# Floating abortion clinic proposed in the Gulf of Mexico



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Posted 7/13/22 9:18 P.M. CDST









Floating abortion clinic proposed in Gulf to bypass bans


MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — A California doctor is proposing a floating abortion clinic in the Gulf of Mexico as a way to maintain access for people in southern states where abortion bans have been enacted.




apnews.com





I wonder how this will play out considering the ship would be sea docked in federal water and so many states passed laws while the big argument was before the Court.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shrek said:


> Posted 7/13/22 9:18 P.M. CDST
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like a bad horror movie in the works! “Slaughter ship sails at midnight”


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

Sucks for any company that uses fetal tissue.
Just chuck it over the side.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

If abortion ships aren't successful maybe they can do it on abortion airplanes. 

Who has jurisdiction and controls the air space?

.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> If abortion ships aren't successful maybe they can do it on abortion airplanes.
> 
> Who has jurisdiction and controls the air space?
> 
> .


FAA
Federal Aviation Administration does here.

Turbulence would definitely be a problem. Air pressure and other issues may be overcome without much hassle. Be expensive though!


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Who would board a boat or a helicopter to fly out to the gulf to get an abortion when they could get on a plane and fly to California? An abortion mill in the Gulf would be nothing but a huge financial loss.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

MoonRiver said:


> Who would board a boat or a helicopter to fly out to the gulf to get an abortion when they could get on a plane and fly to California? An abortion mill in the Gulf would be nothing but a huge financial loss.


…a huge financial loss that we’ll pay for, so they won’t care. The Hyde amendment is and has been nothing but a book-keeping speed bump since its inception.

The left doesn’t actually care about following the law. They want their way, and will lie, cheat, and steal to get it. The SCOTUS, stating the obvious, says that the right to armament IS in the constitution, and the right to abortion is not. So, the left decides to ignore both rulings, fighting for tax-paid abortion mills in federal space, and make every private place, by default, gun-free zones.

There is no rule of law anymore; only rule of feelz.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> FAA
> Federal Aviation Administration does here.
> 
> Turbulence would definitely be a problem. Air pressure and other issues may be overcome without much hassle. Be expensive though!


I was really only making a facetious joke about abortion planes since it wouldn't be a practical alternative, but you brought up good points about problems that could occur in the air. I think issues with air pressure actually could cause some really serious problems for some people whose bodies are extremely sensitive to changes in air pressure. But somebody could create a special _delivery_ service (pun intended) with special discounted rates to fly the patient directly from point A to point B in another state for the procedure and then back home again. They could still call the air service "abortion flights". 💫

.


----------



## Forcast (Apr 15, 2014)

The cruise ships could offer abortion weekend cruise package


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

Or you could get in your car, drive a few hundred miles at most, and get it done in the next state. Or even better, if you don't want a baby don't make one.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

wouldn't it cost significantly less to fly to Vegas 

tell people your going to Vegas just checked prices and if your willing to fly on a Thursday and a Monday 175 round trip

these people toss out big ideas and don't ever stop to think of the economics of anything 

I mean I hat to give them any good ideas but if they are that committed to the idea some were in Illinois build a facility that is gated that only the facility vans enter and leave that they run vans from different states white unmarked vans pick up people at a time and location drive them to the facility they have their baby extracted spend the night and return the next day , have the Dr also come and go via the same type of transport give it some very benign name like health care research for a DBA name.
you can only get a referral from a out state provider for initial screening so planned parrenthood or other like places could pre screen , then refer and the patient would get dropped off at the van meet up spot close to where they live dropped back off at a drop off point.

like I said I hat to give them any ideas but they don't seem to think things out for economy at all.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> Or you could get in your car, drive a few hundred miles at most, and get it done in the next state. Or even better, if you don't want a baby don't make one.


the argument your going to hear is many of the people seeking abortions don't have a car or income to travel.
people are willing to throw million at fighting the decision when they could all kick in a 20 each month and every woman who ever wanted an abortion could have the van ride and procedure paid for. 

at the same time they could avoid many the issues with anti abortion protesters at clinics 

like I said I hate to give them any good ideas on how to kill more babies but they just aren't deep thinkers , lots of emotion and big ideas.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> the argument your going to hear is many of the people seeking abortions don't have a car or income to travel.
> people are willing to throw million at fighting the decision when they could all kick in a 20 each month and every woman who ever wanted an abortion could have the van ride and procedure paid for.
> 
> at the same time they could avoid many the issues with anti abortion protesters at clinics
> ...


I know. But they have money for smokes, booze, and to party.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

JeffreyD said:


> FAA
> Federal Aviation Administration does here.
> 
> Turbulence would definitely be a problem. Air pressure and other issues may be overcome without much hassle. Be expensive though!


Disoriented on the Murder Express.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> I know. But they have money for smokes, booze, and to party.


I would guess there are typically a lot of men willing to buy drinks , booze , smokes to have company at the party.

don't clubs often offer ladies get in free or is that now not a thing in woke 2022 

besides all that comes 20 dollars at a time


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I think that a abortion ship is a good idea. The actual medical area wouldn't need to take up too much space. The rest of the ship could be casinos, clubs, and accommodations. This would ensure a lot of repeat business.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

I had heard at one time after they outlawed butchering horses in the states, they were processing them off shore.
Don't know if that is still going on or not?


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> I think that a abortion ship is a good idea. The actual medical area wouldn't need to take up too much space. The rest of the ship could be casinos, clubs, and accommodations. This would ensure a lot of repeat business.


technically it could maybe even be a river boat on the Mississippi , that was how gambling was legal for many years , it is Federal water way 

had a friend that got out of the navy and was a pilot then maintenance on a river boat casino

when they first started they had to be on a cruse before a hand could be dealt , then all they had to do was lift the ramp eventually they didn't even have to do that.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

Fishindude said:


> I had heard at one time after they outlawed butchering horses in the states, they were processing them off shore.
> Don't know if that is still going on or not?


most of those states also put in a transport law , it killed the industry and they go in a compost pile or land fill now , it is a huge pain to get rid of old horses , my aunt ran a stable for a while and people would abandon horses on stables , who couldn't do hardly anything with them, my uncle would have shot them but you get in trouble if a vet doesn't put them down and the vet wants to let them live out a natural life. legal mess you basically have to put a mechanics lean on the horse and when your lean exceeds the value of the horse and x time passes , notice is given , then the horse can be sold.
but in 2009 2010 you couldn't give a horse away. they closed the stable other ways to make money with less hours and troubles.
my uncle wasn't , isn't a horse guy really he runs a construction business and is plenty busy with that.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

I think a floating gun store would succeed and evade gun laws.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

poppy said:


> I think a floating gun store would succeed and evade gun laws.


how , federal law puts that in the states hands , while providing the laws that must minimally be followed , and international arms treaty is an issue if you happen to be headed to international waters you are importing and exporting


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> most of those states also put in a transport law , it killed the industry and they go in a compost pile or land fill now , it is a huge pain to get rid of old horses , my aunt ran a stable for a while and people would abandon horses on stables , who couldn't do hardly anything with them, my uncle would have shot them but you get in trouble if a vet doesn't put them down and the vet wants to let them live out a natural life. legal mess you basically have to put a mechanics lean on the horse and when your lean exceeds the value of the horse and x time passes , notice is given , then the horse can be sold.
> but in 2009 2010 you couldn't give a horse away. they closed the stable other ways to make money with less hours and troubles.
> my uncle wasn't , isn't a horse guy really he runs a construction business and is plenty busy with that.


Thank you for posting this! I had toyed around with the idea of boarding horses. I had never thought of this aspect of it.

How about instead of finding new and inventive ways to kill children, we put this effort into reforming adoption! Let's just love them all.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Amen sister!


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

muleskinner2 said:


> Or you could get in your car, drive a few hundred miles at most, and get it done in the next state. Or even better, if you don't want a baby don't make one.


Logic escapes some.


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> don't clubs often offer ladies get in free or is that now not a thing in woke 2022


Still a thing. Just more confusing for some.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

kinderfeld said:


> Still a thing. Just more confusing for some.


Got me wondering now... if I go to the local on ladies' night and claim to be female... do they have to give me the half price drinks???


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

TxMex said:


> Thank you for posting this! I had toyed around with the idea of boarding horses. I had never thought of this aspect of it.
> 
> How about instead of finding new and inventive ways to kill children, we put this effort into reforming adoption! Let's just love them all.


please don't take my thinking about the logistics of things as an acceptance of baby murder , it is murder 

my ancestry is eastern European Jew and a mix of Scandinavian. so learning about the holocausts I knew my name would have been on a list for a train ride to Auschwitz if my grandfather hadn't been born in the US and serving in the USN WWII 
but at the same time my interest in logistics had me seeing so many in-efficiencies in the German model.
yes it is morbid 

by the way did you know a Jew invented zyklon-b as a de-lousing agent.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

poppy said:


> I think a floating gun store would succeed and evade gun laws.


There’s actually an even better avenue, but the ATF (Surprise! Surprise!) overstepped their regulatory authority and squashed it.

Part of the judicial justification for the NFA was that guns, such as those regulated, are part of interstate commerce. A silencer company opened up (MO, I believe) that said they’d only sell to MO residents - _and scuttlebutt was that they were standing by to make machine guns, since the ATF considers the change in classification (ie. drilling the third hole) as “the making”_- The ATF swooped in and shut them down in a tacit admission that the interstate commerce clause only figures when it is used to grant them more power.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> There’s actually an even better avenue, but the ATF (Surprise! Surprise!) overstepped their regulatory authority and squashed it.
> 
> Part of the judicial justification for the NFA was that guns, such as those regulated, are part of interstate commerce. A silencer company opened up (MO, I believe) that said they’d only sell to MO residents - _and scuttlebutt was that they were standing by to make machine guns, since the ATF considers the change in classification (ie. drilling the third hole) as “the making”_- The ATF swooped in and shut them down in a tacit admission that the interstate commerce clause only figures when it is used to grant them more power.


I thought it was Kansas , but yes


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> most of those states also put in a transport law , it killed the industry and they go in a compost pile or land fill now ,


There are truck loads of them going into Mexico, every night. I check the craigslist adds in Tucson every day. Horse hay is over $450.00 per ton. There are a lot of young unbroke horses and a lot of old horses for sale cheap. Two years a trained rope horse was selling for ten to fifteen thousand. Now they are twenty five hundred.

