Why didn't you just spit it out, why beat around the proverbial bush?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Marshloft said:


> Interesting "choice" of wording. Maybe you can help me with one question.
> Y'all attempt to distinguish between "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice".
> "Pro life" is self explanatory. So, explain "Pro Choice" to me. Because I see it as
> a "Choice" to allow a fetus/baby to "Live" or "Kill it".
> ...


Pro-choice means it's the woman's choice to carry the pregnancy to term or not. It means that no one else has the right to tell her what she can do with her body.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> So they say -
> 
> If you believe in a loving God and we are all created by Him and all part of the same life - do you believe He would command the Hebrew Children to slaughter those people just to get their land?
> 
> ...


The act is only one step in a rather lengthy process that takes a myriad of conditions to be nearly perfect if a child is to be born. I have no particular fixation wth puppies, but have observed over the years that they seem to be happier when they have a child to watch out after. The ones that don't often end up at the pound.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oldshep said:


> 7 billion people on the planet and the population is growing exponentially. I don't think we are having any trouble with "gods'" plan or nature's plan. We might be fulfilling it a little too well IMO.
> 
> Thats whats so great about freedom and CHOICE. You don't have to agree with me, I dont have to agree with you. I do what I think is right and responsible, and you can be free to follow whatever belief system you choose for yourself. It is absolutely none of my business what you do since you arent being forced to follow my moral compass, and vice versa.


Well at the moment no one is forcing any one to follow anyone's moral compass but it was not that long ago many did have to, and if I have read a lot of the posters here on HT correctly it would be that way again if they could have their way.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Folks,
Please keep it civil and within site content and conduct limits.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

We are indeed different from animals in our breeding habits. We also (supposedly) are superior to animals in our thinking process. I sometimes wonder. We have a brain (supposedly) capable of deciding whether or not we want to conceive a child based on our desires and capabilities to support it. Animals have no such luxury. They breed only during breeding season and their hormones rule the day. They often also have no objection to killing their own children because they have no moral concept of right or wrong. It seems a lot of humans have a lot in common with animals.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Marshloft said:


> Interesting "choice" of wording. Maybe you can help me with one question.
> Y'all attempt to distinguish between "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice".
> "Pro life" is self explanatory. So, explain "Pro Choice" to me. Because I see it as
> a "Choice" to allow a fetus/baby to "Live" or "Kill it".
> ...


Well it does sorta look to me like using ANY method of interfering with the process to prevent the birth of a child is no worse than any another. Prolife is not exactly self explanatory. At first glance you would think these folks would be all for taking all necessary steps to insure every child got its chance at life. This however is not the case. Most of them seem quite content with the right to kill a lot of these children by way of "some" birth control methods but not other methods. As in "if you choose my approved method you get a free pass, but if you choose some method I don't approve of you are a baby killer". That looks a lot like they are in favor of choice, as along as they get to say which choices a person can make.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The act is only one step in a rather lengthy process that takes a myriad of conditions to be nearly perfect if a child is to be born. I have no particular fixation wth puppies, but have observed over the years that they seem to be happier when they have a child to watch out after. The ones that don't often end up at the pound.


...or the child doesn't end up in a petri dish...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> We are indeed different from animals in our breeding habits. We also (supposedly) are superior to animals in our thinking process. I sometimes wonder. We have a brain (supposedly) capable of deciding whether or not we want to conceive a child based on our desires and capabilities to support it. Animals have no such luxury. They breed only during breeding season and their hormones rule the day. They often also have no objection to killing their own children because they have no moral concept of right or wrong. It seems a lot of humans have a lot in common with animals.


 so it's ok to choose whether or not to interfere with the natural process of procreating?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well at the moment no one is forcing any one to follow anyone's moral compass but it was not that long ago many did have to, and if I have read a lot of the posters here on HT correctly it would be that way again if they could have their way.


The puppy thing was a joke - Hey, I like your jokes.

I absolutely believe when a baby is made, it's a life, a soul and we have no right to take that life.

To me, being 'pro-choice' as far as babies are concerned isn't quite like being 'pro-choice' about whether you want to eat meat or not, or go to church, drive a Ford or Chevy, etc.

To me, it is the taking of a life, I think there are some 'choices' human beings should not get to make. Well, I guess we always have freedom of choice, since it seems people make the decision to do wrong things all the time. It's just that I believe there should be consequences to try to keep those wrong choices to a minimum.

It's really that simple. It isn't about some religious belief, as in some denominational edict, or something I just hung on to because it's cool or I just want to be obstinate. 

Yes, if I made the laws that is just one more of the choices I wouldn't not allow others to make - we've talked about some of them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> ...or the child doesn't end up in a petri dish...


Yeppers a true prolifer doesn't want to see that child ending up anywhere but in the back yard relieving the boredom of that cute little puppy. Not in a Petrie dish, nor in the trash can wrapped in a napkin.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> The puppy thing was a joke - Hey, I like your jokes.
> 
> I absolutely believe when a baby is made, it's a life, a soul and we have no right to take that life.
> 
> ...


Did you read my OP? If so did you grasp the part where life... "all life" began many generations ago, and merely utilizes biological functions in order to keep that life continuing? Before you take others choices from them you may want to be sure you don't take your own. It is either ok to deprive a child it s right to life or it ain't.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Pro-life, pro-choice call what you will. Lindsey Graham, presidential candidate (did I get that name right?) pulled it into focus last night. He said that because American women will not have babies (he said each woman needed to have 4 youngsters to keep the country going) we must have the immigrants, legal or illegal, to make up the difference.

I've said for a long time that abortion is national suicide. Must we be overrun by a lesser, more barbaric society before women are back raising babies and keeping house? If the Muslims have their way, ladies, that is where your daughters will be.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

In fact, the average male will produce roughly 525 billion sperm cells over a lifetime and shed at least one billion of them per month. A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation.

http://m.livescience.com/32437-why-are-250-million-sperm-cells-released-during-sex.html

Some men are just so watefull


Mandated use of eggs and sperm requires


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> In fact, the average male will produce roughly 525 billion sperm cells over a lifetime and shed at least one billion of them per month. A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation.
> 
> http://m.livescience.com/32437-why-are-250-million-sperm-cells-released-during-sex.html
> 
> ...


Yep we start early with that whole getting lost thing.... But it's hard to read a roadmap in the dark.... Specially when you have no eyes!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> so it's ok to choose whether or not to interfere with the natural process of procreating?


Why not? It's okay to interfere with the natural process of getting fat. Most of us use our head to watch what we eat. God gave us a brain and He expects us to use it. He told us when having sex (and who with) was okay and when it wasn't. He clearly did not approve of having 10 kids and being a lazy layabout living off others. OTOH, if you want 10 kids and can support them, why not? It comes down to common sense and there is nothing common about common sense these days.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

poppy said:


> Why not? It's okay to interfere with the natural process of getting fat. Most of us use our head to watch what we eat. God gave us a brain and He expects us to use it. He told us when having sex (and who with) was okay and when it wasn't. *He clearly did not approve of having 10 kids and being a lazy layabout living off others. * OTOH, if you want 10 kids and can support them, why not? It comes down to common sense and there is nothing common about common sense these days.


Ok I will go along with the last part about being a lazy layabout but can you expound a bit about him not wanting anyone having ten kids? I am not sure which book it's in, but somewhere towards the beginning of the book I recall reading about a whole mess of begetting, where they named a raft load of kids some guy had and then go on to say he lived x number of years and had more sons and daughters. It implies that ten kids would have been a fair start to a huge family.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Oxankle said:


> Pro-life, pro-choice call what you will. Lindsey Graham, presidential candidate (did I get that name right?) pulled it into focus last night. He said that because American women will not have babies (he said each woman needed to have 4 youngsters to keep the country going) we must have the immigrants, legal or illegal, to make up the difference.
> 
> I've said for a long time that abortion is national suicide. Must we be overrun by a lesser, more barbaric society before women are back raising babies and keeping house? If the Muslims have their way, ladies, that is where your daughters will be.


Yes, it is national suicide and it didn't come about by accident.

We were led, very skillfully, into this. It appealed to our selfish and I guess you could say sinful (for those who believe) nature. We were told we deserved to have life the way we wanted it - we didn't have to bow to nature's laws. We shouldn't burden ourselves with children because then we couldn't have a career.

We should not have to deny our 'desires' - we could have our cake and eat it too. We can have sex and have no responsibilities.

We are paying the price.

But this was pounded into people during the 70's. We were told with all manner of statistics, scientific facts, and other baloney, that this country was full. That we were running out of oil, that we couldn't raise enough food to feed ourselves, etc., etc, etc.

Now I don't subscribe to the idea that preventing a baby forming is the same as killing a baby. I know some religions do. 

I don't find it wrong to not have children if you can't take care of them. What I do find wrong is to kill them if you feel you can't care for them.
Lots of people want to adopt -

What's wrong with asking a woman to give 9 months of her life so that a baby, she, and a man, has produced. 

What's wrong with suggesting people have a little self control? 

It is by design, though


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Irish Pixie said:


> *Pro-choice means it's the woman's choice to carry the pregnancy to term or not. It means that no one else has the right to tell her what she can do with her body*.


 I get that, it's her* "choice"* to allow the fetus/baby to live, or allow it to be killed.
And, its the law, I'm not disputing that either. And according to the law, no one else has the right to say otherwise. 
Did I say otherwise in any of my post's?
What I DO however understand is this. YOU have the "CHOICE" to allow a baby to live, or allow it to be killed at your convenience.
What part do I have wrong?
Edited to add:
Ya know, how many times have YOU personally mentioned you hate when GOD is thrown in your face?
But it seems you have no qualm in throwing a law, (a man made law) in our face any time you feel its in your favor to do so.
I've personally held back for your benefit, because I wanted a non confrontational discussion that didn't have the word GOD in the equation.
Don't expect that favor to go past today.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> If you believe in god. I used my own common sense to realize that I have no right to tell another woman what she can do with her body. So I'm pro-choice, not pro-abortion, not an abortion advocate. Pro-choice, her body her choice.


I don't see it as telling a woman what she can do w/ her body, but rather what she cannot do to her unborn baby.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> I don't see it as telling a woman what she can do w/ her body, but rather what she cannot do to her unborn baby.


Where's the baby?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Yes, it is national suicide and it didn't come about by accident.
> 
> We were led, very skillfully, into this. It appealed to our selfish and I guess you could say sinful (for those who believe) nature. We were told we deserved to have life the way we wanted it - we didn't have to bow to nature's laws. We shouldn't burden ourselves with children because then we couldn't have a career.
> 
> ...


this sounds as though you fall in the "conception is the beginning of life" group. You have plenty of company. Could you expound on why you believe that any point prior to this step in the cycle of life makes it ok to interrupt the process but a week later it can be identified by some as murder? All things being equal the life in question will be every bit as gone no matter when you choose to interrupt the cycle.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Where's the baby?


Exactly where it should be, in it's mother's womb.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> Exactly where it should be, in it's mother's womb.


In the woman's body, correct? In which she can do with what she wants.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> this sounds as though you fall in the "conception is the beginning of life" group. You have plenty of company. Could you expound on why you believe that any point prior to this step in the cycle of life makes it ok to interrupt the process but a week later it can be identified by some as murder? All things being equal the life in question will be every bit as gone no matter when you choose to interrupt the cycle.


No it will not be gone - because it never was.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Exactly where it should be, in it's mother's womb.


I wonder how it got there? the womb, not the fetus.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I wonder how it got there? the womb, not the fetus.


Now if you don't know by now, I understand they are having classes on that in some schools.

One of my jokes


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> In the woman's body, correct? In which she can do with what she wants.


She's not doing something to her body, she's killing the life/body that is growing inside her.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> No it will not be gone - because it never was.


Of course it was. It had been there for years just waiting it's turn for its chance at petting that puppy someday. If you look in the backyard you won't see that child because someone chose for it not to be. There is nothing holy about making the very same choice a day or a week earlier than someone else.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> She's not doing something to her body, she's killing the life/body that is growing inside her.


The fetus is in her body, and it's her decision to carry it to term, or abort it. 

