# Think About This



## Guest (Jan 26, 2014)

Every single person that is pro-choice / pro abortion has already been born .


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

It is our holocaust. 55 million since Roe v. Wade. A murder ritual supported by barbarians and heathens as bad as any in history.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I hope that there will be others born that will stand up for freedom. Alas what I am seeing is more meddlers imposing their personal beliefs upon others.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2014)

Didn't impose anything on anybody , just stated a fact .


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

WV Hillbilly said:


> Didn't impose anything on anybody , just stated a fact .


Well that's almost true... but I have a feeling your "fact" will prove out to be false... I have a feeling not all pro choice, pro freedom folks have been born. There just may be a few more still in the works. I do hope so anyway.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

WV Hillbilly said:


> Every single person that is pro-choice / pro abortion has already been born .


No person that has been born ever asked to be born. I think many people are happy to have been born and many wish they had never been born. How wonderful it would be if we could all choose for ourselves whether or not we want to be born instead of having to leave that choice up to somebody else.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Fennick said:


> No person that has been born ever asked to be born. I think many people are happy to have been born and many wish they had never been born. How wonderful it would be if we could all choose for ourselves whether or not we want to be born instead of having to leave that choice up to somebody else.


Hey the LDS believe that you did in fact agree to be born, and furthermore to face whatever trials come with the life before hand. So, even if things are horrible for someone who believes there's always the fact that they agreed to it beforehand to fall back on!

Anyone who says that saying abortion is wrong is 'forcing their views' on others--- I want them to stop forcing their view that killing any other human is wrong on me. I should receive no punishment at all for deciding it is in my best interests that another human die. Regardless of who they are or their age. If I feel their continued life is a burden upon me, I have the right to end it.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Prosperity cannot come to a nation who kills the innocent.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Next step is putting the old and infirm 'to sleep' like an old sick dog. And many will welcome that development.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Tabitha said:


> Next step is putting the old and infirm 'to sleep' like an old sick dog. And many will welcome that development.


Yes, some will. All Obama or some other slick talking con man has to do is explains that is is the compassionate thing to do and take a burden off the children. I'll guarantee some on here would agree with him.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I think that "pro-choice" means that the person who has the most to gain or lose should make the choice. That would be the baby. The mother can check out any time she likes and nobody can stop her, but somehow, she always seems to want to go on living, but thinks the baby would be better off dead. Babies who do not want to live, DON'T. They need ZERO help leaving this world.......It's called failure to thrive.

Generally, babies who are suffering and at great risk of dying fight hard to live, in spite of the pain and suffering. Some who were aborted even pulled through and lived to adulthood, suffering greatly for the early trauma, yet praising God for life.

Mostly, the same folks who think that killing babies is just fine and a no-brainer if it gives them a better life would be happy to have me arrested for shooting an old dog humanely.

Sorry, it's been a long day and I am at the end of my rope.......and on the verge of dismissing the possibility of understanding my fellow man or trying to reason with him.........Vaya Con Dios....Joe


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

So how do some of the "pro-lifers" view the gentleman in Texas with the wife that was recently in the news?

The issue of keeping the baby alive while the wife was not? Isn't that life sacred as well?

For me, that is one horrible prospect, but I would have done anything to keep my child alive. Hard to say as I am not him, nor he is I, but I was just wondering what some of the other thoughts were.

Was it wrong, according to your beliefs, to do what he did?


----------



## Breezy833 (Jun 17, 2013)

Seems like this topic is batting. However, i'll bite. 


Being a woman, i'm pro choice. It doesn't mean that abortion is a decision that i would make for myself. It means that i don't think that it should be outlawed, and i don't other people should have an option or opinion with someone elses body. 


If you have an issue with abortion such as religious belief, baby sympathy, or the like. Then please, by all means dont get an abortion. Teach your doctrine to your family so that maybe you wont have to experience something that is so egregiously wrong( to you). 

This is not a fight that i see as between "pro-lifers" and "aborters". This is their personally medical business, and decision. So mind your own and pray for your forgiveness, and theirs. 

Thats what Christians are suppose to do right ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> Hey the LDS believe that you did in fact agree to be born, and furthermore to face whatever trials come with the life before hand. So, even if things are horrible for someone who believes there's always the fact that they agreed to it beforehand to fall back on!
> 
> Anyone who says that saying abortion is wrong is 'forcing their views' on others--- I want them to stop forcing their view that killing any other human is wrong on me. I should receive no punishment at all for deciding it is in my best interests that another human die. Regardless of who they are or their age. If I feel their continued life is a burden upon me, I have the right to end it.


As long as we want to take arguments to the absurd, how about we prosecute all women who miscarry for voluntary manslaughter?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

WV Hillbilly said:


> Every single person that is pro-choice / pro abortion has already been born .


 
And those who claim to be for a women's right to choose are the ones that take away the right to choose life from baby girls.


----------



## Breezy833 (Jun 17, 2013)

Baby girls who technically aren't people. Maybe some of the pro-life mantra should impact _real _ lives. Hows the inner city near you? not any girls runnin around without, or role models or parents are there? 

There is a problem with existing people of this world. I wish we cared more about fixing, and saving them. 

inevitably it could help the original cause. Which i do believe is saving lives in the long run.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Breezy833 said:


> Baby girls who technically aren't people. Maybe some of the pro-life mantra should impact _real _lives. Hows the inner city near you? not any girls runnin around without, or role models or parents are there?
> 
> There is a problem with existing people of this world. I wish we cared more about fixing, and saving them.
> 
> inevitably it could help the original cause. Which i do believe is saving lives in the long run.


Animals aren't people either but still people protect them against cruelty. Abortion is a barbaric practice where another being is ripped to shreds. As far as I can tell there is no proof they can't feel it.


----------



## Breezy833 (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm sure your right, they might feel it. I dont know. My differential with animals is still that they are here. Now living, breathing. 