If you want to gage the economy in the western states, just look at the price of sport, and pleasure riding horses.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

kinderfeld said:


> Logic escapes some.


They are blowing this thing way out of proportion. Even if you lived in a state that banned abortion, no where in the country are you more than a few hours drive from a place where you could get it done. And I guarantee you State Line Clinics will start popping up. Just like the county line liquor stores, next to dry counties. They are using this hustle for the up coming mid terms.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

Perhaps Mr. Musk will have a weekend Abortion Space Flight for the well-to-do. Watch for it on Twitter!


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Elon has 9 kids so he has missed a few flights.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

gilberte said:


> Perhaps Mr. Musk will have a weekend Abortion Space Flight for the well-to-do. Watch for it on Twitter!


His Dad just had a child with his step daughter 😳. I think it is their 2nd child. He and Elon feel that we do not have enough births happening and seem to feel they need to produce children.


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

TxMex said:


> How about instead of finding new and inventive ways to kill children, we put this effort into reforming adoption! Let's just love them all.


73 million abortions world wide every year. How many of those children are you planning on taking and loving into your own home? And again next year, and the year after, and the year after that?. How many of those children would be born drug addicted or badly handicapped or fetal alcohol syndrome? How many of those into your own home? Or do you expect soneone esle to take care of the problem and all your responsibility is to point out that something needs to be done?

The world could sure use some better contraception, something easier and safer and the world could use some more consequences for the male half that contributes to a pregnacy and then maybe the men would be more careful about what their sperm is doing.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

oregon woodsmok said:


> 73 million abortions world wide every year. How many of those children are you planning on taking and loving into your own home? And again next year, and the year after, and the year after that?. How many of those children would be born drug addicted or badly handicapped or fetal alcohol syndrome? How many of those into your own home? Or do you expect soneone esle to take care of the problem and all your responsibility is to point out that something needs to be done?
> 
> The world could sure use some better contraception, something easier and safer and the world could use some more consequences for the male half that contributes to a pregnacy and then maybe the men would be more careful about what their sperm is doing.


Abortion is NOT the answer and is NOT birth control. There are lots of different options for birth control including semi-permanent. I have no problem whatsoever with tax dollars being used for tubal ligation and vasectomies as well as other forms of birth control. I will continue to actively protest (yep, I show up) and do all I can to stop taxpayer funded abortion. Please don't go into the old tired argument of that gov doesn't pay for abortions. Just look up how much we give planned parenthood each year. Then look up how much they contribute to democratic politicians 😒🤔
Both parties 'at the party' need to step up and be responsible. The purpose of sex is procreation. It feels good so we will do it. Part of the curse on Eve for the original sin was that she would desire her husband. So we do indeed have a drive to have sex. I'm not about to be one of these nieve people that preaches abstinence.
You asked how many I would personally take into my home. I would take as many as I can reasonably take care of. That would depend on the ages and any disabilities that the child might have. Yes I would gladly take a child with disabilities.
I have tried to adopt but have been unable to because I can't do foster care. Again, I'm a realist, I love children. If I were fostering a child and cps wanted to return that child to a bad situation I'd end up in jail. 
I had checked into adoption in Mexico but have not followed through with it because at that time I was very close to end stage renal failure. Covid helped that along in 2020. I was blessed with a transplant in 2021 and thank God I have a new Dr that has changed my meds so that maybe adoption might be an option for older children at some point.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

oregon woodsmok said:


> 73 million abortions world wide every year. How many of those children are you planning on taking and loving into your own home? And again next year, and the year after, and the year after that?. How many of those children would be born drug addicted or badly handicapped or fetal alcohol syndrome? How many of those into your own home? Or do you expect soneone esle to take care of the problem and all your responsibility is to point out that something needs to be done.


Are you asking if someone else is supposed to take care of the problem created by someone else?
There most certainly would be an enormous burden put on the American government and its people if abortion were to be nonexistent. But as long as there is money available for illegal aliens, foreign governments, bail outs for corporations, money for studying cow farts and stimulus checks, buying oil from overseas, green new deals, money can be made available for supporting mothers and children.
Life is life whether someone is able to lend a hand to help or not.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

@GTX63 excellent points.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Abortion is birth control. It is birth control when pregnancy prevention does not work. Ending a pregnancy you don't want is being responsible.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Abortion is birth control. It is birth control when pregnancy prevention does not work. Ending a pregnancy you don't want is being responsible.


yup basically just pre birth Eugenics

some times killing stupid people before they hurt others is also being responsible , but it doesn't mean you don't do prison time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Abortion is birth control. It is birth control when pregnancy prevention does not work. Ending a pregnancy you don't want is being responsible.


You call it birth control. Today many can call it what it is… premeditated murder.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> You call it birth control. Today many can call it what it is… premeditated murder.


And yet you still don't support a federal ban?


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Abortion is birth control. It is birth control when pregnancy prevention does not work. Ending a pregnancy you don't want is being responsible.


Well, since it's killing a child.. How about if the child is born looking different than you'd hoped or with a cleft lip or blind or with a birth defect or heck you just changed your mind? At what point is it wrong to kill a child? Or is there an age? 
Gee this person isn't very productive or attractive or they think differently than I want them to. Is it ok to kill them?
Killing is killing. 
No, ending a pregnancy is not being responsible. Having that child and placing it with loving parents is being responsible. An abortion is the least responsible most cop-out thing you can do.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TxMex said:


> Well, since it's killing a child.. How about if the child is born looking different than you'd hoped or with a cleft lip or blind or with a birth defect or heck you just changed your mind? At what point is it wrong to kill a child? Or is there an age?
> Gee this person isn't very productive or attractive or they think differently than I want them to. Is it ok to kill them?
> Killing is killing.
> No, ending a pregnancy is not being responsible. Having that child and placing it with loving parents is being responsible. An abortion is the least responsible most cop-out thing you can do.


Going to a false equivalence does not support your stance. For the major part of pregnancy there is no person who dies. Just the removal of tissue. Especially if it is early. It is not a woman's responsibility to remain pregnant so others can have an infant. Plenty of children to adopt. Yes even those with a cleft lip.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> And yet you still don't support a federal ban?


It’s not the federal governments job. Which part of that is giving you trouble? Now, I would indeed support an amendment to our constitution to grant them that power…. In a heartbeat!


----------



## kinderfeld (Jan 29, 2006)




----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kinderfeld said:


> View attachment 112241


The problem here is that we aren’t dealing with dead horses…. Dead children are a whole nuther thing!


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> It’s not the federal governments job. Which part of that is giving you trouble? Now, I would indeed support an amendment to our constitution to grant them that power…. In a heartbeat!


There are already federal laws against murder. Nothing in the constitution forbids one more.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> There are already federal laws against murder. Nothing in the constitution forbids one more.


There are a great many unconstitutional laws…. Don’t mean there should be. Pretty sure the tenth amendment forbids it. “Those powers not specifically granted by the constitution…..” and like that.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Going to a false equivalence does not support your stance. For the major part of pregnancy there is no person who dies. Just the removal of tissue. Especially if it is early. It is not a woman's responsibility to remain pregnant so others can have an infant. Plenty of children to adopt. Yes even those with a cleft lip.


You are wrong.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> There are a great many unconstitutional laws…. Don’t mean there should be.


Are you under the impression that the only constitutional federal crimes are the 3 or 4 specifically mentioned in the constitution? I suggest you go back to what you cited to me earlier: Article 1, Section 8.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TxMex said:


> You are wrong.


Nah. You just hope I am. Science says otherwise.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Nah. You just hope I am. Science says otherwise.


🤣. I encourage you to follow the science! Do actual research into the development of an unborn child. Look up when his or her heart starts beating, brain activity, sucking their little thumbs and all of the amazing developments they go through. 
The thing is....you have to use real actual factual neutral science. Not the doctored BS that is being promoted.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TxMex said:


> 🤣. I encourage you to follow the science! Do actual research into the development of an unborn child. Look up when his or her heart starts beating, brain activity, sucking their little thumbs and all of the amazing developments they go through.
> The thing is....you have to use real actual factual neutral science. Not the doctored BS that is being promoted.


I have. No higher brain activity until around 20 weeks. A beating heart or sucking a thumb are not higher brain activity.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Are you under the impression that the only constitutional federal crimes are the 3 or 4 specifically mentioned in the constitution? I suggest you go back to what you cited to me earlier: Article 1, Section 8.


Ok, please find where the feds have the power to create laws prohibiting murder.

”
*Section. 8.*
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”


So instead of limiting the feds powers you think the above means “do anything you want”?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> So instead of limiting the feds powers you think the above means “do anything you want”?


Nope, only necessary and proper to execute its powers. SCOTUS confirms it's constitutional, and they're the bosses (because they said so).


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> Nope, only necessary and proper to execute its powers. SCOTUS confirms it's constitutional, and they're the bosses (because they said so).


And thank goodness we finally have a court that understands the governments proper role and is unraveling the mess that’s been made since fdr.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

TxMex said:


> 🤣. I encourage you to follow the science! Do actual research into the development of an unborn child. Look up when his or her heart starts beating, brain activity, sucking their little thumbs and all of the amazing developments they go through.
> The thing is....you have to use real actual factual neutral science. Not the doctored BS that is being promoted.


Excellent post. I do enjoy listening to pro life women and mothers of all backgrounds.
I heard an old woman tell her grandaughter once "Caring about more than yourself isn't for everyone."


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Evons hubby said:


> And thank goodness we finally have a court that understands the governments proper role and is unraveling the mess that’s been made since fdr.


Goes back way before that, I think about a year after the constitution was ratified, and then quite a bit more in the 1800s. 

Pretty sure this court would uphold a fed abortion ban if it was written in a way that fits their philosophy. But it's moot anyway since there aren't the votes to pass it and likely won't be in the near future.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I may be changing my mind on abortion. There are a lot of people I know who I wish would have been aborted. And I don't really want them reproducing.