It's a moot point as abortion is completely legal in all 50 states.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> I get that, it's her* "choice"* to allow the fetus/baby to live, or allow it to be killed.
> And, its the law, I'm not disputing that either. And according to the law, no one else has the right to say otherwise.
> Did I say otherwise in any of my post's?
> What I DO however understand is this. YOU have the "CHOICE" to allow a baby to live, or allow it to be killed at your convenience.
> ...


Religions are also "man made".

If one "God" had made them, wouldn't there only be one, and wouldn't it have been the same one world wide since the beginning of time, to fit the whole premise of the theory?

The "God" to which you refer isn't the God that most of the world follows, if they follow one at all.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Now if you don't know by now, I understand they are having classes on that in some schools.
> 
> One of my jokes


I am fairly well acquainted with the process that brought both the womb and the fetus into the equation, which is the crux of this discussion. Apparently there are some who either don't understand it or simply refuse to accept that it's a continuing process that's been going on for millinia.... To say life begins at "this point" is akin to pointing to a dot on a wheel and saying this is the beginning point.
Life began, life continues it cycle, know one knows when it will end, if ever.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> The fetus is in her body, and it's her decision to carry it to term, or abort it.
> 
> *It's a moot point as abortion is completely legal in all 50 states.*


That doesn't mean people can't disagree with the law. I'm fairly confident that there are laws that you disagree with, too. Does that mean you should keep your opinion to yourself & never discuss it?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> She's not doing something to her body, she's killing the life/body that is growing inside her.


And how does that differ from allowing it to die for want of fertilization. A year from now there will be no child either way.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> That doesn't mean people can't disagree with the law. I'm fairly confident that there are laws that you disagree with, too. Does that mean you should keep your opinion to yourself & never discuss it?


My point was that there is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. It's legal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Txsteader said:


> Does that mean you should keep your opinion to yourself & never discuss it?


Nope! In fact that was the very reason I started this thread, so rational adults could have a civil discussion about a serious issue with a bit of a different opinion in the mix.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And how does that differ from allowing it to die for want of fertilization. A year from now there will be no child either way.


Because something can't die that never was.

Yes, there possibly is one cosmic life - but we are individuals. Individual life begins when it 'sparks'.

At one time on our farm, we had a total of 38 dogs and cats that came to live with us - only one was really ours. So for a lot of those people who didn't conceive during the act, I'm thinking we kept their puppies for them, and the cat people as well.

That's right now, why are you leaving cats out? Don't they deserve some consideration?


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Religions are also "man made".
> 
> If one "God" had made them, wouldn't there only be one, and wouldn't it have been the same one world wide since the beginning of time, to fit the whole premise of the theory?
> 
> The "God" to which you refer isn't the God that most of the world follows, if they follow one at all.


 You keep throwing the word "Religion" in the mix. Did I mention religion? No, you did.
You are right tho, Religion is pretty much man made. 
Didn't anyone ever set you straight? God hates religion.
And just for the record, I was quoting Irish Pixie. Which meant I was responding to HER post.
Since you have nothing to offer in the way of a decent conversation on the matter. I should know better than to even bother responding
to anything you have to say.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Because something can't die that never was.
> 
> Yes, there possibly is one cosmic life - but we are individuals. Individual life begins when it 'sparks'.
> 
> ...


Are you saying that egg sat there waiting it's turn had no "life"? Why can't ovulation be "the magic moment" when that new and independent life begins? It's just as good a spot on that wheel as any other. Why not the day the mother was born? Surely she was alive. Or the day s he got that first period.... Another major day in the cycle of life. It's as though God spoke to her saying... Hey wake up... You done missed one chance, get busy now and don't waste another. 

I leave cats out coz oggie says they are evil, don't need them around little kids.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Again sperm is part of the male body. The egg is part of the female body. When they meet they form a NEW life that is whole unto itself. An unfertilized egg cell dies naturally and is expelled, like a skin cell at the end of its life. An old sperm cell dies a natural death and is expelled/absorbed. In both cases it is merely part of the parent organism and not separate life. An embryo/zygote/fetus is, in fact, a separate human life and should be afforded the rights of same.


----------



## mzgarden (Mar 16, 2012)

interesting discussion. However, it does appear some may be changing the rules of the game, after the game has begun. The understood and widely accepted 'working' definition of Pro Life is opposed to legalized abortion, right-to-life (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-life?s=t) for Pro Choice it is supporting or advocating legalized abortion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-choice?s=t).

I think it becomes sticky when we begin to alter the normally accepted definitions. For example: Pro Choice (words alone) could be attributed to choices for restaurants, meat vs vegetarian, etc. If we want to re-define Pro Choice to be something other than the standard, socially accepted understanding - that's fine - as long as we agree on the new definition. Pro Choice - removing the references to abortion/euthanasia, could mean we support the right of people to choose their own restaurants, whether or not to go to church, which church, what country to live in, how to spend their money, etc. 
The definition of Pro-Life could be equally revised to indicate the refusal to take any type of existing life - a chicken, a fly, a spider, etc.

Other words have had their definitions altered to new socially accepted standards: 'gay' comes to mind and the multiple words some of us use hat really have nothing to do with hitting our thumb with a hammer.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Again sperm is part of the male body. The egg is part of the female body. When they meet they form a NEW life that is whole unto itself. An unfertilized egg cell dies naturally and is expelled, like a skin cell at the end of its life. An old sperm cell dies a natural death and is expelled/absorbed. In both cases it is merely part of the parent organism and not separate life. An embryo/zygote/fetus is, in fact, a separate human life and should be afforded the rights of same.


And a human being locked in a cage with no food or water will die a natural death as well. I think some would call it murder. The egg is no different if someone deliberately denies it what it needs to survive.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mzgarden said:


> interesting discussion. However, it does appear some may be changing the rules of the game, after the game has begun. The understood and widely accepted 'working' definition of Pro Life is opposed to legalized abortion, right-to-life (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-life?s=t) for Pro Choice it is supporting or advocating legalized abortion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-choice?s=t).
> 
> I think it becomes sticky when we begin to alter the normally accepted definitions. For example: Pro Choice (words alone) could be attributed to choices for restaurants, meat vs vegetarian, etc. If we want to re-define Pro Choice to be something other than the standard, socially accepted understanding - that's fine - as long as we agree on the new definition. Pro Choice - removing the references to abortion/euthanasia, could mean we support the right of people to choose their own restaurants, whether or not to go to church, which church, what country to live in, how to spend their money, etc.
> The definition of Pro-Life could be equally revised to indicate the refusal to take any type of existing life - a chicken, a fly, a spider, etc.
> ...


naw I am not trying to change any of the accepted definitions, just pointing out that those who think it's ok to deny a child's right to life preconception but not post conception might want to reconsider their stance.... Both are "choices" that produce the exact same result... There will be no child in the back yard playing with a puppy when there should have been. A woman that fulfills her natural or possibly godly obligation and brings that child into the world or at least gives it her best shot... Pretty safe bet she is prolife.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I am kind of surprised there are no old school Catholics here. Christians for most of their history have actually held what YH is saying to be true. To interfere at all in the process of conception is taking a life and playing God. 100 years ago most of the pro-lifers here would have been condemned as heretics.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I am kind of surprised there are no old school Catholics here. Christians for most of their history have actually held what YH is saying to be true. To interfere at all in the process of conception is taking a life and playing God. 100 years ago most of the pro-lifers here would have been condemned as heretics.


That's exactly what YH is hoping for, and why he liked your post. 
He's been using the traditional catholic stance on procreation as a red herring to delegitimize the more contemporary "pro-life" stance, hoping, all this time, that someone would bite.

No one has. 

Because it's a stupid, illogical idea. 

In his paradigm, the only murder that "counts" is a species-extinguishing act. NOT separating every sperm in a single ejaculation and using them to fertilize 1,000,000,000 eggs into human babies is the moral equivalent of performing 999,999,999 8th and a 1/2 trimester partial-birth abortions. Likewise, not killing all but two surviving humans, one of each sex, is the same as killing the 20 trillion or so who would have been born after the earth's oxygen has been depleted but before the sun goes nova. The argument is stupid and only gets stupider through extrapolation.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Gotta say YH, although you usually have some pretty down to earth, logical things to say here, I think you're grasping at straws here. A human egg, UNFERTILIZED, does not have the potential to be a life until it is FERTILIZED. 
And the earth is in no danger of running out of people anytime soon, I think we can ease off on the 'be fruitful and multiply' thing... we DID that, quite sucessfully. We should be smart enough to avoid the dangers of overpopulation. Things get pretty ugly when the food and resources start running out. I know the rightwingers mentality is 'the pie doesn't have to be shared, you just gotta grow the pie' only works for awhile till it runs up against cold hard reality.
But no, an unfertilized egg is not a person, and it never will be. Its ok, not every ova has to become another mouth to feed. Surely God gave us the brains to realize its not good for women to be CONSTANTLY pregnant.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That's exactly what YH is hoping for, and why he liked your post.
> He's been using the traditional catholic stance on procreation as a red herring to delegitimize the more contemporary "pro-life" stance, hoping, all this time, that someone would bite.
> 
> No one has.
> ...


Wow! I had no idea I had been doing all of that! In my mind I "liked" patches post because it made sense to me. I also had never even thought about old school Catholics until she mentioned it. Not being a catholic nor very well versed in their beliefs those thoughts had never even occurred to me. My train of thought has from the beginning been that most pro lifers are not really pro life at all. It seems that it's ok for them to make these life and death choices, why not everyone?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> A human egg, UNFERTILIZED, does not have the potential to be a life until it is FERTILIZED.


And this is exactly my point. That unfertilized egg has the exact same potential for life as does one that's been fertilized. The only thing standing in its way is being fertilized. Anyone who deliberately takes measures to prevent that happening is in effect killing it. Where is the moral high ground? Choices are being made, if there is a moral high ground to be found its under the feet of those who choose to get that egg fertilized each and every time the opportunity presents itself. Any other choice results in death.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> And the earth is in no danger of running out of people anytime soon, I think we can ease off on the 'be fruitful and multiply' thing... we DID that, quite sucessfully. We should be smart enough to avoid the dangers of overpopulation. Things get pretty ugly when the food and resources start running out. I know the rightwingers mentality is 'the pie doesn't have to be shared, you just gotta grow the pie' only works for awhile till it runs up against cold hard reality.


You may want to hang on to this. It might serve you well on that fateful day when you are standing face to face with God and he asks you why you thought you should interfer with His plan. 
Ultimately it is not me you need to convince.... I am not the one who will decide your fate.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And a human being locked in a cage with no food or water will die a natural death as well. I think some would call it murder. The egg is no different if someone deliberately denies it what it needs to survive.


Nope, it dies a death of old age. Putting a human in a cage and starving him to death is not a natural death, it is murder. You could, and we do, put him in a cage, feed him for 50 years until he dies of old age, that is a natural death.

At fertilization, the egg cell ceases to be, something new is created, a new human life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> At fertilization, the egg cell ceases to be, something new is created, a new human life.


That's not how I was taught in biology class, upon fertilization the egg divides itself into two cell, each of those the divide multiplying itself into a fetus and eventually becomes a human being. The egg does not "cease to be" by being fertilized, it remains very much alive and it grows. It only ceases to be if it is not fertilized, like a man will cease to be without food or water or oxygen. Death naturally occurs if either are denied what is needed to survive.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You may want to hang on to this. It might serve you well on that fateful day when you are standing face to face with God and he asks you why you thought you should interfer with His plan.
> Ultimately it is not me you need to convince.... I am not the one who will decide your fate.


Um, No, I don't think Gods plan is to have every female egg fertilized.
And if God asks me why I thought that, I will tell him, because you only gave us a limited amount of space and resources to work with. I thought we were supposed to be good stewards of the land, not overrun it like a plauge of locusts.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Um, No, I don't think Gods plan is to have every female egg fertilized.
> And if God asks me why I thought that, I will tell him, because you only gave us a limited amount of space and resources to work with. I thought we were supposed to be good stewards of the land, not overrun it like a plauge of locusts.