If your a breeder and you have a pure bred dog in heat, and a mut gets to her. Its not the gene pool you were looking for, and you can abort the litter. 

In regards to the fetus feeling the death blow/scramble/vaccum. Its quick, probably more humane than people who were injured and died in agony for hours. 

I have to say that i think that the latter was a barbaric practice. Midwives, hangers, back alley procedures. Women killing themselves trying to induce miscarriage. 

BUT
I do also agree with the pro-life argument that in some states women are given the option for abortion WAY too late into gestation.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Breezy833 said:


> I have to say that i think that the latter was a barbaric practice. Midwives, hangers, back alley procedures. Women killing themselves trying to induce miscarriage.


Sorry, don't care about them. People who have an abortion for actual medical reasons or rape/ incest are a slight number. Otherwise it's skanks. Find that offensive? Don't care, if you want to condone murder then go ahead. I have ever right to find you repulsive because of it.

It's not 'as parasitic sack of cells' like some people like to tell themselves so they can live with themselves and sleep at night. It's a human sperm meeting and fertilizing a human egg. It's not going to develop into a dog, or a worm or an elephant. It's only potential is a human one. And as soon as a nervous system begins to develop you are murdering a human that perceives and feels.

I don't think it should be illegal to choose an abortion before 8 weeks. And I feel the same way about sex education as I do education about firearms--- education is the key.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Breezy833 said:


> I have to say that i think that the latter was a barbaric practice. Midwives, hangers, back alley procedures. Women killing themselves trying to induce miscarriage.
> .


Sometimes while trying to murder another human you end up being the one killed.... when it's a man shot while trying to kill another person people say he deserved it... when it's a mother killing her baby and dying during the process some people call it tragic... I call both justice being served. Kill your child in the womb or kill your 2 year old it's all the same to me.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I am afraid this issue is going to be a dividing line forever, just like the civil war. Or, excuse me, should that be "the war of Northern aggression"?

It's been 40 years, the law is not going to change back, yet it gets discussed as passionately as if it just happened yesterday. 

I truly hope the ones opposed to legal abortion are taking positive action and not just spewing contempt for those who believe differently. Such as, supporting the organizations who help young pregnant women prepare for a baby or find a good adoption situation; offering them a viable and attractive alternative to abortion. Foster care for abused/neglected children. Anybody want to share what they do in that regard?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> I am afraid this issue is going to be a dividing line forever, just like the civil war. Or, excuse me, should that be "the war of Northern aggression"?
> 
> It's been 40 years, the law is not going to change back, yet it gets discussed as passionately as if it just happened yesterday.
> 
> I truly hope the ones opposed to legal abortion are taking positive action and not just spewing contempt for those who believe differently. Such as, supporting the organizations who help young pregnant women prepare for a baby or find a good adoption situation; offering them a viable and attractive alternative to abortion. Foster care for abused/neglected children. Anybody want to share what they do in that regard?


I sure would like to see a list of all those things you are for and against and for you to also give me a list of the things you are actively doing to support/ change those things. What a sanctimonious load of crud. 

How about I never got myself pregnant outside of wedlock, even though I chose to be sexually active when I was a teen and between husband one and two. How about I do my best to teach my children how to be responsible for themselves and keep themselves safe. And how about I am extremely grateful that my mother and uncle were given a chance at life and that my grandparents had hearts big enough to adopt when they couldn't have biological children. 

Murder is one of those really basic things. You either are for or against the taking of other human lives for convenience. Abortion for actual, real, medical reasons should be a decision for a doctor and a patient. But abortion for any other reason? That's murder. It takes squinting and turning your head sideways and trying really hard to think of it as anything else. I'd not have nearly so much trouble with so called pro-choicers if they would admit they are alright with murder and be done with it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> I am afraid this issue is going to be a dividing line forever, just like the civil war. Or, excuse me, should that be "the war of Northern aggression"?
> 
> It's been 40 years, the law is not going to change back, yet it gets discussed as passionately as if it just happened yesterday.
> 
> I truly hope the ones opposed to legal abortion are taking positive action and not just spewing contempt for those who believe differently. Such as, supporting the organizations who help young pregnant women prepare for a baby or find a good adoption situation; offering them a viable and attractive alternative to abortion. Foster care for abused/neglected children. Anybody want to share what they do in that regard?


Well so far I have taken on and completed the task of raising six of the lil buggers.... but that prolly doesn't count since I am on the other side of the fence with this issue. Women should have the right to make this decision for themselves.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Women should have the right to make this decision for themselves.


If it is entirely a woman's right to choose whether or not she bares a child then I put forth that no man owes one lick of child support, ever. After all, he has no say in the matter. How could he possibly hold any responsibility?


----------



## Jupiter (Dec 30, 2012)

I've never known anyone who had a abortion who didn't regret it...


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Sorry, don't care about them. People who have an abortion for actual medical reasons or rape/ incest are a slight number. Otherwise it's skanks


The majority of women who have abortions already are mothers. Four out of 10 female-headed households live in poverty. A study cited here: http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html indicated the #1 reason cited by mothers for having an abortion is to protect the family they already have.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> If it is entirely a woman's right to choose whether or not she bares a child then I put forth that no man owes one lick of child support, ever. After all, he has no say in the matter. How could he possibly hold any responsibility?


You bring up a very good point here. With choice comes responsibility. That being said however there are indeed those cases where the father should accept his responsibility. I am of course referring to those fathers who given the opportunity to have his choices heard. Divorce comes to mind... he opted to take on his obligation freely and therefor should be held accountable.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> and i don't other people should have an option or opinion with someone elses body.


That is exactly what a woman does when she kills her unborn child. She is making a decision, choosing an option & using her opinion about another person's body.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

If one is pro-life shouldn't the other be anti-life?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> The majority of women who have abortions already are mothers. Four out of 10 female-headed households live in poverty. A study cited here: http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html indicated the #1 reason cited by mothers for having an abortion is to protect the family they already have.