----------



## oldasrocks (Oct 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I was really only making a facetious joke about abortion planes since it wouldn't be a practical alternative, but you brought up good points about problems that could occur in the air. I think issues with air pressure actually could cause some really serious problems for some people whose bodies are extremely sensitive to changes in air pressure. But somebody could create a special _delivery_ service (pun intended) with special discounted rates to fly the patient directly from point A to point B in another state for the procedure and then back home again. They could still call the air service "abortion flights". 💫
> 
> .


Sky diving pregnant mothers would work too. Once the chute pops open. well?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Abortion is birth control. It is birth control when pregnancy prevention does not work. Ending a pregnancy you don't want is being responsible.


Abstinence, contraception, or sterilization (tubal ligation for a woman or vasectomy for a man), prevents conception, which prevents pregnancy, which prevents birth, and kills no one. Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy that is already in progress, which kills an unborn child. Preventing conception, to prevent pregnancy, to prevent birth, is responsible. Ending a pregnancy without a legit medical reason is just murder, plain and simple.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Going to a false equivalence does not support your stance. For the major part of pregnancy there is no person who dies. Just the removal of tissue. Especially if it is early. It is not a woman's responsibility to remain pregnant so others can have an infant. Plenty of children to adopt. Yes even those with a cleft lip.


If something is medically wrong with an unborn child or a pregnant woman during pregnancy, death could result, depending on the circumstances. Removing tissue is very different from killing and removing a living human person, which is what all humans are, at every stage of growth during their lifetime, which begins at conception and ends at death.

It is the responsibility of a man and woman to prevent unwanted conception, pregnancy, and birth. It is not however, the responsibility of everyone else, to pay for and enable abortions that are not medically necessary, so that irresponsible people can have unprotected sex with little to no consequences.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Abstinence, contraception, or sterilization (tubal ligation for a woman or vasectomy for a man), prevents conception, which prevents pregnancy, which prevents birth, and kills no one. Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy that is already in progress, which kills an unborn child. Preventing conception, to prevent pregnancy, to prevent birth, is responsible. Ending a pregnancy without a legit medical reason is just murder, plain and simple.


Abortion controls birth for those that are pregnant. Those others are to prevent pregnancy. Both are birth control.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> If something is medically wrong with an unborn child or a pregnant woman during pregnancy, death could result, depending on the circumstances. Removing tissue is very different from killing and removing a living human person, which is what all humans are, at every stage of growth during their lifetime, which begins at conception and ends at death.
> 
> It is the responsibility of a man and woman to prevent unwanted conception, pregnancy, and birth. It is not however, the responsibility of everyone else, to pay for and enable abortions that are not medically necessary, so that irresponsible people can have unprotected sex with little to no consequences.


Definitely not a person for a great portion of pregmancy. Might never be a person for many reasons.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

muleskinner2 said:


> smokes, booze, and to party.


Without that there would be riots in the streets


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Abortion controls birth for those that are pregnant. Those others are to prevent pregnancy. Both are birth control.


The term 'birth control' used to mean 'contraception' (the prevention of conception). Like many words and terms in the English language (such as woman, man, female, male, racism, violence, peaceful, etc.), the term 'birth control' has been hijacked and redefined to mean something else.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> The term 'birth control' used to mean 'contraception' (the prevention of conception). Like many words and terms in the English language (such as woman, man, female, male, racism, violence, peaceful, etc.), the term 'birth control' has been hijacked and redefined to mean something else.


Good, glad you get it . Change happens.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Without that there would be riots in the streets


Nah, just mostly peaceful protests.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Definitely not a person for a great portion of pregmancy. Might never be a person for many reasons.


A human person is a human person from the time they are conceived until the death of their body. So definitely a person for the entire pregnancy, until the death of the body, no matter what stage of growth one is in during their lifetime, no matter what condition their body is in.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> A human person is a human person from the time they are conceived until the death of their body. So definitely a person for the entire pregnancy, until the death of the body, no matter what stage of growth one is in during their lifetime, no matter what condition their body is in.


Is that a scientific definition or faith based and is your faith based opinion more relevant than the faith who would deny women access to IUD’s?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> A human person is a human person from the time they are conceived until the death of their body. So definitely a person for the entire pregnancy, until the death of the body, no matter what stage of growth one is in during their lifetime, no matter what condition their body is in.


No, a functioning brain with higher brain activity is what makes a person. If that is not present then there is no person just tissue or a body.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Folks this is the longest boxing match on record. Both fighters are bloody and staggering. They refuse to go down. How much more can they take?


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Folks this is the longest boxing match on record. Both fighters are bloody and staggering. They refuse to go down. How much more can they take?


Nah, both sides are swinging wildly but nobody has landed a hit yet.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> Nah, both sides are swinging wildly but nobody has landed a hit yet.


Seems like people can argue about anything


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

HDRider said:


> Seems like people can argue about anything


No they can't....


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

ryanthomas said:


> No they can't....


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

painterswife said:


> No, a functioning brain with higher brain activity is what makes a person. If that is not present then there is no person just tissue or a body.


So it's ok to kill stupid people?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

Our path through this world is full of tough choices and regrets. Always amazes me when people, without being asked, think they should force their choices onto others, and then expect them to live with the results.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I am not trying to land a hit. I am I stand by my stance but she keeps trying to tell me I am


gilberte said:


> So it's ok to kill stupid people?


Do you know the difference between higher brain activity and just being stupid?


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

CC Pereira said:


> If something is medically wrong with an unborn child or a pregnant woman during pregnancy, death could result, depending on the circumstances. Removing tissue is very different from killing and removing a living human person, which is what all humans are, at every stage of growth during their lifetime, which begins at conception and ends at death.
> 
> It is the responsibility of a man and woman to prevent unwanted conception, pregnancy, and birth. It is not however, the responsibility of everyone else, to pay for and enable abortions that are not medically necessary, so that irresponsible people can have unprotected sex with little to no consequences.


Well stated!



wr said:


> Is that a scientific definition or faith based and is your faith based opinion more relevant than the faith who would deny women access to IUD’s?


I am not seeing a religious debate. I was strongly pro life long before I was a Christian.

My Grandpa influenced my stance on this but I think I would have known it was wrong without his influence. He told me that my oldest cousin came to him for the money for an abortion. He never forgave her for killing his first Great Grandchild. He didn't care that she'd gotten pregnant out of marriage. That child was his Grandchild. His blood. No he was not a Christian that I'm aware of though he was an upright person. This conversation helped me greatly when I was pregnant at 16 and was being pressured to get an abortion. Grandpa had already passed by then so I didn't have his actual support to help me.

Even after becoming a Christian I am not opposed to birth control, though that attitude is directly counter to what the bible teaches. Birth control is definitely the lesser of the evils. Abortion breaks the 10 commandments which is the core of the Torah. 

I suppose since I was strongly pro life as an agnostic I have no problem discussing this from that point of view.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Evons hubby said:


> It’s not the federal governments job. Which part of that is giving you trouble?


It might be a reading comprehension issue... or just a general I.Q. deficit.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> Is that a scientific definition or faith based and is your faith based opinion more relevant than the faith who would deny women access to IUD’s?


It is simply an opinion, which seems reasonable and logical to me. I do not believe that women should be denied access to contraception (which would include IUDs).


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No, a functioning brain with higher brain activity is what makes a person. If that is not present then there is no person just tissue or a body.


I wholeheartedly disagree, but we are both free to believe whatever we want. BTW, what exactly do you consider is 'higher brain activity'? Is there such a thing in your mind as 'lower brain activity'? Do you think of higher, lower, and no brain activity as separate circumstances? It seems to me, that a human person is a human person, for as long as the individual lives in a human body, no matter what stage of growth or condition the body is in. I understand that a person with no brain activity, who requires life support to survive, is legally dead ... I understand the legal part of that ... I just don't believe that ... some laws are correct and helpful, others not so much.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> Our path through this world is full of tough choices and regrets. Always amazes me when people, without being asked, think they should force their choices onto others, and then expect them to live with the results.


What force? What choices? The choice to live, kill, protect or not protect the life of oneself or another?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> I wholeheartedly disagree, but we are both free to believe whatever we want. BTW, what exactly do you consider is 'higher brain activity'? Is there such a thing in your mind as 'lower brain activity'? Do you think of higher, lower, and no brain activity as separate circumstances? It seems to me, that a human person is a human person, for as long as the individual lives in a human body, no matter what stage of growth or condition the body is in. I understand that a person with no brain activity, who requires life support to survive, is legally dead ... I understand the legal part of that ... I just don't believe that ... some laws are correct and helpful, others not so much.


Higher brain function, thinking as opposed to brain function that just keeps the heart pumping and cells doing their job. It is what makes us people. It is why we allow families to let people die when they are brain dead. What makes them a person and not just a human body is no longer there.

It is not there in a large part of pregnancy either. I get that you have a different idea of when that occurs. Would you force a mother to carry a fetus to term if there is no brain?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Higher brain function, thinking as opposed to brain function that just keeps the heart pumping and cells doing their job. It is what makes us people. It is why we allow families to let people die when they are brain dead. What makes them a person and not just a human body is no longer there.
> 
> It is not there in a large part of pregnancy either. I get that you have a different idea of when that occurs. Would you force a mother to carry a fetus to term if there is no brain?


I think we have landed on philosophy island now, but I'm pretty sure I smell what you're cookin. 

So, what about when people sleep (not when dreaming, but during the dreamless unconscious state of consciousness), or when unconscious during anesthesia, or a coma? These are states of consciousness during which one is unaware of anything, yet the person who is unconscious is still a living human person. Being unconscious does not mean you are no longer a human person. If you go to sleep, then dream you are a dog, then slip into the unconscious delta state for an hour, then awaken ... were you actually a dog during your dream? Did you stop being a human person while asleep and unconscious, and then suddenly become a human person again upon your awakening? No. Anyone else watching you sleep can see that you were a human person the whole time.

If you know that a loved one who is in a coma has no chance of surviving without life support, then I can understand not wanting to live the rest of your life that way, and I can understand loved ones not wanting you to have to live the rest of your life that way. But a human person is still a human person, even while unconscious, and everyone around them can see that for themselves. 

An unborn child is a very different subject than someone who has been born and requires life support to survive. The brain of an unborn child, or even a born child, or even a young adult until the age of about 26, is still developing. The brain of a person on life support though, may be fully developed depending on their age, and their brain may have been damaged, maybe even beyond repair. There is a big difference between brain development and brain damage.