I agree that not every egg needs to be or even could be fertilized. I am only talking about those that are released from the ovary and set in motion by the normal reproductive process. We are only looking at 30 or 40 at the most. More likely 15 to 20.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-the-bible-permit-birth-control

http://www.gotquestions.org/birth-control.html

http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tool...s/what-does-the-bible-say-about-birth-control

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_birth_control


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That's not how I was taught in biology class, upon fertilization the egg divides itself into two cell, each of those the divide multiplying itself into a fetus and eventually becomes a human being. The egg does not "cease to be" by being fertilized, it remains very much alive and it grows. It only ceases to be if it is not fertilized, like a man will cease to be without food or water or oxygen. Death naturally occurs if either are denied what is needed to survive.


 Upon fertilization, it is no longer an egg, but rather, an embryo, then zygote, then fetus.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> I don't see it as telling a woman what she can do w/ her body, but rather what she cannot do to her unborn baby.


Many don't realize that the unborn child is a separate entity. The unborn child is NOT a part of anyone's body. Its an old ploy that the left got a lot of folks to believe. 
1st it was: "Its just a blob of cells" til folks realized what they'd learned in biology. 
Then it became "can't tell someone what do do w/their body". Another fallicy. Lots of stuff you cannot do w/your body so that's false itself. Not to mention the unborn baby is NOT a part of a women's body. 
Wanna NAME the body part? Just what 'part' of a women's body is it?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Again sperm is part of the male body. The egg is part of the female body. When they meet they form a NEW life that is whole unto itself. An unfertilized egg cell dies naturally and is expelled, like a skin cell at the end of its life. An old sperm cell dies a natural death and is expelled/absorbed. In both cases it is merely part of the parent organism and not separate life. An embryo/zygote/fetus is, in fact, a separate human life and should be afforded the rights of same.


What!?!?! Skin cells are allowed to DIE?!?! Aughghgh!! They're a part of the great scheme of things, are they not? Why oh, why were they allowed to DIE!? Some of you people are just murderers...like those who allow sperm to just die. And eggs to be sluffed outta bodies...
speaking of eggs, betcha some eat 'em so where are the baby chicks?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Many don't realize that the unborn child is a separate entity. The unborn child is NOT a part of anyone's body. Its an old ploy that the left got a lot of folks to believe.
> 1st it was: "Its just a blob of cells" til folks realized what they'd learned in biology.
> Then it became "can't tell someone what do do w/their body". Another fallicy. Lots of stuff you cannot do w/your body so that's false itself. Not to mention the unborn baby is NOT a part of a women's body.
> Wanna NAME the body part? Just what 'part' of a women's body is it?


Fetus


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> What!?!?! Skin cells are allowed to DIE?!?! Aughghgh!! They're a part of the great scheme of things, are they not? Why oh, why were they allowed to DIE!? Some of you people are just murderers...like those who allow sperm to just die. And eggs to be sluffed outta bodies...
> speaking of eggs, betcha some eat ;em so where are the baby chicks?


Skin cells are similar to every other cell in the human body in that the have a specific purpose. When they have fulfilled that purpose they die and are replaced with new ones.... Or they can be killed prematurely and die and will be replaced with new ones. The egg has a specific purpose too, and if a deliberate action causes it to die prematurely it cannot fulfill its purpose resulting in the child it should have been to never be born. I've noticed there seem to be a lot of arguments being presented here in favor of interrupting this process and denying that child it's right to live. I have also noticed that many recognize they are making a choice to do so. Note the thread title... It looks a lot like pro choice to me.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Skin cells are similar to every other cell in the human body in that the have a specific purpose. When they have fulfilled that purpose they die and are replaced with new ones.... Or they can be killed prematurely and die and will be replaced with new ones. The egg has a specific purpose too, and if a deliberate action causes it to die prematurely it cannot fulfill its purpose resulting in the child it should have been to never be born. I've noticed there seem to be a lot of arguments being presented here in favor of interrupting this process and denying that child it's right to live. I have also noticed that many recognize they are making a choice to do so. Note the thread title... It looks a lot like pro choice to me.


 
Fine, call me "anti-abortion", if you wish. I am also anti-drug war, anti-ACA, etc..


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Upon fertilization, it is no longer an egg, but rather, an embryo, then zygote, then fetus.


The names are changed to identify the various stages it goes through on its way thru life, to carry it further... Baby, infant, child, young adult, adult, geezer.... But it's all the same life from the time that egg is formed until it dies a natural dead at a ripe old age. Presuming it lives that long. Funny thing about life, it struggles to survive and is pretty good at it too, until someone somewhere decides to terminate it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Fine, call me "anti-abortion", if you wish. I am also anti-drug war, anti-ACA, etc..


What's wrong with pro choice? As long as you get to choose when it's acceptable to terminate life?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The names are changed to identify the various stages it goes through on its way thru life, to carry it further... Baby, infant, child, young adult, adult, geezer.... But it's all the same life from the time that egg is formed until it dies a natural dead at a ripe old age. Presuming it lives that long. Funny thing about life, it struggles to survive and is pretty good at it too, until someone somewhere decides to terminate it.


 Nope, The DNA in an embryo is different and unique from the egg cell. It transforms from a part of the parent organism to its own unique entity.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What's wrong with pro choice? As long as you get to choose when it's acceptable to terminate life?


 Because I know that the term "pro-choice" has come to mean "pro-abortion", in the modern vernacular, just like the term "pro-life" has come to mean "anti-abortion". Once that common usage is changed, I will revisit the title.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Nope, The DNA in an embryo is different and unique from the egg cell. It transforms from a part of the parent organism to its own unique entity.


A lot of changes take place on the journey from the ovary to the pretty box the geezer is laid out in decades later, but I think it's safe to assume the geezer began his journey when he was kicked out of the ovary. It's ok with me if you think it's ok to terminate that life at any point you want to up until a baby is born, but don't you think you should be honest about it and call it what it is? Remove the ovaries, tie the tubes, block the pathways, pick any method or timeframe you want, you are still making a conscious decision to terminate life. The very same decision you would refuse others if you could.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Because I know that the term "pro-choice" has come to mean "pro-abortion", in the modern vernacular, just like the term "pro-life" has come to mean "anti-abortion". Once that common usage is changed, I will revisit the title.


Pro choice only means pro abortion in the minds of some.... Mostly those who think they are pro life. To most pro choice folks it simply means a woman should be able to make her own choice. For what it's worth I am pro choice myself but would vastly prefer they choose life, I am just not willing to impose my choice upon them. It's between them and God.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Pro choice only means pro abortion in the minds of some.... Mostly those who think they are pro life. To most pro choice folks it simply means a woman should be able to make her own choice. For what it's worth I am pro choice myself but would vastly prefer they choose life, I am just not willing to impose my choice upon them. It's between them and God.


 If you saw a man with a knife to the throat of his child, would you try to save that child, or, say "his child, his choice"? My guess is that you would do something to try and save that child if it were nothing more than a call to the police. 

Same thing. If a "doctor" has his knife, or, other implement of destruction, held to the "throat" of a child, born, or, unborn, I am compelled to try and save that child.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A lot of changes take place on the journey from the ovary to the pretty box the geezer is laid out in decades later, but I think it's safe to assume the geezer began his journey when he was kicked out of the ovary. It's ok with me if you think it's ok to terminate that life at any point you want to up until a baby is born, but don't you think you should be honest about it and call it what it is? Remove the ovaries, tie the tubes, block the pathways, pick any method or timeframe you want, you are still making a conscious decision to terminate life. The very same decision you would refuse others if you could.


 The DNA, that was replicating in his body prior to his death, was not in existence until the egg was fertilized. Prior to that moment the geezer didn't exist.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> If you saw a man with a knife to the throat of his child, would you try to save that child, or, say "his child, his choice"? My guess is that you would do something to try and save that child if it were nothing more than a call to the police.
> 
> Same thing. If a "doctor" has his knife, or, other implement of destruction, held to the "throat" of a child, born, or, unborn, I am compelled to try and save that child.


Of course I would try to save a child's life. I would also argue the same case with a woman thinking about an abortion, or a girl deciding about various other forms of birth control. You however seem to be fine with some forms of birth control, others not so much. When did God get too busy and assign you the task of deciding who gets to live? Or die?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> The DNA, that was replicating in his body prior to his death, was not in existence until the egg was fertilized. Prior to that moment the geezer didn't exist.


That strand of DNA wasn't, but the ingredients necessary to produce it were very mugh in existence and very much alive and doing their best to come together so that geezer could live out the rest of his life... Passing on his piece of life to others in the process. As I pointed out in my OP, life began..... Everything since that time (including our geezer) is merely continuing that same life created thousands of years ago. What gives you or anyone else the right to interfer with life's natural process? At any time, for any excuse,,,, Erm "reason"?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that not every egg needs to be or even could be fertilized. I am only talking about those that are released from the ovary and set in motion by the normal reproductive process. We are only looking at 30 or 40 at the most. More likely 15 to 20.


 What on earth are you talking about??? 



> . At birth, there are approximately 1 million eggs; and by the time of puberty, only about 300,000 remain. Of these, only *300 to 400 will be ovulated* during a woman's reproductive lifetime.


 https://my.clevelandclinic.org/heal...nd_Careers/hic_the_female_reproductive_system


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> What on earth are you talking about???


I am talking about the number of eggs that would normally be in play if women chose to go along with natures plan instead of having that "abortion" every twenty eight days. She wouldn't be ovulating while pregnant. Most likely only every ten to twelve months or so. Of course that might be considered inconvenient by some so they come up with all sorts of reasons (excuses) to justify their choice to let those children die of neglect. A quick glance back through this thread will verify that. If it makes them feel less guilty about the choice they make so be it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That strand of DNA wasn't, but the ingredients necessary to produce it were very mugh in existence and very much alive and doing their best to come together so that geezer could live out the rest of his life... Passing on his piece of life to others in the process. As I pointed out in my OP, life began..... Everything since that time (including our geezer) is merely continuing that same life created thousands of years ago. What gives you or anyone else the right to interfer with life's natural process? At any time, for any excuse,,,, Erm "reason"?


By that reasoning, a handful of dirt would be on the same moral footing as our geezer.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course I would try to save a child's life. I would also argue the same case with a woman thinking about an abortion, or a girl deciding about various other forms of birth control. You however seem to be fine with some forms of birth control, others not so much. When did God get too busy and assign you the task of deciding who gets to live? Or die?


 If you try and save that child's life, are you not deciding who gets to live? I simply believe that the unique, unborn, human deserves some of the same basic rights as that child.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I agree that not every egg needs to be or even could be fertilized. I am only talking about those that are released from the ovary and set in motion by the normal reproductive process. We are only looking at 30 or 40 at the most. More likely 15 to 20.


Ah, wait! Changing your tune!? 
How is a 'released' egg different? Those literally sluff off & are expelled in fairly large numbers...some are damaged...some just go away. Some cannot be fertilized.

Oh, the humanity!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fetus


You'll not find "fetus" in any biology book stating its part of the female body.


----------



## mzgarden (Mar 16, 2012)

fetus (foetus) noun, plural fetuses. Embryology 1. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

In the same way my key ring hooked to a belt loop on my jeans not a part of my jeans, a fetus inside a woman's body is not a part of the woman's body. Attached? yes, a part of the unit? No.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> If you try and save that child's life, are you not deciding who gets to live? I simply believe that the unique, unborn, human deserves some of the same basic rights as that child.


Of course I am.... But then being prolife I'm not the one saying it's ok to deny any living thing it's right to live. Ok rattlesnakes are kinda on their own.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mzgarden said:


> fetus (foetus) noun, plural fetuses. Embryology 1. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
> 
> In the same way my key ring hooked to a belt loop on my jeans not a part of my jeans, a fetus inside a woman's body is not a part of the woman's body. Attached? yes, a part of the unit? No.