As I said, maybe if they don't want any more children they ought to keep that penny between their knees. Or, take other, appropriate precautions.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Funny how the "pro choice" folks are mainly the same folks who want to take my choices away in other areas..

They tell me that I have no Right to say what a woman does to her body, but yet they want me to be held financially responsible for her choice
They tell me I'm not allowed to open a business where people smoke
They tell me that a 32 oz soda is illegal and ban it from being sold
They tell me certain types of cooking oil is bad and ban it because of trans fats etc.
They tell me I have to buy health insurance that meets THEIR standards.
They continually try and tell me what type of firearm I'm allowed to own, thankfully they haven't totally succeeded in this yet.
They tell me I'm only allowed to have 7 rounds of ammo in a magazine, because 8 is too dangerous..
They tell me my Right to keep and bear arms is only valid if THEY know about it..
They tell me it's wrong to use the death sentence or go to war.

YEA so tell me again about how you are pro choice!
Because honestly all I see is you are pro killing and anti freedom.

Now before you flame me, understand I won't be one of the people outside an abortion clinic, even though I disagree with Roe v Wade. You want to kill your own, please continue, I won't stand in your way. 
In fact, I'd like to suggest a few late term abortions for you.. I think you know where that is going...


----------



## Breezy833 (Jun 17, 2013)

> Sorry, don't care about them. People who have an abortion for actual medical reasons or rape/ incest are a slight number. Otherwise it's skanks. Find that offensive? Don't care, if you want to condone murder then go ahead. I have ever right to find you repulsive because of it.


If i identified with the terms skank i guess i might be, but i dont, so its ok. Also, i dont plan to infringe on your right to find me repulsive. 

I agree with your 8 week term limits. i would probably stretch it to 12. I dont really agree with late term abortions. I think that they had time to make a decision before they get to 20 weeks and should have done something before then. 



> That is exactly what a woman does when she kills her unborn child. She is making a decision, choosing an option & using her opinion about another person's body.


In her body. I understand the point your getting at but it just doesnt bother me. 



> They tell me that I have no Right to say what a woman does to her body, but yet they want me to be held financially responsible for her choice
> They tell me I'm not allowed to open a business where people smoke
> They tell me that a 32 oz soda is illegal and ban it from being sold
> They tell me certain types of cooking oil is bad and ban it because of trans fats etc.
> ...


when did we here tell you all that ?? the only one i remotely agree with is the first. I've heard the child support argument before and i think its a good one. If its my choice to choose to have a child, what about your choice to pay?? i dont have an answer but i like the argument. 

I have a question though "pro-lifers" if you had YOUR children and are raising them your way, cherishing them and so forth. Why do you, or I care about what someone else chooses to do with theirs? 

The welfare system is a big source of complaint among people that have to pay for the next individuals family and children. Why then are we so worried about adding more population to that system?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Breezy833 said:


> I have a question though "pro-lifers" if you had YOUR children and are raising them your way, cherishing them and so forth. Why do you, or I care about what someone else chooses to do with theirs?


Then the CPS should be disbanded and all neglect or abuse cases involving minors should be abandoned as well. It's either okay for us as a society to be concerned with their well being or it isn't. It's pretty black and white to me. If it is said that an individual can do as they please with the issue of their body then I say have at it, no public support, no public involvement on any level with what a parent does with their child, the issue of their bodies. Let's agree to call infanticide post term abortions and release Andrea Yates and any other mother who has chosen this course of action to care for their children. Hey, we're only putting our tax dollars towards housing and feeding her and not all of her spawn, right? So it was cost effective at the least.

One of the very few things I see as part of the government's job is the enforcement on a couple of pretty simple things; you don't murder other humans and you don't steal their things. (I actually believe there should be only those two laws on any books) 

BTW Breezy, you are by far the best person on the 'other side' of things I have spoken with about this.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Breezy833 said:


> when did we here tell you all that ?? the only one i remotely agree with is the first. I've heard the child support argument before and i think its a good one. If its my choice to choose to have a child, what about your choice to pay?? i dont have an answer but i like the argument.
> 
> I have a question though "pro-lifers" if you had YOUR children and are raising them your way, cherishing them and so forth. Why do you, or I care about what someone else chooses to do with theirs?
> 
> The welfare system is a big source of complaint among people that have to pay for the next individuals family and children. Why then are we so worried about adding more population to that system?


First off I wasn't talking about child support. I'm all for those who created the life supporting the life. I was referring to my tax dollars being used to pay for abortions. The pro choice folks have now persuaded our Government to provide abortions to those who want them. Sorry, but if you tell me it's none of my business (which I agree it isn't) but then tell me I have to pay for it, I have a problem with that.. 

As to the scam you call welfare. Well first off it shouldn't be generational as it has become. I've watched families abuse the system that are living better than my family, yet I'm the one working and paying taxes oh and I was crippled by a drunk drive too boot. I'm tired of watching those who are able to work, but would rather collect welfare. I've seen it first hand as it went from one generation to the next generation and to the next generation.. At least 3 generations, well that is wrong on so many levels.. They live in nicer homes provided to them by the State, they drive newer cars and trucks and so on. So you wonder why I have a problem with the scam welfare.. I have no problem helping those that need help, but enough is enough..
I've watched them sell drugs, steal from their neighbors etc. The police would arrest them and the next thing you know they are home and never do any time for their crimes.. Sorry I've had enough.. 
Welfare should be outlawed! If you can't provide, then suffer. I don't care anymore.. I've had enough.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Breezy833 said:


> I have a question though "pro-lifers" if you had YOUR children and are raising them your way, cherishing them and so forth. Why do you, or I care about what someone else chooses to do with theirs?