If a woman is pregnant with an unborn child that has no brain ... I think it would depend on whether or not the unborn child would be capable of surviving after birth, and to what extent ... I wouldn't want to live for an entire lifetime in a body devoid of a brain any more than I would want to live for the rest of a lifetime on life support. If I was the unborn child, especially devoid of a brain, I would be unable to make such a choice. If I was the pregnant woman or the man who impregnated me, I would consider abortion to be better than the alternative. Really though, I don't think anyone could survive without a brain ... with not a whole brain sure, but no brain? I don't think so.

In the end, I just want what is best for everyone involved, and to help more than to cause harm. The Hippocratic Oath comes to mind.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Unconscious or in a coma is not brain dead or lacking a brain. Not the same and not germane to this discussion.

Okay, now we have a better understanding of your limits. You are not alright with a potential human person being aborted anytime after fertilization or implantation ( am I correct)but you are accepting of a fetus with no brain being aborted. 

I personally am fine with a fetus being aborted before there is higher brain activity and if there is no brain at all. I base that on the current science which I think is pretty good. In both instances there is no person at that stage of development just a body, yes human but still not a person.


I have always been fine with a 16 week (about) or greater level on banning abortions unless there are health problems for the mother or fetus. I believe that is far enough along for the mother to made the choice to terminate. 

I also believe that it is the mother's choice because it is her body and she should not be forced to carry or abort.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Unconscious or in a coma is not brain dead or lacking a brain. Not the same and not germane to this discussion.
> 
> Okay, now we have a better understanding of your limits. You are not alright with a potential human person being aborted anytime after fertilization or implantation ( am I correct)but you are accepting of a fetus with no brain being aborted.
> 
> ...


If an unknown person came into a hospital room of a brain dead person and opened up his jugular and let him bleed out, could he be charged with murder? The point is that there is a difference between killing someone and letting them die by removing technology.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

If someone is in a coma, being fully supported by machinery keeping the basic functions continuing and the machines are turned off, that person dies from natural causes. When the body can no longer breathe and maintain a heartbeat we die. This is the normal order of events. It is very recent in human history that there is an option to turn off machines. So the case could be made that this is an unnatural condition to begin with.
That is a completely different situation from stopping a beating heart. A pre-born baby will continue to grow and develop. He or she needs it's mother from conception until weaning. This is the natural state for humans during this part of their development. All humans have gone through this part of development to reach the adult status we are in while typing this. 
If a child has died before being born, it is no longer an abortion but rather is a medical procedure.
This always seems to come up as an argument in favor of ending a life. The vast majority of abortions are done because of inconvenience. The child is healthy and viable but inconvenient for the parents. Imagine if we did that after the child was born? The thing is there is really no difference in the continuity of life. A baby continues to grow and develop rapidly outside the womb once born. It just takes more effort on everyone's part.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Unconscious or in a coma is not brain dead or lacking a brain. Not the same and not germane to this discussion.
> 
> Okay, now we have a better understanding of your limits. You are not alright with a potential human person being aborted anytime after fertilization or implantation ( am I correct)but you are accepting of a fetus with no brain being aborted.
> 
> ...


An unborn child is not brain dead, but their brain does undergo development before and after birth. 

Basically, I think abortion is only acceptable if there is a legit medical reason for it ... such as a tubal pregnancy, no brain, or no ability to survive after birth.

A human person is still a human person though, regardless of the stage of growth during their lifetime, or the state of their body, or the state of their consciousness ... still a human person. It may however, take time to develop a human personality, just as it takes time to develop a human brain.

I understand that you are a pro-abortionist, although I assume that you do at least have some limits ... such as the 16 week limit ... why 16 weeks though? Why not 6, 8, or 12 weeks?

I believe that an unborn child involves not just a pregnant woman, but also an unborn child, the man who impregnated the woman, and anyone that would have to pay for an abortion if that is the choice, or anyone taking care of the unborn child if that is the choice. I also believe in free will and freedom, but the choice to abort or not abort is not just about the body of one pregnant woman.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Abortion has been the norm since humans became and understood what pregnancy was. The mother wanted to continue to term or she did not. Only in the last couple of centuries were laws passed and usually by certain religions when they had the power to do so.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> An unborn child is not brain dead, but their brain does undergo development before and after birth.
> 
> Basically, I think abortion is only acceptable if there is a legit medical reason for it ... such as a tubal pregnancy, no brain, or no ability to survive after birth.
> 
> ...


I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I will not decide for another woman that she should be forced either way.

It is not a person if there is no higher brain activity. It is a body or it an fertilized egg or it is tissue ( depending on development)

16 weeks to me, based on the science when there is still no higher brain activity. They actual say that is a few weeks later but I am fine with setting it a few weeks earlier than that date. I am also aware that 95 or so percent of abortions happen before 12 weeks and to have an abortion at this late stage is a serious medical procedure and not done by someone on a whim or for convenience.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Abortion has been the norm since humans became and understood what pregnancy was. The mother wanted to continue to term or she did not. Only in the last couple of centuries were laws passed and usually by certain religions when they had the power to do so.


Intentionally induced abortion is actually pretty new, starting long after women began to understand what pregnancy is. The first intentionally induced abortion didn't occur (according to recorded history) until about 2700 BCE, and women have known about pregnancy for much longer than that. As for abortion laws, I am unsure when the first law regarding abortion was passed or where, but I assume it would have been not long after the first abortion ... and yes, it was probably for religious / political reasons.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

CC Pereira said:


> What force? What choices? The choice to live, kill, protect or not protect the life of oneself or another?




When your opinion or other’s, actions in regards to any of the above, is used to prevent someone else from making their own decision and having the ability in any way or place to follow through with that decision in regards to abortion. Per the subject of the thread.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> I am not pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I will not decide for another woman that she should be forced either way.
> 
> It is not a person if there is no higher brain activity. It is a body or it an fertilized egg or it is tissue ( depending on development)
> 
> 16 weeks to me, based on the science when there is still no higher brain activity. They actual say that is a few weeks later but I am fine with setting it a few weeks earlier than that date. I am also aware that 95 or so percent of abortions happen before 12 weeks and to have an abortion at this late stage is a serious medical procedure and not done by someone on a whim or for convenience.


You are free to believe that if a human has no 'higher brain activity', that the individual is not a person. I very much disagree. If a human body is alive, then a human person is living in that body, regardless of the state of development, consciousness, or how well all parts of that human body function. I know you disagree with that, and that's okay, I disagree with your perspective on this as well.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Intentionally induced abortion is actually pretty new, starting long after women began to understand what pregnancy is. The first intentionally induced abortion didn't occur (according to recorded history) until about 2700 BCE, and women have known about pregnancy for much longer than that. As for abortion laws, I am unsure when the first law regarding abortion was passed or where, but I assume it would have been not long after the first abortion ... and yes, it was probably for religious / political reasons.


19th Century is when abortion laws started.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> You are free to believe that if a human has no 'higher brain activity', that the individual is not a person. I very much disagree. If a human body is alive, then a human person is living in that body, regardless of the state of development, consciousness, or how well all parts of that human body function. I know you disagree with that, and that's okay, I disagree with your perspective on this as well.


Yes, I am and I have science to back me up. You have only your belief. Why should your belief trump mine with regards to laws. Our laws already allow us to decide if there is no brain activity we can terminate their life.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> When your opinion or other’s, actions in regards to any of the above, is used to prevent someone else from making their own decision and having the ability in any way or place to follow through with that decision in regards to abortion. Per the subject of the thread.


The only time force is involved, is when a woman is raped ... in which case she is forced to have sex, which may result in conception. Otherwise, no one is forced to do anything. No one is forced to have unprotected sex (unless raped), or to prevent or not prevent unwanted pregnancies. Conception naturally results in pregnancy, which naturally results in birth ... no force there, just natural consequences of conception.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> The only time force is involved, is when a woman is raped ... in which case she is forced to have sex, which may result in conception. Otherwise, no one is forced to do anything. No one is forced to have unprotected sex (unless raped), or to prevent or not prevent unwanted pregnancies. Conception naturally results in pregnancy, which naturally results in birth ... no force there, just natural consequences of conception.


Forcing a woman to stay pregnant is force in every meaning of the word.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Yes, I am and I have science to back me up. You have only your belief. Why should your belief trump mine with regards to laws. Our laws already allow us to decide if there is no brain activity we can terminate their life.


You can pretend that your belief is backed up by science all you want ... doesn't change such fantasies into fact. I base my beliefs on logic, science, faith, and personal experience.

Brain damage is not the same as brain development, and other factors would also come into play (such as the wishes of the person on life support if already in their medical records, and whether or not such medical services are paid for). If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer gets charged with the murder of two people (the pregnant woman and the unborn child that was living inside of her).


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> You can pretend that your belief is backed up by science all you want ... doesn't change such fantasies into fact. I base my beliefs on logic, science, faith, personal experience, and science.
> 
> Brain damage is not the same as brain development, and other factors would also come into play (such as the wishes of the person on life support if already in their medical records, and whether or not such medical services are paid for). If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer gets charged with the murder of two people (the pregnant woman and the unborn child that was living inside of her).


Science is all I need. No fantasy or pretending is required.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Forcing a woman to stay pregnant is force in every meaning of the word.


No one forces a woman to get pregnant unless she was raped. No one forces conception to result in pregnancy, or pregnancy to result in birth ... that's just the way nature works. The natural (not forced) result of conception is pregnancy. The natural (not forced) result of pregnancy is birth.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> No one forces a woman to get pregnant unless she was raped. No one forces conception to result in pregnancy, or pregnancy to result in birth ... that's just the way nature works. The natural (not forced) result of conception is pregnancy. The natural (not forced) result of pregnancy is birth.


Just because a woman had willing sex, it does not mean she should be *forced* to carry a pregnancy to term.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Science is all I need. No fantasy or pretending is required.


Some of your beliefs may very well be based on science, but certainly some of your beliefs seem to be based purely on fantasy.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Some of your beliefs may very well be based on science, but certainly some of your beliefs seem to be based purely on fantasy.


There is data to back up science.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Just because a woman had willing sex, it does not mean she should be *forced* to carry a pregnancy to term.