That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Attached but not part of? It is part of her body. Like every single part of her body it uses the vitamins and nutrients she puts in herself to be healthy. Through a cord that is growing from one of her body parts. It is also an extremely powerful bond it forms that is part of her. It is part of her womb and her essence. You make it sound like a tick. Lol Good grief Charlie Brown!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, wait! Changing your tune!?
> How is a 'released' egg different? Those literally sluff off & are expelled in fairly large numbers...some are damaged...some just go away. Some cannot be fertilized.
> 
> Oh, the humanity!


agreed, many are not going to live for various reasons, but making the decision to destroy them deliberately is a bit different dontcha think?
The released egg that isn't sluffed off and makes it to its nesting site has done its part, seems a small task to allow it its chance at the next step in the natural order of life.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> By that reasoning, a handful of dirt would be on the same moral footing as our geezer.


A handful of dirt is not a living thing, never was, ain't going to be. It may contain living organisms but they are not dirt.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Attached but not part of? It is part of her body. Like every single part of her body it uses the vitamins and nutrients she puts in herself to be healthy. Through a cord that is growing from one of her body parts. It is also an extremely powerful bond it forms that is part of her. It is part of her womb and her essence.* You make it sound like a tick.* Lol Good grief Charlie Brown!


This same group will argue vehemently that a fetus is not a parasite. LOL


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Attached but not part of? It is part of her body. Like every single part of her body it uses the vitamins and nutrients she puts in herself to be healthy. Through a cord that is growing from one of her body parts. It is also an extremely powerful bond it forms that is part of her. It is part of her womb and her essence. You make it sound like a tick. Lol Good grief Charlie Brown!


A tick is an excellent comparison, theoretically speaking. Thank you. 

A tick cannot sustain life on it's own, it needs something to feed on. At a certain point the tick can sustain itself, at least until it needs to feed again.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> A tick is an excellent comparison, theoretically speaking. Thank you.
> 
> A tick cannot sustain life on it's own, it needs something to feed on. At a certain point the tick can sustain itself, at least until it needs to feed again.


Wouldn't that be true of anything? If you went weeks without feeding, you too would not be successful at sustaining your life.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Wouldn't that be true of anything? If you went weeks without feeding, you too would not be successful at sustaining your life.


Sorry. I don't see your point. If you don't eat you know you're going to die, right? The tick _can't_ sustain live on it's own.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A handful of dirt is not a living thing, never was, ain't going to be. It may contain living organisms but they are not dirt.


 But that soil has a chance to be incorporated into living beings, does it not?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry. I don't see your point. If you don't eat you know you're going to die, right? The tick _can't_ sustain live on it's own.


 A tick must eat, like any other life form. If it is unable to feed, like any other life form, it will die. It happens to eat blood. We eat meat and plants. If we don't eat we die.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> A tick must eat, like any other life form. If it is unable to feed, like any other life form, it will die. It happens to eat blood. We eat meat and plants. If we don't eat we die.


The fetus is dependent on it's mother, it's an entirely separate but attached entity, much like a tick. 

Can a fetus (or tick) survive on it's own?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The fetus is dependent on it's mother, it's an entirely separate but attached entity, much like a tick.
> 
> Can a fetus (or tick) survive on it's own?


 A tick can, until it needs to feed, just like any other animal. All animals depend on other life forms for survival. Ticks, Dogs, Bears, Fetuses, Me, You, etc.. 

http://www.cdc.gov/ticks/life_cycle_and_hosts.html


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> A tick can, until it needs to feed, just like any other animal. All animals depend on other life forms for survival. Ticks, Dogs, Bears, Fetuses, Me, You, etc..
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/ticks/life_cycle_and_hosts.html


So it's dependent on a *host* to live, right? It can't feed any other way? All living creatures have to eat, I get that. Basic biology. I'm not disagreeing. 

I simply don't get your point. A fetus is a separate but attached entity that cannot survive on it's own. Can you _rationally_ dispute that?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

So, using our tick as a comparable here, there are those who think squishing a tick with a hammer before its attached to them is morally sound, but once attached it must be allowed to feed on the host. Interesting indeed!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So it's dependent on a *host* to live, right? It can't feed any other way? All living creatures have to eat, I get that. Basic biology. I'm not disagreeing.
> 
> I simply don't get your point. A fetus is a separate but attached entity that cannot survive on it's own. Can you _rationally_ dispute that?


 No, I simply say that it is irrelevant. We all take advantage of other life forms to survive. I do it, you do it. That fact of biology is not reason enough to kill you, or, me. It shouldn't be reason enough to kill the unborn.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So, using our tick as a comparable here, there are those who think squishing a tick with a hammer before its attached to them is morally sound, but once attached it must be allowed to feed on the host. Interesting indeed!


 Of course not, it is a tick, not human. I wouldn't let a cougar feed on a person, or, an animal that I was attached to either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> No, I simply say that it is irrelevant. We all take advantage of other life forms to survive. I do it, you do it. That fact of biology is not reason enough to kill you, or, me. It shouldn't be reason enough to kill the unborn.


But denying other lifesaving needs to the unborn is hunky dory?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> No, I simply say that it is irrelevant. We all take advantage of other life forms to survive. I do it, you do it. That fact of biology is not reason enough to kill you, or, me. It shouldn't be reason enough to kill the unborn.


Gotcha. Except the fetus is attached to a woman's body and, as always, her body her choice. The fact that you don't believe that is irrelevant.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Of course not, it is a tick, not human. I wouldn't let a cougar feed on a person, or, an animal that I was attached to either.


But you think it's fine to kill a human..... As long as it's not attached to its mother yet?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But you think it's fine to kill a human..... As long as it's not attached to its mother yet?


 Life begins at conception. I fail to understand why that is such a difficult concept.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Gotcha. Except the fetus is attached to a woman's body and, as always, her body her choice. The fact that you don't believe that is irrelevant.


 I am aware that there are women who are selfish and cold enough to snuff out the lives their children because they are inconvenient. It is one of many things that is wrong with our culture.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I am aware that there are women who are selfish and cold enough to snuff out the lives their children because they are inconvenient. It is one of many things that is wrong with our culture.


A big thing that is wrong with your culture is people who think they have the right to meddle with other people's bodies. 

How about pregnant women who drink or smoke? Are you proposing to tell them what to do as well? Maybe lock them up till the baby is born?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I am aware that there are women who are selfish and cold enough to snuff out the lives their children because they are inconvenient. It is one of many things that is wrong with our culture.


Aren't you supposed to not judge people? That's up to your higher power isn't it? Tsk Tsk.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

The protectiveness that a mother feels for the baby growing inside her comes from God and from her instinct as a mother. Nurturing comes so naturally as grows as the baby grows inside it's mother. I cannot imagine any mother who has felt her baby move doing anything or letting anyone harm it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> I am aware that there are women who are selfish and cold enough to snuff out the lives their children because they are inconvenient. It is one of many things that is wrong with our culture.


 Or perhaps they realize they cannot properly care for the child, and choose to end its life to avoid a lifetime of pain, poverty and suffering. YOU don't know why people do what they do, until you are put in that position. 

And by the way, what is your solution, besides endless preaching and holier-than-thou judgements upon people? You want to outlaw abortion? That was tried, and people still found ways around it. How many kids have you adopted?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> A big thing that is wrong with your culture is people who think they have the right to meddle with other people's bodies.
> 
> How about pregnant women who drink or smoke? Are you proposing to tell them what to do as well? Maybe lock them up till the baby is born?


 You are correct. Like those who think they have the right to kill the unborn because they are inconvenient. They have bodies as well.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't you supposed to not judge people? That's up to your higher power isn't it? Tsk Tsk.


 Find the post where I have ever stated what my religious affiliation is.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Or perhaps they realize they cannot properly care for the child, and choose to end its life to avoid a lifetime of pain, poverty and suffering. YOU don't know why people do what they do, until you are put in that position.
> 
> And by the way, what is your solution, besides endless preaching and holier-than-thou judgements upon people? You want to outlaw abortion? That was tried, and people still found ways around it. How many kids have you adopted?


 Murder, Rape, Theft, etc. are all outlawed, but, yet people still do it. Do you advocate repealing laws making those things illegal? 

My solution is simple. Make the adoption process simpler and cheaper. Poverty, in the U.S. is not something that people, en mass, kill themselves to avoid, so, that is a straw man argument.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Life begins at conception. I fail to understand why that is such a difficult concept.


So I've heard, by those who want to claim some kind of moral high ground by opting to kill the egg before its fertilized instead of after. I fail to understand why it's so difficult to understand that life began by whatever means many thousands of years ago and simply uses a highly specialized set of equipment to pass itself on from one generation to the next. Fertilizing an egg is only one small step in a continuing cycle of life, it is no more the beginning of life than a sunrise is the beginning of time.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You are correct. Like those who think they have the right to kill the unborn because they are inconvenient. They have bodies as well.


Women have the right to empty their uterus if they choose. Their body, their choice. Should they also be compelled to carry a molar pregnancy?


So you do believe a woman should be locked up if she smokes or drunks while pregnant?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Find the post where I have ever stated what my religious affiliation is.


Were did I say religious affiliation? I said higher power, unless you are an atheist you have one. 

Are you an atheist?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Were did I say religious affiliation? I said higher power, unless you are an atheist you have one.
> 
> Are you an atheist?


 Not being judgmental is largely a Christian concept and you know that is what you were alluding to. My religious affiliation is my concern.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

basketti said:


> Women have the right to empty their uterus if they choose. Their body, their choice.


yeppers and far more choose to do exactly that every month than those few who do it once or twice in their lifetime. Somehow those that opt to do it every month get a free pass. :shrug:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> Women have the right to empty their uterus if they choose. Their body, their choice. Should they also be compelled to carry a molar pregnancy?
> 
> 
> So you do believe a woman should be locked up if she smokes or drunks while pregnant?


 Don't be silly. What would be the logical reason for carrying an non-viable pregnancy that could do great harm to the mother? 

Women who smoke or drink during pregnancy should be shamed (as they often are) and made to be responsible for whatever damage, to the child, their activities have caused.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Not being judgmental is largely a Christian concept and you know that is what you were alluding to. My religious affiliation is my concern.


Are you an atheist? If not, you have a higher power. Is that simple enough?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Don't be silly. What would be the logical reason for carrying an non-viable pregnancy that could do great harm to the mother?
> 
> Women who smoke or drink during pregnancy should be shamed (as they often are) and made to be responsible for whatever damage, to the child, their activities have caused.


A fetus is non-viable prior to about 20 weeks.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

I don't believe, but I'd never ridicule people that do.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

You know it is beyond silly to "muddy the water" with foolish talk of unfertilized eggs being "aborted" and somehow equating that to the willful murder of a unique unborn human. It is also silly to try and equate a viable pregnancy to a non-viable one, again to muddy up the water. or, to say we are doing the unborn a favor because they may be born into poverty. (in a country where most of the "poor" have cable TV and Play Stations) 

It is a straight forward concern. We, as a culture are killing MILLIONS of unborn people every year. That is disgusting. That is immoral. I know that, no matter what, we will not stop all of the destruction, but, we should endeavor to stop as much as we can.


----------



## WildernesFamily (Mar 11, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The question has come up numerous times in other threads and derailed them so I thought maybe a thread of its own might be in order.
> 
> The question being are you really prolife, or really pro choice hiding behind some sort of smokescreen? Here is my thinking....
> 
> ...


Your logic is flawed.

As many people have said repeatedly, there has to be an actual life first before the "pro-life" equation comes into play. Life begins at the moment of conception, not before.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

As soon as the cell has it's own DNA it has rights. The father should also have rights.

My body my choice is a bunch of crap. But.... I'm not against abortions.

It's a really hard decision that I'm glad I've never had to make or be a part of.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you an atheist? If not, you have a higher power. Is that simple enough?


 What if I said that I worshiped Baal, or, Ra, are either of those higher powers big on restricting the judgment of others? Come on, you know what you assumed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Don't be silly. What would be the logical reason for carrying an non-viable pregnancy that could do great harm to the mother?
> 
> Women who smoke or drink during pregnancy should be shamed (as they often are) and made to be responsible for whatever damage, to the child, their activities have caused.


Yep, my bio mom smoked, drank and ate pork on Fridays all during her pregnancy with me. I was stunted badly, only weighed 8lbs 10ozs at birth and only grew to 6' 4" by the time I was 18.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> A fetus is non-viable prior to about 20 weeks.