 
Breezy when you turn on the news and hear about a mother killing her child do you not care? Personally I find the death of a child tragic and even more so when their killed by the very person who is suppose to love and protect them.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> I am afraid this issue is going to be a dividing line forever, just like the civil war. Or, excuse me, should that be "the war of Northern aggression"?
> 
> It's been 40 years, the law is not going to change back, yet it gets discussed as passionately as if it just happened yesterday.
> 
> ...


Great post MOcows, most of the hardshells "I know" argue this topic only when holding on to their wallet. If they were so passionate about the unborn, why aren't they equally passionate about those already born and neglected and doing something about it?


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

bowdonkey said:


> Great post MOcows, most of the hardshells "I know" argue this topic only when holding on to their wallet. If they were so passionate about the unborn, why aren't they equally passionate about those already born and neglected and doing something about it?


It's illegal to abort the guilty .


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

CraterCove said:


> Hey the LDS believe that you did in fact agree to be born, and furthermore to face whatever trials come with the life before hand. So, even if things are horrible for someone who believes there's always the fact that they agreed to it beforehand to fall back on!
> 
> Anyone who says that saying abortion is wrong is 'forcing their views' on others--- I want them to stop forcing their view that killing any other human is wrong on me. I should receive no punishment at all for deciding it is in my best interests that another human die. Regardless of who they are or their age. If I feel their continued life is a burden upon me, I have the right to end it.


Abortion does not end a human life as no human yet exist. 

A group of cells unable to substance life and having no soul is not human. You speak of what the LDS church believes yet over look what other churches believe. Several religions believe that until the new born draws a breath there is no soul. 

In multi cultural, multi religion America one religion cannot take precedence over anther. 

The issue of contention is not that you cannot decide what you want to do in your life but that you want to decide for others. Your religion, your moral compass ethics do not apply to others. Not your job to save the soul of others only your own. 

You ignore free will and gods plan for humans. Jesus did not come and force anyone to do anything rather he taught, healed the sick, fed the poor, performed his first miracle turning the water into wine when his mother asked him to at a wedding party, talked to prostitutes and refused to cast the first stone. 

He never forced. Free will a person has to choose or not.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> I truly hope the ones opposed to legal abortion are taking positive action and not just spewing contempt for those who believe differently. Such as, supporting the organizations who help young pregnant women prepare for a baby or find a good adoption situation; offering them a viable and attractive alternative to abortion. Foster care for abused/neglected children. Anybody want to share what they do in that regard?


 
Why? Are you implying if I don't volunteer or go around telling pregnant women they're killing their babies I have no business believing it's murder?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JJ Grandits said:


> If one is pro-life shouldn't the other be anti-life?


It could be if one is pro-choice shouldnt the other be anti-choice?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Breezy833 said:


> If i identified with the terms skank i guess i might be, but i dont, so its ok. Also, i dont plan to infringe on your right to find me repulsive.
> 
> I agree with your 8 week term limits. i would probably stretch it to 12. I dont really agree with late term abortions. I think that they had time to make a decision before they get to 20 weeks and should have done something before then.
> 
> ...


I care for 2 reasons:

The unborn child's life is a life and has the same rights as any other human, regardless of age.

Don't force the public to pay for abortions, pay for it yourself! If you can't afford it, I'm sure their are many atheist organizations that will pay for it! Just don't force me to be an accomplice in the murder by using my tax money to pay for it!!!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raymond James said:


> Abortion does not end a human life as no human yet exist.
> 
> A group of cells unable to substance life and having no soul is not human. You speak of what the LDS church believes yet over look what other churches believe. Several religions believe that until the new born draws a breath there is no soul.
> 
> ...


How do you know an unborn human has no soul! A clump of cells is still life. It's a shame that some don't consider the beginning of a human life to be viable!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> How do you know an unborn human has no soul!


How do you know any human has a soul?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How do you know any human has a soul?


Prove they don't!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> A clump of cells is still life.


What if there only two cells in the clump and we know they cannot survive without a host to feed and maintain the perfect environment for them to grow and multiply?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Prove they don't!


Since we all know there is no possible way to "prove" a negative, how about you prove they do? Or at least provide some evidence of such a thing as a soul.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What if there only two cells in the clump and we know they cannot survive without a host to feed and maintain the perfect environment for them to grow and multiply?


Their still alive at that point arent they? That's her choice to make isn't it? Don't ask the public to pay to eliminate them!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Since we all know there is no possible way to "prove" a negative, how about you prove they do? Or at least provide some evidence of such a thing as a soul.


Look inward!!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Their still alive at that point arent they? That's her choice to make isn't it? Don't ask the public to pay to eliminate them!


Oh, I would never ask the public to pay eliminate them.... but I am glad to see that you understand it should be the womans choice.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Look inward!!!


Ok, I tryed that.... looked right into my belly button...Didnt see a thing.... must not be sucha thing as a soul...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh, I would never ask the public to pay eliminate them.... but I am glad to see that you understand it should be the womans choice.


I've never suggested otherwise! I've only said the public should not be forced to pay for a woman to commit a crime!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I tryed that.... looked right into my belly button...Didnt see a thing.... must not be sucha thing as a soul...


You only looked at the superficial external part of yourself. 
Maybe YOU just don't have one!! Many folks talk about having souls, soul mates, soul brothers, etc...
Maybe you just don't get it!


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

If a mother has the right to abort , give me one good reason the father shouldn't also have that right .


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> I've never suggested otherwise! I've only said the public should not be forced to pay for a woman to commit a crime!


What crime? to my knowledge there is no law preventing a woman from taking birth control pills, refraining from having sex or having an abortion.... these things are all perfectly legal..... in my state at least.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Raymond James said:


> You ignore free will and gods plan for humans. Jesus did not come and force anyone to do anything rather he taught, healed the sick, fed the poor, performed his first miracle turning the water into wine when his mother asked him to at a wedding party, talked to prostitutes and refused to cast the first stone.
> 
> He never forced. Free will a person has to choose or not.