Unless raped, no woman is forced to conceive, be pregnant, or give birth ... which are simply natural consequences of conception. Women also have the choice to get an abortion, in any state where it is legal to do so. No force there either.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Abortion has been the norm since humans became and understood what pregnancy was. The mother wanted to continue to term or she did not. Only in the last couple of centuries were laws passed and usually by certain religions when they had the power to do so.


I'm pretty sure **** erectus women understood pregnancy was 2 million years ago... are you really saying that induced abortion was practiced then??? or that that just more of the usual hyperbole???


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> There is data to back up science.


Agreed. There is data to back up science.That is not the same as the non-existent data to back up your opinions.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

homesteadforty said:


> I'm pretty sure **** erectus women understood pregnancy was 2 million years ago... are you really saying that induced abortion was practiced then??? or that that just more of the usual hyperbole???


*Really.... the stupid algorithm blacked out the H O M O in **** erectus... more from the brilliant morons that run this crap!!!*


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Unless raped, no woman is forced to conceive, be pregnant, or give birth ... which are simply natural consequences of conception. Women also have the choice to get an abortion, in any state where it is legal to do so. No force there either.


 Forced to carry a pregnancy to term is force.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> 19th Century is when abortion laws started.


Yeah... back when:



painterswife said:


> Abortion has been the norm since humans became and understood what pregnancy was.


Methinks you desire a bit of sociology instruction.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> I'm pretty sure **** erectus women understood pregnancy was 2 million years ago... are you really saying that induced abortion was practiced then??? or that that just more of the usual hyperbole???


I believe that as soon as that women knew that certain organics or a blow to the womb would cause the death of the fetus then there were women who made that choice. Especially when raped.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

homesteadforty said:


> *Really.... the stupid algorithm blacked out the H O M O in **** erectus... more from the brilliant morons that run this crap!!!*


I noticed that too ...


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Forced to carry a pregnancy to term is force.


This would be an example of one of your opinions that is not backed up by science.

It would only be force if a woman is:
1. prevented from using contraception or sterilization, and / or
2. forced to have unprotected sex, and / or
3. prevented from using the plan B / morning after pill after having unprotected sex.

Otherwise, virtually no force is involved, period.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> This would be an example of one of your opinions that is not backed up by science.
> 
> It would only be force if a woman is:
> 1. prevented from using contraception or sterilization, and / or
> ...


No the meaning of force is pretty simple. It is force to make someone do something they don't want to do.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I believe that as soon as that women knew...


Well, I'm happy for you... that you _believe_ that ... any evidence to support your belief???


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

A woman can choose to or not to use contraception or sterilization. No force involved either way, unless prevented, she can choose to do something to prevent conception or not.

A woman can choose to have unprotected sex or not. No force involved, unless she is raped.

A woman can choose to take the plan B / morning after pill after having unprotected sex or not. No force there unless she is prevented from accessing and using the pill after unprotected sex.

All of those choices are available to her before conception. After conception, she can choose to get an abortion or not. Still no force involved, unless she is forced to get an abortion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Well, I'm happy for you... that you _believe_ that ... any evidence to support your belief???


Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> A woman can choose to or not to use contraception or sterilization. No force involved either way, unless prevented, she can choose to do something to prevent conception or not.
> 
> A woman can choose to have unprotected sex or not. No force involved, unless she is raped.
> 
> ...


Even if all those options are available it does not change that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is in fact force. If forcing her to have one is force, then forcing her to not is force.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Even if all those options are available it does not change that forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term is in fact force. If forcing here to have one is force, then forcing to not is force.


Nope. Wrong again. If you know that smashing your thumb with a hammer will cause pain, and you don't want to feel pain, then simply don't smash your thumb with a hammer. If you smash your thumb with a hammer anyway, the resulting pain is not forced by anyone. Likewise, if you know that not using contraception or sterilization, and having unprotected sex, and being a woman of child bearing age, is likely to cause conception, which will cause pregnancy, which naturally results in birth, and you don't want to be pregnant or give birth, but then you go and get pregnant anyway, the resulting pregnancy and birth is not forced by anyone.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


It's not my assertion to validate.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Nope. Wrong again. If you know that smashing your thumb with a hammer will cause pain, and you don't want to feel pain, then simply don't smash your thumb with a hammer. If you smash your thumb with a hammer anyway, the resulting pain is not forced by anyone. Likewise, if you know that not using contraception or sterilization, and having unprotected sex, and being a woman of child bearing age, is likely to cause conception, which will cause pregnancy, which naturally results in birth, and you don't want to be pregnant or give birth, but then you go and get pregnant anyway, the resulting pregnancy and birth is not forced by anyone.


The pregnancy may not be forced but requiring them to remain pregnant is force. It is very simple.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Ultimately, abortions should be a rare event, for legitimate medical reasons, and people who do not want to participate in it (by paying for it with their own hard earned tax dollars) shouldn't have to. I think unless there is a good medical reason for it, abortions should be considered and treated the same as any other unnecessary medical procedure, which is not paid for by insurance companies or anyone else ... or those involved in unnecessary abortions should have the same legal consequences as anyone else who commits murder.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> It's not my assertion to validate.


Well, I can only validate as far as written history. That may not be long enough for you but it works well for me. Purposely terminating a pregnancy did not just pop up with the advent of the written word.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> The pregnancy may not be forced but requiring them to remain pregnant is force. It is very simple.


Yes it is very simple. Conception causes pregnancy, which causes birth, and none of that is forced, unless a pregnant woman is prevented from using contraceptives or sterilization, or forced to have unprotected sex, or prevented from taking the plan B / morning after pill. Women are not even forced to get an abortion, or prevented from getting an abortion. If a woman wants an abortion, she can get one in about half of the states in the US, or elsewhere. Force involves actual force, not imaginary force.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Yes it is very simple. Conception causes pregnancy, which causes birth, and none of that is forced, unless a pregnant woman is prevented from using contraceptives or sterilization, or forced to have unprotected sex, or prevented from taking the plan B / morning after pill. Women are not even forced to get an abortion, or prevented from getting an abortion. If a woman wants an abortion, she can get one in about half of the states in the US, or elsewhere. Force involves actual force, not imaginary force.


It is still force if you make a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her will.

It matters not how she got pregnant or where she got pregnant. It is force if you don't allow her to have an abortion if she wishes to.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is still force if you make a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her will.


Actually, the natural consequences of conception is pregnancy, which is not forced. The natural consequences of pregnancy is birth, which is not forced. What is force, would be forcing an unborn child to die, by killing the unborn child against his or her natural extinctual will to survive. That is actual force.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It is still force if you make a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her will.


Your insistence carries as much weight as your feelings and beliefs... you should research a new tactic.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Actually, the natural consequences of conception is pregnancy, which is not forced. The natural consequences of pregnancy is birth, which is not forced. What is force, would be forcing an unborn child to die, by killing the unborn child against his or her natural extinctual will to survive. That is actual force.


It is actual force to require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not wish to.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is still force if you make a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her will.
> 
> It matters not how she got pregnant or where she got pregnant. It is force if you don't allow her to have an abortion if she wishes to.


Nope. This is just one of your opinions, which you are free to have and hold. No actual force involved, and it really does matter how she got pregnant, because if she got pregnant without force, then the natural consequences are not forced, which means her being or remaining pregnant are not forced.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Nope. This is just one of your opinions, which you are free to have and hold. No actual force involved, and it really does matter how she got pregnant, because if she got pregnant without force, then the natural consequences are not forced, which means her being or remaining pregnant are not forced.


It is force by any meaning of the word. Requiring someone to do something against their will is force.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is actual force to require a woman to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not wish to.


Nope. Wrong again. No woman in the US is required to get or remain pregnant anyway (unless she is actually forced to not use contraception or sterilization, to have unprotected sex, or to not take the plan B pill or something similar), so why even bother wasting time on such fantasies as imaginary force?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Nope. Wrong again. No woman in the US is required to get or remain pregnant anyway (unless she is actually forced to not use contraception or sterilization, to have unprotected sex, or to not take the plan B pill or something similar), so why even bother wasting time on such fantasies as imaginary force?


Now you are changing the goal posts. It is force is you make a woman remain pregnant against her will anywhere in the world.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> It is force by any meaning of the word. Requiring someone to do something against their will is force.


Forcing someone to do something against their will would be force, which would include preventing the use of contraception, rape, preventing a woman from taking the plan B pill after unprotected sex, or killing an unborn child. Otherwise, there is no force involved with conception, pregnancy, or birth ... those are just natural parts of life, that are not forced.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> *Forcing someone to do something against their will would be force*, which would include preventing the use of contraception, rape, preventing a woman from taking the plan B pill after unprotected sex, or killing an unborn child. Otherwise, there is no force involved with conception, pregnancy, or birth ... those are just natural parts of life, that are not forced.


I agree.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

CC Pereira said:


> Nope. Wrong again. No woman in the US is required to get or remain pregnant anyway (unless she is actually forced to not use contraception or sterilization, to have unprotected sex, or to not take the plan B pill or something similar), so why even bother wasting time on such fantasies as imaginary force?


Be careful... I think this may be in play here???


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> Now you are changing the goal posts. It is force is you make a woman remain pregnant against her will anywhere in the world.


I only mentioned the US part because I don't know if the same could be said for other countries or not. Anyway, it is not force. If a person dies of natural causes, they are not forced to die. If a woman gets pregnant, she is not forced to be or stay pregnant, or to give birth, whether or not abortion is legal in the state she lives in.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> *Forcing someone to do something against their will would be force*, which would include preventing the use of contraception, rape, preventing a woman from taking the plan B pill after unprotected sex, or killing an unborn child. Otherwise, there is no force involved with conception, pregnancy, or birth ... those are just natural parts of life, that are not forced.





painterswife said:


> I agree.


----------



## Blackberry Jam (10 mo ago)

CC Pereira said:


> Nope. Wrong again. If you know that smashing your thumb with a hammer will cause pain, and you don't want to feel pain, then simply don't smash your thumb with a hammer. If you smash your thumb with a hammer anyway, the resulting pain is not forced by anyone. Likewise, if you know that not using contraception or sterilization, and having unprotected sex, and being a woman of child bearing age, is likely to cause conception, which will cause pregnancy, which naturally results in birth, and you don't want to be pregnant or give birth, but then you go and get pregnant anyway, the resulting pregnancy and birth is not forced by anyone.