I didn't speak of a fetus, but, a viable Pregnancy. Please try to keep up.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

oneraddad said:


> I don't believe, but I'd never ridicule people that do.


I personally don't care if someone has an religion affiliation/higher power unless it impinges on my life. Especially if they try to legislate religious doctrine.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, my bio mom smoked, drank and ate pork on Fridays all during her pregnancy with me. I was stunted badly, only weighed 8lbs 10ozs at birth and only grew to 6' 4" by the time I was 18.


 
Many children, born prior to the mid 80's were in the same boat.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

WildernesFamily said:


> Your logic is flawed.
> 
> As many people have said repeatedly, there has to be an actual life first before the "pro-life" equation comes into play. Life begins at the moment of conception, not before.


And time begins at sunrise too I suppose.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I didn't speak of a fetus, but, a viable Pregnancy. Please try to keep up.


What do you think a pregnancy is? Can you have a viable pregnancy without a fetus? Nope... and a fetus is non-viable until about 20 weeks.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you think a pregnancy is? Can you have a viable pregnancy without a fetus? Nope... and a fetus is non-viable until about 20 weeks.


 
But, the PREGNANCY is viable. Meaning that if the fetus is left alone, the PREGNANCY will continue to its natural end.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> What if I said that I worshiped Baal, or, Ra, are either of those higher powers big on restricting the judgment of others? Come on, you know what you assumed.


Did I say higher power? I've made the error of calling people christian in the past, I purposely didn't in my question to you. 

I have no idea on the judgementalness of Baal, Ra, and any of the other _higher powers_ of various religions. Most religions do have a "non judgement" clause.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Many children, born prior to the mid 80's were in the same boat.


I know, I'm surprised any of us survived at all! My parents even let us boys ride to town and back in the back of the old flatbed farm truck... No special kiddie seats, seat belts or air bags!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> But, the PREGNANCY is viable. Meaning that if the fetus is left alone, the PREGNANCY will continue to its natural end.


Can you have a viable pregnancy without a fetus?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> But, the PREGNANCY is viable. Meaning that if the fetus is left alone, the PREGNANCY will continue to its natural end.


And an egg is every bit as viable if it's left alone and allowed to be fertilized in natures normal way.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did I say higher power? I've made the error of calling people christian in the past, I purposely didn't in my question to you.
> 
> I have no idea on the judgementalness of Baal, Ra, and any of the other _higher powers_ of various religions. Most religions do have a "non judgement" clause.


 So you assume that my opposition to abortion comes from religious teachings. If that were true, how do you rectify that with the fact that I am for assisted suicide, legal drugs, less alcohol restrictions, etc.?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> So you assume that my opposition to abortion comes from religious teachings. If that were true, how do you rectify that with the fact that I am for assisted suicide, legal drugs, less alcohol restrictions, etc.?


I assumed nothing. I care that you are trying to inflict control over my body. Period.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can you have a viable pregnancy without a fetus?


 Of course not, but, the point is that I wasn't speaking of the viability of the fetus as the viability of the fetus, outside the womb, is irrelevant, in a viable pregnancy.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I assumed nothing. I care that you are trying to inflict control over my body. Period.


And I care that you advocate for the wholesale destruction of millions of people.

And, if you assumed nothing, why would you say that I am not supposed to judge others according to my higher being?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Of course not, but, the point is that I wasn't speaking of the viability of the fetus as the viability of the fetus, outside the womb, is irrelevant, in a viable pregnancy.


The fetus in a viable pregnancy is not viable until about 20 weeks. Do you agree?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The fetus in a viable pregnancy is not viable until about 20 weeks. Do you agree?


Yes, out side the womb, at this point, that is true.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> *You know it is beyond silly to "muddy the water" with foolish talk of unfertilized eggs being "aborted" and somehow equating that to the willful murder of a unique unborn human. * It is also silly to try and equate a viable pregnancy to a non-viable one, again to muddy up the water. or, to say we are doing the unborn a favor because they may be born into poverty. (in a country where most of the "poor" have cable TV and Play Stations)
> 
> It is a straight forward concern. We, as a culture are killing MILLIONS of unborn people every year. That is disgusting. That is immoral. I know that, no matter what, we will not stop all of the destruction, but, we should endeavor to stop as much as we can.


putting things in proper perspective is not silly... It just requires one to think more a bit further than they are accustomed to... In this case the results of those two choices are exactly the same,,,, a child's life is lost. Does that sound silly to you? A life is at stake here. Not silly to me. :Bawling:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And I care that you advocate for the wholesale destruction of millions of people.
> 
> And, if you assumed nothing, why would you say that I am not supposed to judge others according to my higher being?


But wholesale destruction of billions of people is just fine.... :shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And I care that you advocate for the wholesale destruction of millions of people.
> 
> And, if you assumed nothing, why would you say that I am not supposed to judge others according to my higher being?





Irish Pixie said:


> The fetus in a viable pregnancy is not viable until about 20 weeks. Do you agree?





Farmerga said:


> Yes, out side the womb, at this point, that is true.


I personally don't care if you worship horse crap. Unless you're trying to use religion to legislate. How's that? I said higher power, not christian, give it up, OK? You're using it as a distraction anyway.

I'm so glad your opinion doesn't trump my right to do what I want with my body. 

Since the molar fetus is not viable in a viable pregnancy why do you think a non viable fetus (before 20 weeks) is any different?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> putting things in proper perspective is not silly... It just requires one to think more a bit further than they are accustomed to... In this case the results of those two choices are exactly the same,,,, a child's life is lost. Does that sound silly to you? A life is at stake here. Not silly to me. :Bawling:


 Scenario #1: An artist paints a masterpiece. There has never been such a painting before and there will never be another like it. Someone comes along and sets it on fire, leaving nothing but ashes. 

Scenario #2: An artist buys paint. The paint sits on the shelf and dries in the tubes. 

The results are the same, no masterpiece, but, most would agree that, in Scenario #1, a masterpiece was lost and in Scenario #2, he lost some paint. 

The act of creation matters and the new life is worth far more than the parts used to created it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Murder, Rape, Theft, etc. are all outlawed, but, yet people still do it. Do you advocate repealing laws making those things illegal?
> 
> My solution is simple. Make the adoption process simpler and cheaper. Poverty, in the U.S. is not something that people, en mass, kill themselves to avoid, so, that is a straw man argument.


 What part of the adoption process should be make 'simpler and easier'? Income rules? Forgo background checks? How about lettting pedophiles adopt kids? See any problems there?
Besides, you avoided the question, how many kids have you adopted?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I personally don't care if you worship horse crap. Unless you're trying to use religion to legislate. How's that? I said higher power, not christian, give it up, OK? You're using it as a distraction anyway.
> 
> I'm so glad your opinion doesn't trump my right to do what I want with my body.
> 
> *Since the molar fetus is not viable in a viable pregnancy why do you think a non viable fetus (before 20 weeks) is any different?*


 Because a, healthy living fetus IS viable in a viable pregnancy. It becomes non-viable when it is taken from its natural environment.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

greg273 said:


> What part of the adoption process should be make 'simpler and easier'? Income rules? Forgo background checks? How about lettting pedophiles adopt kids? See any problems there?
> Besides, you avoided the question, how many kids have you adopted?


I have gone through the adoption process and was denied. (health reasons, they said) Because of that, instead of giving an unwanted child a home, I was forced to make my own. A simple background check and a single home visit should be enough. Would take about a week. Not the months to years of hoop jumping and fees it currently entails.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Sounds like God is quite the abortionist himself. Why isn't he more pro-life? Where are the protesters over this?? 



> Some 2.6 million stillbirths occurred worldwide in 2009, according to the first comprehensive set of estimates published in a special series of _The Lancet_. Every day more than 7200 babies are stillborn


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Scenario #1: An artist paints a masterpiece. There has never been such a painting before and there will never be another like it. Someone comes along and sets it on fire, leaving nothing but ashes.
> 
> Scenario #2: An artist buys paint. The paint sits on the shelf and dries in the tubes.
> 
> ...


To you maybe.... But not to the child.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Because a, healthy living fetus IS viable in a viable pregnancy. It becomes non-viable when it is taken from its natural environment.


You agreed that that fetus prior to 20 weeks was non viable. Didn't you? Non viability is non viability. And now you will spin what you said so... 

I'm done. There is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. Period. End of story.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> I have gone through the adoption process and was denied. (health reasons, they said). A simple background check and a single home visit should be enough. Would take about a week. Not the months to years of hoop jumping and fees it currently entails.


 Well at least you tried.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Well at least you tried.


Yup. It's more than most of the pro unborn do.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> You agreed that that fetus prior to 20 weeks was non viable. Didn't you? Non viability is non viable. And now you will spin what you said so...
> 
> I'm done. There is nothing you can do to stop a woman from having an abortion. Period. End of story.


 
This is EXACTLY what I said:


> Yes, out side the womb, at this point, that is true.


 In a viable pregnancy (that would be *INSIDE* the womb) a healthy living fetus, by definition, is viable, no matter the age. A fetus prior to ~20 weeks is, at this point, non-viable *OUTSIDE* the womb.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The question has come up numerous times in other threads and derailed them so I thought maybe a thread of its own might be in order.
> 
> The question being are you really prolife, or really pro choice hiding behind some sort of smokescreen? Here is my thinking....
> 
> ...


Were you high when you wrote this?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Sounds like God is quite the abortionist himself. Why isn't he more pro-life? Where are the protesters over this??


 And 155,520 people die each day. Would that fact justify mass murder?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> I have gone through the adoption process and was denied. (health reasons, they said) Because of that, instead of giving an unwanted child a home, I was forced to make my own. A simple background check and a single home visit should be enough. Would take about a week. Not the months to years of hoop jumping and fees it currently entails.


People are quick to criticize until they have been in your shoes and see just how hard the process of adoption is. I know they have to be careful but people who having biological babies don't always have X amt of money in the bank, own your own home, etc.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> To you maybe.... But not to the child.


 Once someone is dead he/she no longer has an opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> People are quick to criticize until they have been through your shoes and see just how hard the process of adoption is. I know they have to be careful but people who having biological babies don't always have X amt of money in the bank, own your own home, etc.


People are quick to criticize a woman who feels she must abort, no one knows how hard the process is.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> This is EXACTLY what I said:
> 
> In a viable pregnancy (that would be *INSIDE* the womb) a healthy living fetus, by definition, is viable, no matter the age. A fetus prior to ~20 weeks is, at this point, non-viable *OUTSIDE* the womb.


so if it's not healthy, you advocate abortion?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> so if it's not healthy, you advocate abortion?


 If the pregnancy is dangerous to the life of the mother, her right to self defense would take precedence. If the Fetus is never going to survive there is no logical reason to continue with the pregnancy.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> And 155,520 people die each day. Would that fact justify mass murder?


 People have used much less to justify mass murder. For example, a former ally being suspected of harboring dangerous weapons was used as an excuse to get thousands killed, and the pro-lifers didn't say much about that one. So it appears they aren't as 'pro-life' as they claim, more like 'pro-birth'.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> People are quick to criticize a woman who feels she must abort, no one knows how hard the process is.


If it is a case of rape or incest, I would likely choose abortion if it had been me or my daughter. What I think is so bad is that some people have multiple abortions and don't bother to use birth control.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

greg273 said:


> People have used much less to justify mass murder. For example, a former ally being suspected of harboring dangerous weapons was used as an excuse to get thousands killed, and the pro-lifers didn't say much about that one. So it appears they aren't as 'pro-life' as they claim, more like 'pro-birth'.


 Don't paint us all with such a broad brush.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> If the pregnancy is dangerous to the life of the mother, her right to self defense would take precedence. If the Fetus is never going to survive there is no logical reason to continue with the pregnancy.


Any pregnancy has the potential to endanger the life of the mother.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gapeach said:


> If it is a case of rape or incest, I would likely choose abortion if it had been me or my daughter. What I think is so bad is that some people have multiple abortions and don't bother to use birth control.


So you get to decide when abortion is okay? It still fits your criteria of being an innocent life, doesn't it?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> Any pregnancy has the potential to endanger the life of the mother.