 
True we all have free will. Maybe we should stop putting murderers in prison too since they are just practicing free will 
I'm not about to force a woman not to have an abortion. They'll answer to God in the end and he alone will give them their final judgment. I don't care that my tax dollars are used for it, Jesus was asked about Cesar using tax payers money for evil and he said give Cesar's things to Cesar and God's things to God. Once my money goes for taxes its on the law makers to decided what it's used for and on them if they use it to murder, my conscience is clear. But that doesn't mean I'll stop seeing abortion as murder, it's the same as when a mother kills her 2 year old.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What crime? to my knowledge there is no law preventing a woman from taking birth control pills, refraining from having sex or having an abortion.... these things are all perfectly legal..... in my state at least.


Killing another human is a crime unless it's just a clump of cells, right? But at a few weeks, it's more than just a clump of cells, and termination of that life is murder. If the woman chooses to terminate that life, she has to live with it for the rest of her life. I know women who suffer daily about previous decisions. I know some who don't! Don't ask the public to be an accomplice.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> You only looked at the superficial external part of yourself.
> Maybe YOU just don't have one!! Many folks talk about having souls, soul mates, soul brothers, etc...
> Maybe you just don't get it!


Many people talk about a lot of things.... doesnt prove there are little green men living on mars... 

My point here is that there is no evidence that suggests anything close to a "soul" being anything other than personal belief. Some believe, some dont... and thats all good. Our legal system is designed to allow everyone their own beliefs.... as long as those beliefs do not interfere with the next fellers. On that happy note I am off to see what sort of mischief my soul can get into when a group of folks get together an play music, have a few drinks, and share the rewards of their culinary skills.... I do believe in having fun!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Killing another human is a crime unless it's just a clump of cells, right? But at a few weeks, it's more than just a clump of cells, and termination of that life is murder.


Not in my state... there is no crime committed by a mother having an abortion even very late in the pregnancy, your state may have different laws but I doubt it. Roe v. Wade comes to mind.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not in my state... there is no crime committed by a mother having an abortion even very late in the pregnancy, your state may have different laws but I doubt it. Roe v. Wade comes to mind.


 
Yes, well..... if our Government says it's ok it must be:drum:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Raymond James said:


> Abortion does not end a human life as no human yet exist.
> 
> A group of cells unable to substance life and having no soul is not human. You speak of what the LDS church believes yet over look what other churches believe. Several religions believe that until the new born draws a breath there is no soul.
> 
> ...


I'm not speaking from a religious perspective. I'm a nihilist, I'm not religious. 

I'm also a libertarian, taking another person's life is about the most egregious breech of another person's liberty there is. Without life one cannot pursue liberty in any form. Once implantation occurs, it's murder to dislodge it (justifiable homicide if it's actually self defense). Especially once a nervous system has developed it is indeed a human and sentient.

Also, if a person is so irresponsible that they can't figure out they are pregnant before they pass that two month mark then I say, have them carry it and deny them an epidural--- maybe they'll be a little more careful next time.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Many people talk about a lot of things.... doesnt prove there are little green men living on mars...
> 
> My point here is that there is no evidence that suggests anything close to a "soul" being anything other than personal belief. Some believe, some dont... and thats all good. Our legal system is designed to allow everyone their own beliefs.... as long as those beliefs do not interfere with the next fellers. On that happy note I am off to see what sort of mischief my soul can get into when a group of folks get together an play music, have a few drinks, and share the rewards of their culinary skills.... I do believe in having fun!


You are on a roll today YH! This topic is almost as controversial as buying a fishing license. So I'm wisely staying out of it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

WV Hillbilly said:


> If a mother has the right to abort , give me one good reason the father shouldn't also have that right .


A great many fathers have. Its a lot easier for guys to abort than women. All the guy has to do zip up and go home.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes, well..... if our Government says it's ok it must be:drum:


There is a difference twixt legal and "OK". There are lots of things that I may think are not OK but are perfectly legal, just because I disapprove of something does not make it a crime.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a difference twixt legal and "OK". There are lots of things that I may think are not OK but are perfectly legal, just because I disapprove of something does not make it a crime.


Laws are not always right! And the Supreme Court isn't always right. A lot of laws need to go away!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Laws are not always right! And the Supreme Court isn't always right. A lot of laws need to go away!


On this point we are in complete agreement! There are hundreds if not thousands of meddling laws on the books today that need to be done away with. Anti drug laws and those dealing with other victimless crimes like gambling and prostitution come to mind.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A great many fathers have. Its a lot easier for guys to abort than women. All the guy has to do zip up and go home.


Sorry but prevention and abortion are a wee bit different. I think you'd do better to go on and see what kind of trouble you can get into tonight.  If nothing else it'll likely end up more fun than this.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a difference twixt legal and "OK". There are lots of things that I may think are not OK but are perfectly legal, just because I disapprove of something does not make it a crime.


 
This is true but just because it's legal it doesn't mean it's not a sin. Sin and crime or two different things. Abortion is legal but it's still murder. Saying it's not won't change it. Man may make laws of the land but they have no control over God's laws. The best they can hope for is to talk themselves into believing it's ok, even then God's laws stay the same.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> Sorry but prevention and abortion are a wee bit different. I think you'd do better to go on and see what kind of trouble you can get into tonight.  If nothing else it'll likely end up more fun than this.


Abortion is just one more method of prevention.... of a live baby being born. It serves the exact same purpose as abstenance.

Had a good time with old friends and came home early... less danger of getting ticketed for DUI this way. Mama would be so proud!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> This is true but just because it's legal it doesn't mean it's not a sin. Sin and crime or two different things. Abortion is legal but it's still murder. Saying it's not won't change it. Man may make laws of the land but they have no control over God's laws. The best they can hope for is to talk themselves into believing it's ok, even then God's laws stay the same.