Wow.
You must be popular with the menfolk.
Comparing sex to smashing your thumb with a hammer is a new one on me.🥶


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Blackberry Jam said:


> sex


 hurts so good


----------



## KC Rock (Oct 28, 2021)

Shrek said:


> Posted 7/13/22 9:18 P.M. CDST
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That along with states where abortions will still be preformed will help take care of some of the need. Until congress goes

all blue and the fringers on the court can be removed.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> It might be a reading comprehension issue... or just a general I.Q. deficit.


That's funny coming from the guy who argued with me for ten posts or so about a constitutional issue before admitting I was right the whole time. Seems the IQ deficit might not be where you think it is.

And you're the guy who (apparently thinking you were correcting me) pointed out that there are already federal laws against murder...which proved my point. So you know Yvonne's Hubby is wrong, but still backing him up with cheap shots at me. What a childish way to be.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Comparing sex to smashing your thumb with a hammer is a new one on me.🥶


Yeah, I think CC is doing it wrong....


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Forcing someone to do something against their will would be force


So force is force? Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> That's funny coming from the guy who argued with me... What a childish way to be.


Happy to provide you some amusement and childish is what I was aiming for in this case... you're generally not worth any more effort than that.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

homesteadforty said:


> Happy to provide you some amusement and childish is what I was aiming for in this case... you're generally not worth any more effort than that.


Oh sad...I'm not worthy of your effort...that's why you argued with me back and forth so long on multiple occasions before I proved you wrong each time.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

ryanthomas said:


> Oh sad...I'm not worthy of your effort...that's why you argued with me back and forth so long on multiple occasions before I proved you wrong each time.


No... sorry... I argued back and forth so long because:
1. I've been very bored recently
and
2. I like to argue just to argue... heck, I've been known to argue with myself.

Right or wrong doesn't matter... it would only matter with a worthy debate opponent... it's arguing itself that counts.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Well that is very sad. Best wishes to you, sir. Now let's get back to winning the abortion wars!


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I believe that as soon as that women knew that certain organics or a blow to the womb would cause the death of the fetus then there were women who made that choice. Especially when raped.





painterswife said:


> Do you have any evidence to the contrary?





painterswife said:


> It is still force if you make a woman carry a pregnancy to term against her will.
> 
> It matters not how she got pregnant or where she got pregnant. It is force if you don't allow her to have an abortion if she wishes to.


Well the first true thing I've seen you post on this subject.....you believe.... What happened to science?

Our bodies carry out natural functions with no interference from our consciousness. Pregnancy is a normal condition for a woman. I didn't particularly enjoy it in the Texas heat but it was in no way unnatural.
Ok, hold on for this one... Sex is for the purpose of conceiving children. 😲🤯
Yes I know, shocking isn't it? 
There's multi-million dollar businesses formed around porn, sex toys, 10 ways to drive your man wild, etc., but biologically, sex is for reproduction. Our culture tries to deny that basic fact but ignoring it doesn't make it so.

I went to town to pick up a prescription and y'all added 3 pages 😳. I need to go do some stuff on the tractor then I'll pop some popcorn and be right back.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> The natural (not forced) result of pregnancy is birth.


Not quite true. Many human conceptions do not make it to birth. Some of the experts estimate it to be around 70% mortality, some even higher, but other studies suggest it's lower. We don't really know exactly because it's very difficult to count failed pregnancies that happen before the woman even knows she's pregnant, but it's extremely likely it's at or above 50% of pregnancies that naturally do not result in birth.

Once the embryo has implanted, it's generally believed that around 2/3 make it to birth.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> A woman can choose to take the plan B / morning after pill after having unprotected sex or not. No force there unless she is prevented from accessing and using the pill after unprotected sex.
> 
> All of those choices are available to her before conception.


Plan B is now thought to work most often after conception, not before.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

CC Pereira said:


> The only time force is involved, is when a woman is raped ... in which case she is forced to have sex, which may result in conception. Otherwise, no one is forced to do anything. No one is forced to have unprotected sex (unless raped), or to prevent or not prevent unwanted pregnancies. Conception naturally results in pregnancy, which naturally results in birth ... no force there, just natural consequences of conception.


Many are not being allowed the option of abortion, or to provide the services, by the threat of forceabley being hauled to jail. Someone practicing their own values is fine, when someone else is not allowed to practice theirs then thats a problem.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

CC Pereira said:


> Unless raped, no woman is forced to conceive, be pregnant, or give birth ... which are simply natural consequences of conception. Women also have the choice to get an abortion, in any state where it is legal to do so. No force there either.


Sex is a strong natural drive in mankind, its silly to say otherwise. To expect people in general to not ignore such a strong natural drive is ridiculous. Current contraceptives are not full proof.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

Redlands Okie said:


> Many are not being allowed the option of abortion, or to provide the services, by the threat of forceabley being hauled to jail. Someone practicing their own values is fine, when someone else is not allowed to practice theirs then thats a problem.


I should not be paying for that 'service'. Take tax dollars out of the equation and then it is between a woman and God. I would pray for it to end but there would really be nothing I could say as long as it is privately funded.
As long as tax dollars....my money, is being used I will oppose it at every turn.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

TxMex said:


> I should not be paying for that 'service'. Take tax dollars out of the equation and then it is between a woman and God. I would pray for it to end but there would really be nothing I could say as long as it is privately funded.
> As long as tax dollars....my money, is being used I will oppose it at every turn.


None of us should have to pay for it. Those who are OK with paying for it shouldn't have any problem finding a place to send their check.

There's the Hyde Amendment, but that's really just a transparent accounting trick.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

In reality, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's little blue pill either. Yet we do.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> In reality, I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's little blue pill either. Yet we do.


That's true too...none of us should have to pay for YH's pills.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

ryanthomas said:


> That's true too...none of us should have to pay for YH's pills.


And you don’t! I pay monthly insurance premiums, my insurance buys whatever pills I need.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> Many are not being allowed the option of abortion, or to provide the services, by the threat of forceabley being hauled to jail. Someone practicing their own values is fine, when someone else is not allowed to practice theirs then thats a problem.


I have to disagree with you here. If someone's "value" is to kill a completely innocent being, it is not "fine". What "values" would you draw a limit on??? or should everyone be allowed to do whatever they wish???


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I’m reminded of a line in Argo Guthrie’s song Alice’s restaurant….. ”I just wanna kill! I wanna kill… kill…. Kill!!”.
So many excuses to satisfy their blood lust!


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> Sex is a strong natural drive in mankind, its silly to say otherwise. To expect people in general to not ignore such a strong natural drive is ridiculous. Current contraceptives are not full proof.


Yes, sex is a strong drive... but being able to control our drives and desires is what separates us from animals, as is how and when we satisfy those drives. No one is saying people should not have sex, there are however, many different sexual activities that won't end up in pregnancy.

The pill is over 99% effective... as are IUD's. Condoms are 98% and diaphragms with spermicide stands at roughly 95%. All are readily available and are often free or very inexpensive for low-income folks.

So, no, contraceptives are not full proof but, 95 - 99% effective, along with a little dose of adult responsibility to go with those adult drives would end up in an almost complete elimination for elective abortions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Yes, sex is a strong drive... but being able to control our drives and desires is what separates us from animals, as is how and when we satisfy those drives. No one is saying people should not have sex, there are however, many different sexual activities that won't end up in pregnancy.
> 
> The pill is over 99% effective... as are IUD's. Condoms are 98% and diaphragms with spermicide stands at roughly 95%. All are readily available and are often free or very inexpensive for low-income folks.
> 
> So, no, contraceptives are not full proof but 95 - 99% effective, along with a little dose of adult responsibility to go with those adult drives would end up in an almost complete elimination for elective abortions.


Preventative birth control is not 100 percent effective. Telling people to not have sex so they don't have abortions to suit your beliefs is a lost cause. Terminating a pregnancy is the ulitmate adult responsibility. It just does not fit your beliefs.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Yes, sex is a strong drive... but being able to control our drives and desires is what separates us from animals, as is how and when we satisfy those drives. No one is saying people should not have sex, there are however, many different sexual activities that won't end up in pregnancy.


An animal is unable to rise above their instincts.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Preventative birth control is not 100 percent effective.


Ummmmmm... yeaahhhh... that's why I said they were 99%, 99%, 98%, and 95% for the four most common methods.



> Telling people to not have sex so they don't have abortions to suit your beliefs is a lost cause.


Where in heavens name did you get that I am telling people to not have sex??? 



> Terminating a pregnancy is the ulitmate adult responsibility. It just does not fit your beliefs.


Well bless your little heart... that is one of the saddest, most erroneous things I've ever heard someone say.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Ummmmmm... yeaahhhh... that's why I said they were 99%, 99%, 98%, and 95% for the four most common methods.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is sad to force women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> It is sad to force women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be.


No... what's sad is that so many women can't keep their legs closed or aren't responsible enough to prevent the pregnancies they don't want.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> No... what's sad is that so many women can't keep their legs closed or aren't responsible enough to prevent the pregnancies they don't want.


There we go. You want to force your morals on someone else. Sex is a wonderful thing. It is great for both your emotional and physical health. Prevention of pregnancies is not 100 percent effective and termination in the first trimester is an option that works. Even for those that you believe have loose morals.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> There we go. You want to force your morals on someone else. Sex is a wonderful thing. It is great for both your emotional and physical health. Prevention of pregnancies is not 100 percent effective and termination in the first trimester is an option that works. Even for those that you believe have loose morals.


Lady... you have no clue! This is not something I normally discuss but in this context I'll say: I've been married three times and have 5 children. That does not include two long term live-in partners (before anyone comments they were all heterosexual relationships). My grown daughter once asked me how many women I'd "slept" with so I got out a paper and pen and tried to figure them in order... it's somewhere around 40. I'm not proud of it but those are the facts. I'm the last person that would try to "force" my "morals" on anyone, nor call them loose over sex.

With all that said, all five of my children were planned... none of my other encounters resulted in abortion nor pregnancy. To head off another comment... I'm damn lucky I didn't catch any STD's... but I didn't.

So... I know for a fact that one can have a whole lot of sex and not need an abortion... if they're responsible. I know I am in no position to judge anyone's sexual mores. I don't want to force my morals on anybody... I just feel they should be responsible for the morals they choose.