 Pretty much anything has the potential to endanger a life. When the potential becomes actual, action is required.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

basketti said:


> So you get to decide when abortion is okay? It still fits your criteria of being an innocent life, doesn't it?


Yes. It is also the teachings of my church along with my personal feelings, abortion only the last resort, which would be rape or incest. I am going to ask my daughter her views if she were old enough to make that decision for herself. I was speaking of her before she became an adult. 

My son and daughter are very anti-abortion. I don't think that they believe in abortion in any case but I'll have to ask them if they still feel that way.

As for the mother's life, an OB doctor once explained to me that there is no choice to make. In these times, they do everything they possibly can to save the life of the mother and the child.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> So you get to decide when abortion is okay? It still fits your criteria of being an innocent life, doesn't it?


 
I am often asked this question (I know it wasn't directed at me this time). My thoughts on the matter is this. The resulting human life is not at fault and should be protected. If we were crafting law to outlaw abortion and the difference between passing and not passing was a "rape and incest clause" I would support adding the clause and save as much innocent life as possible.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Pretty much anything has the potential to endanger a life. When the potential becomes actual, action is required.


Same way I think about a human life. When the potential becomes actual (viable) then it's a child. Until then, it's just potential. Without the incubator it can't be.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> Same way I think about a human life. When the potential becomes actual (viable) then it's a child. Until then, it's just potential. Without the incubator it can't be.


 We shouldn't discriminate against people because they are more or less able to cope with a particular environment.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> We shouldn't discriminate against people because they are more or less able to cope with a particular environment.


the question is whether or not they are people yet. You believe yes, I believe they are potential people. Why should your beliefs govern my body? Suppose I need a kidney and you happen to be a match. Should I be allowed to demand a kidney from you to save my life even if you say no? Even if its to save my life?

And if we're talking about handicapped people, they can be taken care of outside of someone else's body by other people. A fetus cant survive outside of the host womb until science comes up with a way to transfer it to an artificial womb or surrogate host.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> the question is whether or not they are people yet. You believe yes, I believe they are potential people. Why should your beliefs govern my body? Suppose I need a kidney and you happen to be a match. Should I be allowed to demand a kidney from you to save my life even if you say no? Even if its to save my life?
> 
> And if we're talking about handicapped people, they can be taken care of outside of someone else's body by other people. A fetus cant survive outside of the host womb until science comes up with a way to transfer it to an artificial womb or surrogate host.


 We should heir on the side of life. The fetus/embryo is fully and uniquely human. We should cherish that.

If I did something to cause your kidney ailment, I would say yes, you should be allowed to take one of mine, if we were a match.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

basketti said:


> Same way I think about a human life. When the potential becomes actual (viable) then it's a child. Until then, it's just potential. Without the incubator it can't be.


Even if the baby has to be intubated to breathe when it is born, and put on a vent, you still believe it is a child, don't you.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> We should heir on the side of life. The fetus/embryo is fully and uniquely human. We should cherish that.
> 
> If I did something to cause your kidney ailment, I would say yes, you should be allowed to take one of mine, if we were a match.


It's potential life that can't exist outside of the womb. I err on the side of the rights of a human over her own body.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Were you high when you wrote this?


Nope, were you high when you read it? I tried to keep it simple so most anyone could grasp the concept.... Not many have I fear..... Or they did and just refuse to beleive it. Is there anything in particular confusing to you?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> If it is a case of rape or incest, I would likely choose abortion if it had been me or my daughter. What I think is so bad is that some people have multiple abortions and don't bother to use birth control.


So it's fine as frogs hair split three ways for most women to use various other forms of disposing of an inconvenient child, but other women must be the victim of rape/incest to be allowed their choice to have a child. I got it. Oh yeah I got it loud and clear!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Once someone is dead he/she no longer has an opinion.


I will go along with that if you will. Once the fetus is dead it no longer makes any difference.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> We shouldn't discriminate against people because they are more or less able to cope with a particular environment.


So you are all good with an abortion at say 18 weeks?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

basketti said:


> It's potential life that can't exist outside of the womb. I err on the side of the rights of a human over her own body.


I don't believe that there is a biologist anywhere who doesn't think that an embryo/fetus, en utero, is human life.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you are all good with an abortion at say 18 weeks?


Of course not and no honest person would glean that from what I wrote.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will go along with that if you will. Once the fetus is dead it no longer makes any difference.


 As much difference as any other murder victim.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> As much difference as any other murder victim.


Only people with control issues identify abortion as murder. 

When you get pregnant you can decide to carry the pregnancy or terminate it. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, were you high when you read it? I tried to keep it simple so most anyone could grasp the concept.... Not many have I fear..... Or they did and just refuse to beleive it. Is there anything in particular confusing to you?


Maybe all those that failed to grasp your simple concept were high. 

Or maybe your attempt at the metaphysical failed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Gotcha. Except the fetus is attached to a woman's body and, as always, her body her choice. The fact that you don't believe that is irrelevant.


Hmmmm...so, a tick becomes a part of your body...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Only people with control issues identify abortion as murder.
> 
> When you get pregnant you can decide to carry the pregnancy or terminate it.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


More like people ,with at least a decent understanding of biology and a conscience, identify abortion as murder. 

You are correct. Currently, if a woman gets pregnant, she can decide to kill the child living inside her. We have allowed some abhorrent things to be "legal" in the past, this is simply one more example.


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

I don't see abortion at very early stages as murder these cases that are further along I feel are wrong. It is a life but it's not a life we can physically hold yet so it's more acceptable to discardit. 
I am pro choice because I shouldn't dictate if a woman that is raped has to keep the rapists baby, but really any other reason I look at it as wrong. You make your own choices and you should deal with the consequences of those choices.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> More like people ,with at least a decent understanding of biology and a conscience, identify abortion as murder.
> 
> You are correct. Currently, if a woman gets pregnant, she can decide to kill the child living inside her. We have allowed some abhorrent things to be "legal" in the past, this is simply one more example.


I've taken biology, human biology, anatomy and physiology I & II, biochemistry, genetics, plus two internships and I don't think abortion is murder. Believe it or not, I do have a conscience and I sleep like a baby. Murder is a legal term and the definition includes "unlawful" thus abortion is not murder. 

I think you missed my point, when *you* get pregnant *you* can decide to terminate or carry the pregnancy to term. Until then you cannot control what a woman does with her body.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Hmmmm...so, a tick becomes a part of your body...


It attaches to your skin much like a fetus attaches to the lining of your womb. Do you disagree?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> You know it is beyond silly to "muddy the water" with foolish talk of unfertilized eggs being "aborted" and somehow equating that to the willful murder of a unique unborn human. It is also silly to try and equate a viable pregnancy to a non-viable one, again to muddy up the water. or, to say we are doing the unborn a favor because they may be born into poverty. (in a country where most of the "poor" have cable TV and Play Stations)
> 
> It is a straight forward concern. We, as a culture are killing MILLIONS of unborn people every year. That is disgusting. That is immoral. I know that, no matter what, we will not stop all of the destruction, but, we should endeavor to stop as much as we can.


Post of the century award.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It attaches to your skin much like a fetus attaches to the lining of your womb. Do you disagree?


I suppose one that favors abortion at will would equate a tick and a fetus.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I've taken biology, human biology, anatomy and physiology I & II, biochemistry, genetics, plus two internships and I don't think abortion is murder. Believe it or not, I do have a conscience and I sleep like a baby. Murder is a legal term and the definition includes "unlawful" thus abortion is not murder.
> 
> I think you missed my point, when *you* get pregnant *you* can decide to terminate or carry the pregnancy to term. Until then you cannot control what a woman does with her body.


 No, I didn't miss your point, I spoke to the deeper point, that abortion is currently legal. 

I have extensive education in biology as well. I know the definition of "species" and what a human fetus is. I feel that killing a harmless, innocent human is wrong, therefore, being that the unborn are, undeniably human, it is a crime against nature/humanity to abort for purposes of birth control. It may not meet the current "legal" definition of murder, but, it certainly meets the moral definition.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Only people with control issues identify abortion as murder.
> 
> When you get pregnant you can decide to carry the pregnancy or terminate it.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.



It's so disturbing how casually you talk about the killing of an infant.

They can't have a wonderful day.

If it's not murder, what do you call it, self defense ?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Yes, out side the womb, at this point, that is true.


However just a few years ago it was not viable outside the womb b/4 32 weeks...hmmmm. And science will tell you that many at 20 weeks survive for a bit outside the womb...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> I suppose one that favors abortion at will would equate a tick and a fetus.


You don't have to resort to that. You aren't daft like many are.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. It's more than most of the pro unborn do.


This is just not true. However we've been over this many times & some will still not get it. Pro life folks do many times more than do pro choice.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

oneraddad said:


> It's so disturbing how casually you talk about the killing of an infant.
> 
> They can't have a wonderful day.
> 
> If it's not murder, what do you call it, self defense ?


Choice. It's a woman's choice. It's not casual, it can't be easy, but it's not yours, mine, or anyone but the pregnant woman's decision.

ETA: It's also theoretical to me. I have never been in the situation where I had to make that decision.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> This is just not true. However we've been over this many times & some will still not get it. Pro life folks do many times more than do pro choice.


Just because you repeat it ad nauseam doesn't make it true. The pro unborn only care prior to birth after they call for cuts that don't benefit _children_.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> We should heir on the side of life. The fetus/embryo is fully and uniquely human. We should cherish that.
> 
> If I did something to cause your kidney ailment, I would say yes, you should be allowed to take one of mine, if we were a match.


Anyone can clearly see you kidney is a part of your body. 
Again I'll ask what part of the female anatomy is a living fetus? 
And the ? of forcing you to give up a kidney is like ...what? Forcing someone to have an abortion?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> You don't have to resort to that. You aren't daft like many are.


We both know that was where you were heading. 

Btw. I am more daft than most.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just because you repeat it ad nauseam doesn't make it true. The pro unborn only care prior to birth after they call for cuts that don't benefit _children_.


 And you fall for the Leftist fallacy of believing that just because we don't want the government to do it, we don't want it done. That is false.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Anyone can clearly see you kidney is a part of your body.
> Again I'll ask what part of the female anatomy is a living fetus?
> And the ? of forcing you to give up a kidney is like ...what? Forcing someone to have an abortion?


Can anyone force you to give up a kidney? When did that happen? I thought it was a choice. 

The kidney reference proved my point tho, thank you. The fetus is part of a woman's body and she can do with it what she wants.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It attaches to your skin much like a fetus attaches to the lining of your womb. Do you disagree?


Yup it attaches, however NOT like a fetus, and it does NOT become a body part.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> And you fall for the Leftist fallacy of believing that just because we don't want the government to do it, we don't want it done. That is false.


Again, I believe what I see that has actually happened.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup it attaches and it does NOT become a body part.


The fetus _attaches_ to the lining of the uterus, yes?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> We both know that was where you were heading.
> 
> Btw. I am more daft than most.


Sigh. Where was I heading? My entire premise is: Her body Her choice. Period. 

You can pretend to be all you'd like. Is it to fit in?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can anyone force you to give up a kidney? When did that happen? I thought it was a choice.
> 
> The kidney reference proved my point tho, thank you. The fetus is part of a woman's body and she can do with it what she wants.


 
The fetus is most certainly NOT a part of the woman's body. Do you also believe that the afore mentioned tick is a part of the hosts body? I know there are some movies and comic books that would suggest that, but, those aren't true. :shocked:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Again, I believe what I see that has actually happened.


 
I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't see it if you saw it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> The fetus is most certainly NOT a part of the woman's body. Do you also believe that the afore mentioned tick is a part of the hosts body? I know there are some movies and comic books that would suggest that, but, those aren't true. :shocked:


It attaches to the woman's body. Sigh. It's a moot point isn't it? Go tell a woman she can't have an abortion, scream and cry, have a hissy fit. Then let me know where it gets you. 

When you get pregnant we can discuss this rationally, K?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that you wouldn't see it if you saw it.


I see that the conservative right tries to defund every program that supports born children. That's provable fact.