There are countries where " God's law" and mans law are one and the same. The problem with that system is the age old question of whose god.... yours? Mine? In this country we have a system where everyone can follow mans law along with the laws of their chosen God. No one is required to have an abortion or do anything else that violates their own faith. Me? I like our system.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Abortion is just one more method of prevention.... of a live baby being born. It serves the exact same purpose as abstenance.


Um NO! Abstinence does not make a baby, thus no murder takes place. Abortion kills a baby already created & already its own person. Not even close to being the same.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

I would also like to know, if it is not a baby until it is born, why are some people charged with murder of an unborn child if they kill a pregnant woman? Is it only considered a baby if the mother wants it? 

As far as that baby having a soul, read Psalm 139. God knew us before we were even made.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wendy said:


> Um NO! Abstinence does not make a baby, thus no murder takes place. Abortion kills a baby already created & already its own person. Not even close to being the same.


Agreed, abstinence does not make a baby... which prevents that potential baby from ever being born... just as surely as an abortion does. Both methods have the exact same end result...no child to feed clothe or house. The would be mother is able to get on with her own life. How much difference does it make wheater she "aborts" her child naturally due to not allowing it to be conceived or using any other means two days later? Either way that potential baby ain't going to ever sit on daddys knee.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wendy said:


> I would also like to know, if it is not a baby until it is born, why are some people charged with murder of an unborn child if they kill a pregnant woman? Is it only considered a baby if the mother wants it?
> 
> As far as that baby having a soul, read Psalm 139. God knew us before we were even made.


To answer your question... this does appear to be the way the law looks at the situation... mothers have the ultimate say as to what becomes of the fetus until its borne.

As to psalm 139... this further strengthens my point about life beginning before conception....which of course takes us back to abstinence being pretty much like any other form of birth control.... including abortion.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Sorry but, all of your arguments on this page at least do nothing but highlight the hypocrisy of this subject. 

No man should be charged with murder if his abortion of an unwanted child just happens to also kill the incubator. Even married men are forced to have children they don't want. Abortion is not contraceptive and it's not abstinence. That is a kind of evil that pervades this culture right now; altering word meanings until any word has whatever meaning you want it to for whatever given situation.

The specific meanings of words are important. Cerulean is indeed different from periwinkle and contraceptive (that which prevents conception) is a far cry from abortion (that which removes an infant already in process). If you force yourself not to see the differing shades of blue eventually you find yourself in a situation where even red doesn't look all /that/ different anymore.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Wendy said:


> Um NO! Abstinence does not make a baby, thus no murder takes place. Abortion kills a baby already created & already its own person. Not even close to being the same.


I thought on another thread we determined that a couple withholding sex was unbiblical or something like that. That it led to abandonment and divorce. I'm confused.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]Fat-ASCJWZo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> I thought on another thread we determined that a couple withholding sex was unbiblical or something like that. That it led to abandonment and divorce. I'm confused.


 
One person determined that as far as I could tell. It's beside the point anyway if a couple decides together. Though in my experience even an unexpected baby is a blessing, we had 2 of them.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

bowdonkey said:


> I thought on another thread we determined that a couple withholding sex was unbiblical or something like that. That it led to abandonment and divorce. I'm confused.


Not seeing what this has to do with anything.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I thought on another thread we determined that a couple withholding sex was unbiblical or something like that. That it led to abandonment and divorce. I'm confused.


I never said anything about abstinence being unbiblical. There is a small window for a woman to get pregnant. If she learns the signs from her body she can determine when that is. It is called natural family planning & it works. It is all we have ever used. The only child conceived when she shouldn't have been was my youngest daughter. She was born 2 weeks after my sister passed away. I really believe God sent her to me to help me through that hard time. She is a blessing beyond words & helped me through a dark time in my life.

The biggest problem is people jumping in bed with anyone. Every time someone has sex they should ask theirself if the person they are having sex with is someone they would want to have a baby with. Abortion should not be a way to take of an unwanted baby because someone just wanted to have a night of fun with the wrong person.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> The biggest problem is people jumping in bed with anyone. Every time someone has sex they should ask theirself if the person they are having sex with is someone they would want to have a baby with. Abortion should not be a way to take of an unwanted baby because someone just wanted to have a night of fun with the wrong person.


That category is shrinking, while married women over 30 are getting more abortions.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> That category is shrinking, while married women over 30 are getting more abortions.


So... what your saying is that people who were promiscuous and made bad choices leading to abortions are still doing the same and getting them as they get older.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> The majority of women who have abortions already are mothers. Four out of 10 female-headed households live in poverty. A study cited here: http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html indicated the #1 reason cited by mothers for having an abortion is to protect the family they already have.


Back in the day 40 years and more ago, before abortion became such a hot topic there were lots of married women with large families solved the problem of another unwanted or accidental pregnancy in a way that was considered socially acceptable. Not talking back-alley abortionists or coat-hangers either, it was socially acceptable because most people didn't know about it or if they did they didn't know the real reason for it. It was the good old D&C. If she caught the accidental pregnancy in time during first trimester a woman would speak to a sympathetic doctor who would book her in for a common D&C for something diagnosed like fibroid tumours or adhesions or congested endometrium or any one of a number of other common female complaints that could be treated by cleaning out and flushing the uterus.

It was so common, you could ask any family woman in her late 30's or older if she'd ever had a D&C in her life - your mother, grandmother, aunties, neighbours, and there was a good chance that 50% of the women you asked would say yes. Yes, they'd had a simple D&C for blah, blah, blah "female complaint" reason and then gone home the same day or next day. Problem solved and hopefully there wouldn't be a next time. Everyone accepted it for what they were told (husbands, employers, friends, family and neighbours) but anyone in the "know" or who may have had the same procedure for the same reason knew that most likely the real reason for the D&C was because of an unwanted or very untimely pregnancy. Nobody asked, nobody told. The real reason for a D&C was between the woman and her doctor and what other people didn't know didn't hurt them.

These were ordinary family women, some religious, some not, some were adultresses or trollops, some were recent widows or young single women. 