You madame, presume to know far too much about other people's morals and lives... and that is one of the biggest reasons I "pick on you"!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Lady... you have no clue! This is not something I normally discuss but in this context I'll say: I've been married three times and have 5 children. That does not include two long term live-in partners (before anyone comments they were all heterosexual relationships). My grown daughter once asked me how many women I'd "slept" with so I got out a paper and pen and tried to figure them in order... it's somewhere around 40. I'm not proud of it but those are the facts. I'm the last person that would try to "force" my "morals" on anyone, nor call them loose over sex.
> 
> With all that said, all five of my children were planned... none of my other encounters resulted in abortion nor pregnancy. To head off another comment... I'm damn lucky I didn't catch any STD's... but I didn't.
> 
> ...


Do you? Can you be sure that not one of those women you slept with did not have an abortion?

Terminating a pregnancy is being responsible. It is just not what you want.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Preventative birth control is not 100 percent effective. Telling people to not have sex so they don't have abortions to suit your beliefs is a lost cause. Terminating a pregnancy is the ulitmate adult responsibility. It just does not fit your beliefs.


Abortion is totally irresponsible! It’s the selfish cheap way out of taking responsibility.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Abortion is totally irresponsible! It’s the selfish cheap way out of taking responsibility.


We all get to be a bit selfish sometimes. Especially when it is our own body that will be impacted. Not having a child is not being irresponsible.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Do you? Can you be sure that not one of those women you slept with did not have an abortion?
> 
> Terminating a pregnancy is being responsible. It is just not what you want.


100% proof positive... no. But that's not knowable... even a wife _could_ have an abortion without the husband knowing. By far, most of them I'd have heard something. A large portion remained friends or were friends of friends. Only two were one-night stands that I can't be positive about.

Not getting pregnant is responsible... an abortion is trying to fix an irresponsible action at the cost of another life. It's pushing your lack of responsibility onto an innocent being to save your own sorry behind from embarrassment and inconvenience.

BTW... you might want to check to see if you have a parrot stuck up your bum... you just keep saying the same thing over... and over... and over... and over.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> 100% proof positive... no. But that's not knowable... even a wife _could_ have an abortion without the husband knowing. By far, most of them I'd have heard something. A large portion remained friends or were friends of friends. Only two were one-night stands that I can't be positive about.
> 
> Not getting pregnant is responsible... an abortion is trying to fix an irresponsible action at the cost of another life. It's pushing your lack of responsibility onto an innocent being to save your own sorry behind from embarrassment and inconvenience.
> 
> BTW... you might want to check to see if you have a parrot stuck up your bum... you just keep saying the same thing over... and over... and over... and over.


Being responsible for one's own life is the ultimate responsibility. Wearing a condom is costing the possibility of other lives. So then would be birth control in all forms. So is denying someone the gift of a transplant organ or bone marrow. when their life is in jeopardy.

Having sex is not irresponsible and dealing with what might happen because of sex is not irresponsible.

I can repeat things everytime you do it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> We all get to be a bit selfish sometimes. Especially when it is our own body that will be impacted. Not having a child is not being irresponsible.


There is a huge difference between not having a child and killing an innocent human being. Especially an innocent human being that you created!


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Being responsible for one's own life is the ultimate responsibility.


Not when you make yourself responsible for another's very existence.



> Wearing a condom is costing the possibility of other lives. So then would be birth control in all forms.


The key word there is possibility.



> So is denying someone the gift of a transplant organ or bone marrow. when their life is in jeopardy.


That's just idiotic... as are most of your so-called points. Either you are mentally incapable of any reason or you're being a jackhole on purpose... either way you're not worth the time.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

homesteadforty said:


> Not when you make yourself responsible for another's very existence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is no other in existence. There are cells and eggs, maybe flesh and a developing body but there is no someone for a great portion of the pregnancy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> There is no other in existence. There are cells and eggs, maybe flesh and a developing body but there is no someone for a great portion of the pregnancy.


There is a living, innocent, human being when conception occurs. Follow the science if you have no conscience.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> There is a living, innocent, human being when conception occurs. Follow the science if you have no conscience.


There is not. There is a possibility but there is nothing more than fertilized egg, tissue or developing body until much later in the pregnancy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> There is not. There is a possibility but there is nothing more than fertilized egg, tissue or developing body until much later in the pregnancy.


It’s alive, it’s human and it’s innocent. Abortion kills it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> It’s alive, it’s human and it’s innocent. Abortion kills it.


An ear grown in a petri dish is alive and human too.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

homesteadforty said:


> Well bless your little heart... that is one of the saddest, most erroneous things I've ever heard someone say.


That will be awarded the quote of the day. 
We'll have some lovely prizes and trial offers for you waiting.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> An ear grown in a petri dish is alive and human too.


Pretty sure that ear isn’t going to become a full grown adult human being. Also pretty certain it’s not ”alive” as per scientific definition. Something about the ability to reproduce.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Pretty sure that ear isn’t going to become a full grown adult human being. Also pretty certain it’s not ”alive” as per scientific definition. Something about the ability to reproduce.


"Become" Yes but just because it could become a full grown human being does not mean it is in the early stages of development or is owed the right to be born over the mothers wishes to not be pregnant.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> "Become" Yes but just because it could become a full grown human being does not mean it is in the early stages of development or is owed the right to be born over the mothers wishes to not be pregnant.


According to you. I’m thinking many state governments see it differently. Quite possibly there will be more to follow. In my perfect world they all will! Once that is accomplished we can set about seeing to it that every ovulation results in a pregnancy! Yippee!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> According to you. I’m thinking many state governments see it differently. Quite possibly there will be more to follow. In my perfect world they all will! Once that is accomplished we can set about seeing to it that every ovulation results in a pregnancy! Yippee!


Yes and soon it will go back to the Supreme Court on the basis of personhood and a woman's right to her own body.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Yes and soon it will go back to the Supreme Court on the basis of personhood and a woman's right to her own body.


And with luck the court will once again do the right thing and leave it up to the states, or possibly define personhood as being a conceived human being At any stage of development.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

TxMex said:


> I should not be paying for that 'service'. Take tax dollars out of the equation and then it is between a woman and God. I would pray for it to end but there would really be nothing I could say as long as it is privately funded.
> As long as tax dollars....my money, is being used I will oppose it at every turn.


Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

homesteadforty said:


> I have to disagree with you here. If someone's "value" is to kill a completely innocent being, it is not "fine". What "values" would you draw a limit on??? or should everyone be allowed to do whatever they wish???


Problems are with your values and definitions regarding abortion. You should be free to handle your business as you see fit. Same for others.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

painterswife said:


> There is data to back up science.


Show it!


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

If they can't afford to drive a few miles to the next State for an abortion, how are they going to afford a charter boat, or chopper to get to a boat out in the Gulf of Mexico?


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Redlands Okie said:


> Problems are with your values and definitions regarding abortion. *You should be free to handle your business as you see fit.* Same for others.


So, if someone inconveniences me, if I see fit, I can walk up and shoot them???


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Being responsible for one's own life is the ultimate responsibility. Wearing a condom is costing the possibility of other lives. So then would be birth control in all forms. So is denying someone the gift of a transplant organ or bone marrow. when their life is in jeopardy.
> 
> Having sex is not irresponsible and dealing with what might happen because of sex is not irresponsible.
> 
> I can repeat things everytime you do it.


You don't get to go there!!!! You do not get to draw a parallel between generous people that value life donating organs and people killing children!! 
I was blessed by one of those wonderful people 14 months ago that donated their organs. They were a perfect genetic match for me and I received a kidney. I am so grateful for this person and grateful they were born and had such a generous heart. I mourn their passing and wish I had known them. None of my kin or friends ever offered to donate to me. 
Organ donation sustains a life. Abortion ends a life.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TxMex said:


> You don't get to go there!!!! You do not get to draw a parallel between generous people that value life donating organs and people killing children!!
> I was blessed by one of those wonderful people 14 months ago that donated their organs. They were a perfect genetic match for me and I received a kidney. I am so grateful for this person and grateful they were born and had such a generous heart. I mourn their passing and wish I had known them. None of my kin or friends ever offered to donate to me.
> Organ donation sustains a life. Abortion ends a life.


I do get to go there. You can not like it or disagree with it, but I have the choice to go there. 

Not donating can end a life as well. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is forcing her to provide life support for something she does not want in her body.


----------



## TxGypsy (Nov 23, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I do get to go there. You can not like it or disagree with it, but I have the choice to go there.
> 
> Not donating can end a life as well. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is forcing her to provide life support for something she does not want in her body.


I will not continue to give you what you crave. It is difficult to change evil. I will pray for you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TxMex said:


> I will not continue to give you what you crave. It is difficult to change evil. I will pray for you.


LOL I am not evil. I am realistic and mater of fact about life and death and the choices we each have to make for ourselves about them. Pray for the women that are having their choices taken from them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I do get to go there. You can not like it or disagree with it, but I have the choice to go there.
> 
> Not donating can end a life as well. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is forcing her to provide life support for something she does not want in her body.


Don’t you mean someone rather than something?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Don’t you mean someone rather than something?


No, I definitely don't. There is no someone for the majority of the gestation. And definitely not for almost 95 percent of abortions.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No, I definitely don't. There is no someone for the majority of the gestation. And definitely not for almost 95 percent of abortions.


Just curious here…. why do you not recognize a human being when one is present?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Evons hubby said:


> Just curious here…. why do you not recognize a human being when one is present?


I know the difference between what is a human person and what is not yet one.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> An ear grown in a petri dish is alive and human too.


That ear will never be anything other than an ear. The embryo, on the other hand..... You bring up the proverbial "brain dead" person being allowed to die as a justification for abortion, but, that brain dead person will never be anything else, he is not getting better. He is not going to come out of it. The fetus, on the other hand.....


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I know the difference between what is a human person and what is not yet one.


Apparently not. A human being is a human being upon conception and remains such from then on.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> That ear will never be anything other than an ear. The embryo, on the other hand..... You bring up the proverbial "brain dead" person being allowed to die as a justification for abortion, but, that brain dead person will never be anything else, he is not getting better. He is not going to come out of it. The fetus, on the other hand.....