They even complain, on here anyway, about voluntary food banks. Do a search.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Only people with control issues identify abortion as murder.
> 
> When you get pregnant you can decide to carry the pregnancy or terminate it.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


Post of the millennium!! :goodjob::goodjob::goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

I don't feel all choices to end a pregnancy are just the womans. If both people made the baby then both people need to decide. Some women have the child just to be spiteful and get a check from the man. If a woman wants the kid and the man doesn't he shouldn't be forced to support the child just as if the woman doesn't want the child but the man does she shouldn't have to support the child. The stance that it is only the woman's choice is selfish and wrong. Yes women carry the baby and when women say that they feel self entitled and it implies that men do nothing. I'm a stay at home dad so I do everything for my family and that means my wife does nothing to contribute or help. I absolutely hate the statement that it's a woman's choice because it's her body. If that's the case if the man should not have to support the child if he doesn't want it. A woman can't be forced to abort then a man can't be forced to support.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> It attaches to the woman's body. Sigh. It's a moot point isn't it? Go tell a woman she can't have an abortion, scream and cry, have a hissy fit. Then let me know where it gets you.
> 
> When you get pregnant we can discuss this rationally, K?


 But, it is not part of her body, correct? You were wrong in your statement, Correct? 

I prefer to work through the legal system. It tends to work over time. It worked for the abolitionists. They were thought of as a crazy fringe group as well. Most don't think of them that way today. 

BTW, I haven't had a "hissy fit" since I was 4.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> I see that the conservative right tries to defund every program that supports born children. That's provable fact.
> 
> They even complain, on here anyway, about voluntary food banks. Do a search.


 Again, the "conservatives" on here (BTW I identify as a libertarian on just about every issue except abortion), do not represent the movement. 

I have seen no real evidence of conservatives trying to halt voluntary charity of any type, quite the opposite in fact. Conservatives, by definition, would fully support private charity. 

Your narrow view not withstanding.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wannabfarmer said:


> I don't feel all choices to end a pregnancy are just the womans. If both people made the baby then both people need to decide. Some women have the child just to be spiteful and get a check from the man. If a woman wants the kid and the man doesn't he shouldn't be forced to support the child just as if the woman doesn't want the child but the man does she shouldn't have to support the child. The stance that it is only the woman's choice is selfish and wrong. Yes women carry the baby and when women say that they feel self entitled and it implies that men do nothing. I'm a stay at home dad so I do everything for my family and that means my wife does nothing to contribute or help. I absolutely hate the statement that it's a woman's choice because it's her body. If that's the case if the man should not have to support the child if he doesn't want it. A woman can't be forced to abort then a man can't be forced to support.


 No, in the mind of most abortion supporters, the male has no choice past ejaculation. If he doesn't want to be a father he should have kept it in his pants. (I actually agree with this, but, I am not pro-abortion.)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> But, it is not part of her body, correct? You were wrong in your statement, Correct?
> 
> I prefer to work through the legal system. It tends to work over time. It worked for the abolitionists. They were thought of as a crazy fringe group as well. Most don't think of them that way today.
> 
> BTW, I haven't had a "hissy fit" since I was 4.


Nope, I'm correct. It becomes part of her body. Does it stay a permanent part of her body? No, but it is attached. You don't want to see that because it doesn't support your agenda. And it's still a moot point, isn't it? 

You aren't going to take away a woman's personal right to her own body. SCOTUS decided that right to life was in violation of the Constitution. The right to fight is yours tho. I'm curious, why do you want control of my body? Why do you think you should be able to control my body?

You missed the point again- even if you throw a hissy fit you can't stop a woman from having an abortion. 

Slavery was found to be in violation of the Constitution too, and was overturned. Just like right to life was.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

wannabfarmer said:


> I don't feel all choices to end a pregnancy are just the womans. If both people made the baby then both people need to decide. Some women have the child just to be spiteful and get a check from the man. If a woman wants the kid and the man doesn't he shouldn't be forced to support the child just as if the woman doesn't want the child but the man does she shouldn't have to support the child. The stance that it is only the woman's choice is selfish and wrong. Yes women carry the baby and when women say that they feel self entitled and it implies that men do nothing. I'm a stay at home dad so I do everything for my family and that means my wife does nothing to contribute or help. I absolutely hate the statement that it's a woman's choice because it's her body. If that's the case if the man should not have to support the child if he doesn't want it. A woman can't be forced to abort then a man can't be forced to support.


I agree with you. Does this mean you are a single dad or does your wife work to support the children?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Again, the "conservatives" on here (BTW I identify as a libertarian on just about every issue except abortion), do not represent the movement.
> 
> I have seen no real evidence of conservatives trying to halt voluntary charity of any type, quite the opposite in fact. Conservatives, by definition, would fully support private charity.
> 
> Your narrow view not withstanding.


It was on point and on topic. The conservative and/or right on this forum have a serious issue with *voluntary* food programs. The search box is in the blue line toward the right- use "summer food program".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, I'm correct. It becomes part of her body. Does it stay a permanent part of her body? No, but it is attached. You don't want to see that because it doesn't support your agenda. And it's still a moot point, isn't it?
> 
> You aren't going to take away a woman's personal right to her own body. SCOTUS decided that right to life was in violation of the Constitution. The right to fight is yours tho. I'm curious, why do you want control of my body? Why do you think you should be able to control my body?
> 
> ...


 You can say that a fetus is part of a woman's body all you want, it still doesn't make it true. It is, however much like the preverbal sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "no" over and over. 

Again I didn't miss your silly little point. 

Slavery wasn't found to be Unconstitutional until a new amendment (the 13th) was enacted.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> *You can say that a fetus is part of a woman's body all you want, it still doesn't make it true. It is, however much like the preverbal sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "no" over and over. *
> 
> Again I didn't miss your silly little point.
> 
> Slavery wasn't found to be Unconstitutional until a new amendment (the 13th) was enacted.


Back at ya!  

The point is that you can't do anything except have a hissy fit about abortion. Her body her choice. 

And with that bit of truth, I'm done arguing with you.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> It was on point and on topic. The conservative and/or right on this forum have a serious issue with *voluntary* food programs. The search box is in the blue line toward the right- use "summer food program".


In some ways you seem bright enough but in others you burn so dim. 

The entire counter point of the other thread was so lost on you. I'm not going to reiterate it, because I know you got it. You simply failed to concede it when it could have complemented your more simple point of charity. Maybe there is where I give you too much credit. Simple you get, while the complex escapes your grasp.


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

Gapeach, no I'm not a single dad I was just using the point of my wife is a workaholic and I literally do everything for our children and was asking/making more of a statement that by the standards of involvement that she has no right to tell me what values or beliefs I teach OUR children. Pregnancy is a two way street the only time a woman should have full decision is artificial insemination and if they are raped. Other then that it should be a decision between both people. What about a lesbian couple. They both can't carry the baby but that doesn't make one less of a parent right?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Back at ya!
> 
> The point is that you can't do anything except have a hissy fit about abortion. Her body her choice.
> 
> And with that bit of truth, I'm done arguing with you.


 
I can fight, I can lobby, I can protest, I can vote. I can contribute money, I can teach. See there is a short, non-exhaustive list of things I can do that do not involve any "hissy fits".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> *In some ways you seem bright enough but in others you burn so dim. *
> 
> The entire counter point of the other thread *was so lost on you*. I'm not going to reiterate it, because I know you got it. You simply failed to concede it when it could have complemented your more simple point of charity. Maybe there is *where I give you too much credit*. *Simple you get, while the complex escapes your grasp*.


Why do you have to use personal insults? 

Bottom line: Her body Her choice. Abortion is legal. Yes?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Maybe all those that failed to grasp your simple concept were high.





HDRider said:


> Simple you get, while the complex escapes your grasp.


I doubt they were high, I think they just don't grasp the concept. Most likely because they have had other ideas drilled into them from a very early age. Things like sex before marriage is immoral, along with a host of other nonsense that makes it difficult to open their minds to anything other than those preconceived notions.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with being taught moral values and keeping them. The biggest upside is that you don't get called a ---- and the other is you don't have to ever even have to worry about being pregnant before you have a life committed partner at your side.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> There is nothing wrong with being taught moral values and keeping them. The biggest upside is that you don't get called a ---- and the other is you don't have to ever even have to worry about being pregnant before you have a life committed partner at your side.


Just because a woman has sex outside of marriage doesn't mean she's a wh*re. Judging other women is an ugly thing, sl*t shaming is worse. A woman that enjoys sex is simply a woman that enjoys sex. 

I'm curious, is a guy that has premarital sex a wh*re too? Do you judge and shame him as harshly, or is it just women?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> There is nothing wrong with being taught moral values and keeping them. The biggest upside is that you don't get called a ---- and the other is you don't have to ever even have to worry about being pregnant before you have a life committed partner at your side.


Even when those moral values are self conflicting? On one banner "we must deny nature and prevent the continuation of life" and the other banner reads "we must not deny nature, life's continuation must go forward."


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I personally don't care who/what/when/where one chooses to diddle, as long as everyone involved in doing it of their own free will and all age requirements are met.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just because a woman has sex outside of marriage doesn't mean she's a wh*re. Judging other women is an ugly thing, sl*t shaming is worse. A woman that enjoys sex is simply a woman that enjoys sex.
> 
> I'm curious, is a guy that has premarital sex a wh*re too? Do you judge and shame him as harshly, or is it just women?


My post did not criticize anyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Just because a woman has sex outside of marriage doesn't mean she's a wh*re. Judging other women is an ugly thing, sl*t shaming is worse. A woman that enjoys sex is simply a woman that enjoys sex.
> 
> I'm curious, is a guy that has premarital sex a wh*re too? Do you judge and shame him as harshly, or is it just women?


That goes one of several ways.... If you are the girl he's having sex with he's called "fantastic", "dream lover", "greatest thing that ever walked". if you are the girl he won't have anything to do with he's a "hound" not to be trusted, if you are the girl he had sex with last week and threw you over for the new girl in school... He's a worthless scumbag that deserves to rot in hell.

Eta: or he could just be the captain of the football team. Blameless of any wrong doing....


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Even when those moral values are self conflicting? On one banner "we must deny nature and prevent the continuation of life" and the other banner reads "we must not deny nature, life's continuation must go forward."



Something you have never had, you don't miss.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> My post did not criticize anyone.


Your statement, "There is nothing wrong with being taught moral values and keeping them. The biggest upside is that you don't get called a ---- and the other is you don't have to ever even have to worry about being pregnant before you have a life committed partner at your side." isn't judging (and sl*t shaming) women that have premarital sex? Were you referring to yourself as a wh*re? If not, you were "criticizing" someone else.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> Something you have never had, you don't miss.


Please clarify... That could be taken any number of ways.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That goes one of several ways.... If you are the girl he's having sex with he's called "fantastic", "dream lover", "greatest thing that ever walked". if you are the girl he won't have anything to do with he's a "hound" not to be trusted, if you are the girl he had sex with last week and threw you over for the new girl in school... He's a worthless scumbag that deserves to rot in hell.


Different context, YH. I'm not referring to anything other than why a _woman_ that has premarital sex is a wh*re but a _man_ isn't. I believe old school ignorance dictates that a man that has multiple sex partners is "sowing his wild oats" but a woman that does is a sl*t.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

If you have never had sex before, you don't know what it is all about. Simple as the day is long.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> If you have never had sex before, you don't know what it is all about. Simple as the day is long.


Thanks for clarifying, for a while there I wasn't sure if it was that or maybe if one never had morals.... Or maybe if one has never breathed air.... Or any of a bunch of other things.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Different context, YH. I'm not referring to anything other than why a _woman_ that has premarital sex is a wh*re but a _man_ isn't. I believe old school ignorance dictates that a man that has multiple sex partners is "sowing his wild oats" but a woman that does is a sl*t.


Being from the old school myself, we used to call those girls "darlin".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Being from the old school myself, we used to call those girls "darlin".


Do you actually believe that double standard?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you actually believe that double standard?


I beleive other girls probably beleive it, I never did. I do beleive a lot of women from that era have more hang ups than a walkin closet when it comes to sex.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> Something you have never had, you don't miss.


Ok but exactly what does this have to do with self conflicting morals?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Say I wish to improve America, so I donate funds to political people... because I want better government.