I'm betting that a lot of pro-life people today don't even realize that their own grandmother, mother, auntie, sister or cousin who had a D&C may have actually been discreetly getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy. It was very, very common.

It may or may not be as common today and I wouldn't know because I don't know if D&C's are still as common a procedure today as they were back then. But if it still is a common procedure I wouldn't be surprised if 50% of the D&C's being done today for women of child bearing age with some "common female complaint" are actually common abortions just like it was back a few decades ago.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> The majority of women who have abortions already are mothers. Four out of 10 female-headed households live in poverty. A study cited here: http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl..._statistic_the_majority_of_women_who_ter.html indicated the #1 reason cited by mothers for having an abortion is to protect the family they already have.


Knowing a woman who has already felt a baby move inside of her, gave birth to a baby, loved and protected a baby and she will still willingly kill a baby is even more disturbing to me.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I can't say if what Paumon points out is true or not... however, obviously those decisions were made between a woman and her doctor and it sure wasn't the big red button when you'd decided to mess around without thought it is today. Spoken of as though it is nothing more than another form of contraceptive... which is utterly ridiculous.

However, I can say that the two D&C's I've had were for fibroids and nothing else. ~shrug~ Being a female who has had multiple children I've never heard of this at all but then again I'm only turning 35 this year.

I don't really see how it's all that important to the argument of whether or not it's murder to abort a fetus. I for one have made it very clear that while I still don't approve, early in the first trimester (up to 8 weeks) is where I personally draw the line. After approximately that time there is evidence of nerve development and function.

Abortion is used as a form of eugenics, it's used to dehumanize the population and normalize medically related murder. It's used to keep people children and free of responsibility for their actions. It's used to encourage shallowness and discourage introspection. 

And all this; it's only a baby if the woman wants it, is such a fat crock full of steamers anyone who wants to accept that argument can just go ahead and stand in the sub-human section for me. The mental acrobatics in making yourself believe that it's just a parasitic sack of cells or that its only a woman's right to make any decision about whether or not a child is born are amazing and fit for any decent side show.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not in my state... there is no crime committed by a mother having an abortion even very late in the pregnancy, your state may have different laws but I doubt it. Roe v. Wade comes to mind.


This is a different argument and not about the abortion issue, so my following comments do not directly go to the abortion issue..

First, there your statement above is part of the problem.

The Supreme Court of the United States is not the final say on any issue. Yes they are the highest court in the land, but they don't have the final say.

IT is WE THE PEOPLE who have that say. Take prohibition for example. The Court ruled the government could decide if alcohol was legal or not and allowed an Amendment to prohibit alcohol. But the people didn't agree and those that understand the jury system would not convict a person for making alcohol. That is the reason why ole Al Capone never was convicted for bootlegging and the government had to convict him on tax evasion charges, because the people could agree he should have paid taxes..

Don't believe? Fine! But please read the Constitution. We the people have the Right to change the Government if we decide it is necessary..That includes the Court(s)


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> As I said, maybe if they don't want any more children they ought to keep that penny between their knees.


Ahh, but where's the fun in that? ound:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Ahh, but where's the fun in that? ound:


Hey if you can't think of any fun to be had with that penny still betwix your knees you aren't thinking dirty enough.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

Wendy said:


> I would also like to know, if it is not a baby until it is born, why are some people charged with murder of an unborn child if they kill a pregnant woman? Is it only considered a baby if the mother wants it?
> 
> As far as that baby having a soul, read Psalm 139. God knew us before we were even made.


Because pro birth politicians in some states changed the laws just a few years ago so that instead of just being charged with a murder the person is charged with two murders. 

Not all states do this. Recent change, Laws for all for recorded history you only got charged for one death until now and again in only a few states. 


It was done so that the argument against abortion could be advanced. If they could get legal standing for the unborn they hoped it would get abortion laws changed nation wide. 

The unborn are not human beings legally or religiously as they have not had a soul inter the body. The soul enters on the first breath and leaves on the last. Your theology is wrong and your legal reasoning under the Untied States laws is wrong. 

Again you follow your religion and allow others the freedom to follow theirs . 

I suspect you often feel that the rest of the country is against you . You have people telling you are wrong, need to top doing things you do not think of as wrong such as leading little kids in prayer at school. If this is happening it is because rather than including other religions and viewpoints into the event you insist it has to be only one correct way./ the way you think and believe. 

But America is about freedom for others to have any religion/viewpoint they want to have.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

Read a recently released study that the number of abortions was down the study thought it had to do with the increased availability of birth control. If that is why and not the increase in unnecessary regulations like those being imposed by states trying to put clinics out of business then I think it is a good thing. 


Does anyone else find it "funny" that small government politicians think it is ok to load down womens clinics with excess regulations ( often building codes) that do not increase patient safety are not required of general family practice clinics or even clinics doing out patient surgery ? They put pro birth in front of the small government . Less government regulation but wait lets regulate a womans uterus. 

But I am getting over into politics so let me stop.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

It's not about regulating a woman's uterus. It's about whether or not we find murder acceptable.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> It's not about regulating a woman's uterus. It's about whether or not we find murder acceptable.


Apparently we, as a society, do find it acceptable in many varied instances. You're free to personally disagree with any and all instances of that acceptance and work to change attitudes.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Apparently we, as a society, do find it acceptable in many varied instances. You're free to personally disagree with any and all instances of that acceptance and work to change attitudes.


I love how some people just aren't all that cool with words meaning specific things.

Let's outline some words and what they mean:

Murder: The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. You kill someone for reasons including, taking their stuff, or they are in your way, because you hate them just that much. That's murder. 

Justifiable Homicide: Killing a person for reasons of self defense or in the defense of someone else's life, or during the course of stopping a crime in commission. 

Manslaughter: The unlawful killing of one human being by another without malice aforethought. 