Eggs and sperm have the same possibilities. Still it is the women's choice to continue the process if is happening in her body. Possibilities are still just possibilities. No guarantee that it will ever be more.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Eggs and sperm have the same possibilities. Still it is the women's choice to continue the process if is happening in her body. Possibilities are still just possibilities. No guarantee that it will ever be more.


It’s the woman’s choice in some states. No guarantee it will remain that way.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Eggs and sperm have the same possibilities. Still it is the women's choice to continue the process if is happening in her body. Possibilities are still just possibilities. No guarantee that it will ever be more.


If an egg doesn't meet a sperm, it dies a natural death having reached the end of what it was going to be. The same for the sperm. Once they do meet, the result has moved beyond "possibility" to what is. There is no guarantee that any of us will wake up tomorrow. I don't want anyone bent on population control, or, whatever using that fact to end me in my sleep.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

Once the sperm and egg meet and form a zygote, it's still only 50/50 odds (or worse) that it will end up as a born baby. That's naturally, without abortion or any other intervention.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I would like to know if those that support abortion bans in a state also support charges for woman that travel to other states?


----------



## tripletmom (Feb 4, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I would like to know if those that support abortion bans in a state also support charges for woman that travel to other states?


You know my stance on abortion, it is indeed the killing of a human!! That's how I feel, however, I believe in live and let live as well as myob.

With that, it's now a state thing and what happens in another state needs to stay there, you can't have it both ways! 

If a person wants to kill her baby, she's going to do it and who am I to stand in her way?

I just pray for all the lost souls, both dead and alive!!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

painterswife said:


> I would like to know if those that support abortion bans in a state also support charges for woman that travel to other states?


Of course not. It’s a murder being committed in a new jurisdiction. It’s up to the courts in the state where the murder was committed to prosecute and extradite.

That said, it did become an interstate issue, so the FBI should probably get involved in the case of a woman transporting a child across state lines for the purpose of murdering it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

If all you have left is insults, I'll shut the thread down.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I know the difference between what is a human person and what is not yet one.


You don't


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Blackberry Jam said:


> Wow.
> You must be popular with the menfolk.
> Comparing sex to smashing your thumb with a hammer is a new one on me.🥶


So funny! No, I was actually comparing smashing your thumb with a hammer to the giving birth part that so many keep trying to avoid by getting abortions after getting pregnant, instead of being responsible by preventing unwanted pregnancies (with abstinence, contraception, or sterilization).


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> So force is force? Thanks for clearing that up.


Why is it so difficult for some people to understand the simple fact that getting or being pregnant and giving birth is not forced, unless actual force is involved (such as preventing contraception or rape)?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Not quite true. Many human conceptions do not make it to birth. Some of the experts estimate it to be around 70% mortality, some even higher, but other studies suggest it's lower. We don't really know exactly because it's very difficult to count failed pregnancies that happen before the woman even knows she's pregnant, but it's extremely likely it's at or above 50% of pregnancies that naturally do not result in birth.
> 
> Once the embryo has implanted, it's generally believed that around 2/3 make it to birth.


In such cases, death is the result of natural causes, and is not intentionally caused by others.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> Why is it so difficult for some people to understand the simple fact that getting or being pregnant and giving birth is not forced, unless actual force is involved (such as preventing contraception or rape)?


I get your point, was just making light of defining a word with the word.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> Why is it so difficult for some people to understand the simple fact that getting or being pregnant and giving birth is not forced, unless actual force is involved (such as preventing contraception or rape)?


No one said getting pregnant was forced. The force comes into play when they are forced to continue that pregnancy.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> In such cases, death is the result of natural causes, and is not intentionally caused by others.


Yeah, so? You said birth is the natural result of conception. Probably more often than not, conception naturally does not result in birth.

Nature does more abortions than humans do.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Plan B is now thought to work most often after conception, not before.


I think that mostly depends on how soon after unprotected sex it is taken, and even whether or not aunt flow is in town ... because pregnancy, aunt flow, and the plan B pill, are all sources of additional progesterone.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

CC Pereira said:


> I think that mostly depends on how soon after unprotected sex it is taken, and even whether or not aunt flow is in town ... because pregnancy, aunt flow, and the plan B pill, are all sources of additional progesterone.


Well that's good news...no need to ban Plan B.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Plan B does prevent implantation. Many believe that is abortion because the egg is already fertilized.


----------



## ryanthomas (Dec 10, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Plan B does prevent implantation. Many believe that is abortion because the egg is already fertilized.


Yeah, CC has been back and forth on that one several times over the past month.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> Many are not being allowed the option of abortion, or to provide the services, by the threat of forceabley being hauled to jail. Someone practicing their own values is fine, when someone else is not allowed to practice theirs then thats a problem.


No one is prevented from getting or providing abortions in about half of the states in the US, and elsewhere. If someone is intentionally killed without a good medical reason for it, then it makes logical, moral, and legal sense, that those involved would be treated the same as anyone else who commits murder. Someone harming or killing themselves is not fine, but it is their choice. Killing someone else, allowing or not allowing people to kill other people, is a totally different matter.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

Redlands Okie said:


> Sex is a strong natural drive in mankind, its silly to say otherwise. To expect people in general to not ignore such a strong natural drive is ridiculous. Current contraceptives are not full proof.


I never said anything about ignoring the sex drive, but I have been talking about sexual responsibility, which everyone is capable of, and does not result in the death of anyone. Contraceptives and sterilization may not prevent conception 100% of the time, but either is very effective, almost every time. Combine that with condoms and the plan B, and preventing conception is far better and more responsible than abortions ... and unlike abortions, preventing conception doesn't kill anyone.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> I never said anything about ignoring the sex drive, but I have been talking about sexual responsibility, which everyone is capable of, and does not result in the death of anyone. Contraceptives and sterilization may not prevent conception 100% of the time, but either is very effective, almost every time. Combine that with condoms and the plan B, and preventing conception is far better and more responsible than abortions ... and unlike abortions, preventing conception doesn't kill anyone.


You're somewhat misinformed about sterilizations and make it sound like absolutely anyone who walks through the door can have the procedure done, which is not true, nor should it be. 

Just because someone doesn't want a child right now, doesn't mean they never want a child and the last I heard, which wasn't overly long ago, it's nearly impossible to find a doctor who will perform sterlization on people under a certain age and who have not had children, simply because reversal is costly and not always effective. 

My sister payed part of her nursing tuition working as a quality control tester in a condom factory and her findings as well as publicly publicized statistics strongly dispute your statement as well.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

painterswife said:


> No one said getting pregnant was forced. The force comes into play when they are forced to continue that pregnancy.


No one is forced to continue being pregnant either. Pregnancy just naturally results in birth (hopefully of a living baby) without anyone doing anything to anyone. If a person has a really fugly nose (not pointing any fingers at anyone, just using this as a hypothetical scenario to hopefully help you to understand from another perspective), no one else forced that person to have the fugly nose by not providing that person with a free medical procedure (such as a nose job) to make the nose look better. If there is no medical reason for an abortion, then such a medical procedure is unnecessary, just as is a nose job, boob job, liposuction, or any other unnecessary medical procedure.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

CC Pereira said:


> No one is forced to continue being pregnant either. Pregnancy just naturally results in birth (hopefully of a living baby) without anyone doing anything to anyone. If a person has a really fugly nose (not pointing any fingers at anyone, just using this as a hypothetical scenario to hopefully help you to understand from another perspective), no one else forced that person to have the fugly nose by not providing that person with a free medical procedure (such as a nose job) to make the nose look better. If there is no medical reason for an abortion, then such a medical procedure is unnecessary, just as is a nose job, boob job, liposuction, or any other unnecessary medical procedure.


They are forced if it is made too difficult by either finances or laws. You are being disingenuous because you really want abortion outlawed and that is force. Playing word games does not change that

Are you aware of the reported cases where women in this last month are almost dying because a hospital is afraid to perform abortions?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, so? You said birth is the natural result of conception. Probably more often than not, conception naturally does not result in birth.
> 
> Nature does more abortions than humans do.


Normally, conception results in pregnancy, which results in the birth of a living baby ... unless that sequence of events is interfered with, by intentionally killing the unborn child before birth. If conception results in a pregnancy that results in the death of an unborn or born child, then it occurs not by human hand, but naturally ... natural death is very different from intentionally killing someone.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Well that's good news...no need to ban Plan B.


I really don't believe that contraception (such as plan B) should be banned.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

CC Pereira said:


> Normally, conception results in pregnancy, which results in the birth of a living baby ... unless that sequence of events is interfered with, by intentionally killing the unborn child before birth. If conception results in a pregnancy that results in the death of an unborn or born child, then it occurs not by human hand, but naturally ... natural death is very different from intentionally killing someone.


According to science, 10% - 15% of conceptions end in early spontaneous abortions (not by human hands). 

I also notice that you seldom respond to factual responses to your less than factual statements. Why is that?


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

ryanthomas said:


> Yeah, CC has been back and forth on that one several times over the past month.


Yes, because this one may be a bit tricky ... because if plan B is just synthetic progesterone (which is intended to be used within 3 days after unprotected sex), then the same or similar effects could be had by aunt flow (which increases natural progesterone levels), or even contraceptive progesterone pills or shots, and if the increase in progesterone occurs before conception (which can take up to 3 days after unprotected sex) ... then plan B would be a contraceptive, which does not kill anyone.


----------



## homesteadforty (Dec 4, 2007)

Personal attack deleted.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

homesteadforty said:


> Personal attack deleted.


This is my second reminder that personal attacks and insults bring absolutely NOTHING to the discussion and if it continues, the thread will be locked.


----------



## CC Pereira (9 mo ago)

wr said:


> According to science, 10% - 15% of conceptions end in early spontaneous abortions (not by human hands).
> 
> I also notice that you seldom respond to factual responses to your less than factual statements. Why is that?


Then according to science, it is also true that normally / usually (85-90% of the time) conception results in a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living baby.

Which specific factual responses are you talking about? Not saying that isn't true, I'm just curious as to what specifically you're talking about. I may not always respond to everything, sometimes because a response doesn't seem to be directed at me, or because it is irrelevant, or it makes no sense at all, or because I have already responded to the same thing elsewhere.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549460928328077314


----------