If I take my money and give it to Hillary but find out that she is lieing so I give the money to trump.​
My reasons are... Hillary has lots on funds in her foundation, people got killed under her watch, she sent important secrets over and unsecured email, she deleted email.. and her charity spends 90% of the funds for herself and cronies with only 10% to people in need.

Now, the government is saying not to ppl for funding but will take those dollars and give it to the very same places pp has been referring (and collected funds for referrals only). No care to people us lost or shorted...


What ill be missed is the following funding




http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/0...urns-tax-dollars-into-donations-to-democrats/

https://secure.fox.com/proxy/www.fo...-workers-pacs-donated-25m-to-dems-since-2000/

Planned Parenthood
Summary Recipients Donors Expenditures PAC to PAC/Party
Contributions to Federal Candidates, 2014 cycle
Select a Cycle: 

House
Total to Democrats: $404,907
Total to Republicans: $2,823
Recipient
Total
Adams, Alma (D-NC)	$5,199
Aguilar, Pete (D-CA)	$7,500
Appel, Staci (D-IA)	$3,588
Ashford, Brad (D-NE)	$500
Barber, Ron (D-AZ)	$5,000
Becerra, Xavier (D-CA)	$1,000
Belgard, Aimee (D-NJ)	$7,500
Bera, Ami (D-CA)

Edited to add that is is a snippet interested minds can read for them selves.. those uninterested in reality.... Will just continue repeating the decreasing if funds for families...

Which is about as truthfully as it was a video...causing death and a riot.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok but exactly what does this have to do with self conflicting morals?


In my opinion, nothing. It was just a way to indicate superiority over other women.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> Something you have never had, you don't miss.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Please clarify... That could be taken any number of ways.





gapeach said:


> If you have never had sex before, you don't know what it is all about. Simple as the day is long.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thanks for clarifying, for a while there I wasn't sure if it was that or maybe if one never had morals.... Or maybe if one has never breathed air.... Or any of a bunch of other things.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok but exactly what does this have to do with self conflicting morals?


Sorry but I still don't get what "not missing what you never had" has to do with my question about self conflicting morals? I get that those who never had sex don't know what it's all about, a lot of people who have been having sex for years still don't know what it's all about either.  but that has nothing to do with moral values that contradict each other.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

There has to be more self satisfying ways of amusement than going round and round with people on a squirrel ride.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSHH26_Q8ts[/ame]


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

i'm not very clear on the double standard of calling women wh*res and guys are great. i'm only 30 but when i was in high school boys did call girls wh*res but it was mainly other girls calling other girls wh*ores. many of the same girls calling the other girls names were next in line to be with the main guy screwing around with all of the girls. maybe my age has me at a little bit of a disadvantage but that is what i witnessed in school and still to this day. i was never one to just sleep around. i was freaked out over getting something or her getting pregnant not saying i never had sex it just wasn't a main priority.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> There has to be more self satisfying ways of amusement than going round and round with people on a squirrel ride.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSHH26_Q8ts


That's just too cute!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabfarmer said:


> i'm not very clear on the double standard of calling women wh*res and guys are great. i'm only 30 but when i was in high school boys did call girls wh*res but it was mainly other girls calling other girls wh*ores. many of the same girls calling the other girls names were next in line to be with the main guy screwing around with all of the girls. maybe my age has me at a little bit of a disadvantage but that is what i witnessed in school and still to this day. i was never one to just sleep around. i was freaked out over getting something or her getting pregnant *not saying i never had sex it just wasn't a main priority*.


ok, now I am curious.... What was your main priority? After 64 years of trying all sorts of things I have yet to find anything that runs even a distant second to having sex!


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

going on dates having fun and planning my life out. you focused on the wrong part of the sentence because i didn't come out and say i had a lot of sex you assumed i didn't have very much sex. your priority might have been to have a lot of sex. my priority was to secure my future as much as possible. being that you are 64 years old IF you started having sex around high school age you flat out did not have as many diseases to worry about as i did or kids today. many diseases didn't blow up until the late 70's to 80's so yea if i were born the same time as you i would be less hesitant to sleep with just anyone.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I did understand what you said, and I called you on the hypocrisy.


You cannot call me on hypocrisy because you don't know me at all.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> You cannot call me on hypocrisy because you don't know me at all.


I know that you think woman that had sex before marriage are wh*res. That's more than enough for me. 

Perhaps self perceived superiority would be better than hypocrisy since you wouldn't answer my question on the double standard. I can hazard a guess what it was tho.

ETA: This is what was originally posted, "There is nothing wrong with being taught moral values and keeping them. The biggest upside is that you don't get called a ---- and the other is you don't have to ever even have to worry about being pregnant before you have a life committed partner at your side."

*Note the present tense.*


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know that you think woman that had sex before marriage are wh*res. That's more than enough for me.
> 
> Perhaps self perceived superiority would be better than hypocrisy since you wouldn't answer my question on the double standard. I can hazard a guess what it was tho.


No, I do not think that at all. This is a different era now, in several different eras later than the one that I grew up in. I graduated HS in 1958 after 12 years in a very small school, 33 in my graduating class. We had all known each other from early childhood and we knew everything about each other. I had boyfriends and had a very active social life but it was different then. The teachers and principals demanded respect between the boys and girls and that is the way it was. It is not hypocrisy. I got married when I was 19. No I do not think it was a double standard. It was the way we were all raised. Maybe I missed a lot but I would take anything for the close friendships all of us have had throughout the years.
My husband was a few grades ahead of me but he went to the same school all those yrs too. We've been married 55 years. I think it will last. We have always had our HS reunions together .


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> You cannot call me on hypocrisy because you don't know me at all.


There's no need for anyone to be calling anyone out for hippocracy or anything else. Just trying to have a civil discussion about choices people make. 

Ops, Sorry bout that , thought I was directing this at IP


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Everytime I make a comment, no matter what it is, she jumps on it and baits me or calls me a hypocrite or says that I say something nasty.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabfarmer said:


> going on dates having fun and planning my life out. you focused on the wrong part of the sentence because i didn't come out and say i had a lot of sex you assumed i didn't have very much sex. your priority might have been to have a lot of sex. my priority was to secure my future as much as possible. being that you are 64 years old IF you started having sex around high school age you flat out did not have as many diseases to worry about as i did or kids today. many diseases didn't blow up until the late 70's to 80's so yea if i were born the same time as you i would be less hesitant to sleep with just anyone.


We had plenty of undesirable diseases back in my day too, don't think anyone wanted them then either.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

gapeach said:


> Everytime I make a comment, no matter what it is, she jumps on it and baits me or calls me a hypocrite or says that I say something nasty.


Yeppers, there's those like that, when they do it to me I don't take the bait.


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We had plenty of undesirable diseases back in my day too, don't think anyone wanted them then either.


population is higher and more diseases today i was just stating that there is more risk today than 40-50 years ago. i don't think anyone that wants to intentionally get a disease haha. i'm the "weirdo" that got tested every month and also had anyone i was planning on having sex with get tested before we did anything.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

wannabfarmer said:


> population is higher and more diseases today i was just stating that there is more risk today than 40-50 years ago. i don't think anyone that wants to intentionally get a disease haha. i'm the "weirdo" that got tested every month and also had anyone i was planning on having sex with get tested before we did anything.


You were smart to do that!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

gapeach said:


> Everytime I make a comment, no matter what it is, she jumps on it and baits me or calls me a hypocrite or says that I say something nasty.


Why don't you report it? If I'm truly baiting the mods will delete it.  *If not, perhaps it's because it's my opinion and you just don't like it?*


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Irish Pixie said:


> The point was that if the mods don't delete it, I'm not trolling. Sigh.


Perhaps change your name to Irish Troll or Orc?

It's funny since the looser rules, when us from the left respond or stand up, it is trolling, but there is never any conservative trolling. I can't figure it out.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

gapeach said:


> Everybody knows what you mean and what you do. Just like Nevada just explained to me about what happened in Saudi Arabia. He said my comment was not nasty but that is what you do. You call people names, make comments about being nasty, and just generally try to start arguments. It's not just to me. Sigh.


Let's see in my 8 years here I have seen libatards, lieberals, progressive commies, etc. I think name calling has a fine tradition here.

And then we have the formal name calling Obummer, BigButtsomethingorother, Lieden, Idiot in Charge.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

keenataz said:


> Perhaps change your name to Irish Troll or Orc?
> 
> It's funny since the looser rules, when us from the left respond or stand up, it is trolling, but there is never any conservative trolling. I can't figure it out.


Spot on. It used to be if we posted like some of the conservatives here we got banned. Now we post like them and they get irate amd start sending PM's to each other, then tell us that they all agree in their PM's. Like it matters to anyone.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Could we all not bicker please, I'm far more interested in this thread topic than I am about the "who shot John" nonsense. We already know there are those who bait and wait. I would like to hear more about why people think it's ok to deny a child it's life in one statement and yet deny others the same right in the next. As the thread title indicates.... It looks a lot like choice to me.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

I finally read through this entire thread and I go back to what I said in earlier similar threads. There really is no point in arguing. No one is going to change their minds. 

I certainly believe everyone should give their opinion. But then we have the same arguments and same hard feelings.

This does seem to be a very important issue to the anti abortion side. What I would hope you would do wherever you live is when a anti abortion candidate makes it an important plank in their promises to ensure they follow up on it when elected. As I recall both Reagan and Bush II were very anti abortion during campaigns. But once elected not so much. Because until you do, it will remain the same.

And I truly believe that the powers that be love the population focused on issues like this while they do their backroom deals and we miss them.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Maybe stick to the topic at hand so I we don't set a record for the most closed threads in one day.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

The opening post is essentially a either/or proposition, with no grey area whatsoever.

That may be great for generating a useless debate, but it's not very good when applied to life.

I'm pro-life. Very, very strongly pro-life. But I'm also extremely pro-justice. If you'll notice, the Bible ends with Revelation. A lot of that book is concerned with Justice.

_ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire._

Now, if that ain't Justice, I don't know what is. We're talking eternal torment, so it looks to me like God may place a higher value on Justice than on Life.

Which is why I can understand the point of abortion if done in the wake of rape or incest, especially if done very early in the pregnancy. Yes, it's gut-wrenching. Yes, it's killing. But I think Justice for the woman (not having to carry the product of a horrible experience) outweighs the Life of the Innocent.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> The opening post is essentially a either/or proposition, with no grey area whatsoever.
> 
> That may be great for generating a useless debate, but it's not very good when applied to life.
> 
> ...


It's hard to find any grey areas when discussing life and it's ever continuing cycle since it first appeared on the planet. How that may have happened is a whole nuther topic, I was hoping to get aa better grasp on how various people justify the choices they make regarding the interference of the life cycle. So far very few have even bothered to admit that it's an ongoing cycle in spite of the very clear evidence that it is.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Maybe stick to the topic at hand so I we don't set a record for the most closed threads in one day.


thank you for not closing the thread, they have been fairly well behaved up until today.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabfarmer said:


> population is higher and more diseases today i was just stating that there is more risk today than 40-50 years ago. i don't think anyone that wants to intentionally get a disease haha. i'm the "weirdo" that got tested every month and* also had anyone i was planning on having sex with get tested before we did anything.*


Wow, somehow I think that would be a real mood killer! not to mention a waste of good food and drink getting her in the mood!


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

Doesn't really matter what you think. I'm disease free and still had plenty of sex. I actually got sex just from being a stickler about how safe I was. I e had the pleasure of meaningful relationships and am still friends with a few. 2 were actually in the bridal party at my wedding. Call it weird I call it blessed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabfarmer said:


> Doesn't really matter what you think. I'm disease free and still had plenty of sex. I actually got sex just from being a stickler about how safe I was. I e had the pleasure of meaningful relationships and am still friends with a few. 2 were actually in the bridal party at my wedding. Call it weird I call it blessed.


Yep, those relationships sound quite meaningful if not long lasting.


----------



## wannabfarmer (Jun 30, 2015)

Thanks for reading too much into things


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wannabfarmer said:


> Thanks for reading too much into things


Sorry about that. It was rather presumptuous of me to think you were no longer sleeping with those girls. To each their own.


----------