So, you're knocked up, you suction a perfectly viable fetus whose presence does not threaten your life in more than is usually expected when one has a baby. How is that not murder? Some people want to draw the line a viability (22 weeks) some people at heart function (14-18 days) or nerve development (approx 8 weeks). However, I still don't see this as anything more than a discussion about what the timeframe for a murder of convenience is acceptable. 

I hope every female who ever chose or chooses to terminate their child suffers ever day of her life over that decision. It's no more than a murderer deserves. Even people who kill to defend themselves or to protect others are not flippant and dismissing of the act but we're just supposed to accept abortion as such a non-event as picking up a cup of coffee or having a mole burned off at the doc's office.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> The unborn are not human beings legally or religiously as they have not had a soul inter the body. The soul enters on the first breath and leaves on the last.


And how do you know when the soul enters the body??


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> I love how some people just aren't all that cool with words meaning specific things.
> 
> Let's outline some words and what they mean:
> 
> ...


And by the first line of your definition you prove that abortion is not murder.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And by the first line of your definition you prove that abortion is not murder.


Um no, you are trying really really hard not to understand. Your obvious brain power could be put to far better uses. Abortion is premeditated murder. If you think that all murder has malice involved you are pretty sheltered. Convenience is a big reason for murdering someone.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> Um no, you are trying really really hard not to understand. Your obvious brain power could be put to far better uses. Abortion is premeditated murder. If you think that all murder has malice involved you are pretty sheltered. Convenience is a big reason for murdering someone.


By your own definition murder is an unlawful act. As abortion is not illegal it therefor cannot be murder by your own definition.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> By your own definition murder is an unlawful act. As abortion is not illegal it therefor cannot be murder by your own definition.


Yeah okay whatever. So you don't actually have anything to say. I'll remember that for future.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> Yeah okay whatever. So you don't actually have anything to say. I'll remember that for future.


No, I have much to say. One is that if you're going to use terms like murder and define them then you should have the integrity in your thinking to be consistent. Another is that I find it somewhat intellectually dishonest of you to condem others for an action you condone if it happens one day earlier. Your 8 week deadline is as abitrary to some and makes you as much as an endorser of what you call murder as someone who draws the line at 12 or 20 weeks. And last, but not least, society as a whole defines the rules that we as a society live by. You are free to adopt stricter rules in your personal dealings, but you are not free to impose those rules on the rest of society. You are free to call others names and look down upon them, just as others are free to do the same to you.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> Justifiable Homicide: Killing a person for reasons of self defense or in the defense of someone else's life, or during the course of stopping a crime in commission.


I'd think if abortion was going to be categorized as homicide (which legally it isn't and it never will be) then it would fall under the category of justifiable homicide for reasons of self-defense or in the defense of someone else's life.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

It's not arbitrary. However, I doubt that it would bring anything to the conversation to outline my reasoning to you. Especially since I still believe it's murder and morally wrong. I don't condone it at all. 

It's not society as a whole that makes these decisions. It's black robed jesters at an eternal masquerade. Every time of recent where a _majority_ has said they want the rules for things like abortion to be different it's run to mommy time for those who disagree. And yet those are largely the same people who trot around with their tongue out 'nah na nah' ing that well they won the election and you lost so deal with it. Funny how that works.

I guess majority desires or winning an election only really matters when it's won on the lefter side of things.

I don't need you to inform me that I am welcome to 'adopt stricter rules in my personal dealings' as though that should come as some life altering revelation to me. The only rules I believe in are no murder and no theft. The only two, ever, that should be enforced anywhere. But when it comes to those two rules, I am pretty adamant about them.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I'd think if abortion was going to be categorized as homicide (which legally it isn't and it never will be) then it would fall under the category of justifiable homicide for reasons of self-defense or in the defense of someone else's life.


Yeah, except it's not. Those occasions are rare where an infant needs to be terminated for the mother's life to continue. I mean unless you are talking about her bikini ready party til dawn life--- then yeah, I guess you're correct.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> I'd think if abortion was going to be categorized as homicide (which legally it isn't and it never will be) then it would fall under the category of justifiable homicide for reasons of self-defense or in the defense of someone else's life.


 If that's the case why stop when they are in the womb? Why not a 2 year old? Maybe since you had that child you're out of work or you've become unable to work. Maybe you left you're partner and raising a child alone is harder than you think and it's cramping your lifestyle.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

mmoetc said:


> > Originally Posted by *CraterCove*
> > _It's not about regulating a woman's uterus. It's about whether or not we find murder acceptable._
> 
> 
> Apparently we, as a society, do find it acceptable in many varied instances. You're free to personally disagree with any and all instances of that acceptance and work to change attitudes.


We certainly do find murder acceptable in many instances. Countless murders. We send soldiers off to war to kill people, soldiers covered in praise glory and then enemies and innocent civilians alike (including unborn babies) get killed. The dead enemies - that's called a victory. The dead innocent civilians - that's called collateral damage. Oh well, so sad, too bad. The soldiers (that live) come back home to temporary glory again (then fall through the cracks) and their superiors make excuses about the collateral damages being unavoidable incidences of war. Where is the uproar over that? It's still people getting murdered by other people who are used as tools.

.................................................................................................

I had the option offered to me once many years ago to have an abortion and I wouldn't do it. I didn't refuse because of religious beliefs or because I thought I might be murdering a soul. I refused because the baby was important to me, I loved it and I wanted it to be born. Plain and simple. If I was to get pregnant now at my age I'd be burning up the road in my haste to get to an abortionist. There's no way I could tolerate an unwanted thing growing inside my body now.

That's how it is with people who get abortions. They don't want it. They don't love it. It's a liability and all it's doing is bringing them grief and possible risk to their own health. All they want to do is get rid of it before it causes more grief and damage.

Pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder of an unborn soul and that a woman should be made to allow an unwanted thing to grow inside her and become a burden.

Many pro-choice people believe that pro-lifers who behave like rabbits popping out unlimited babies like they're going out of style should be sterilized.

Neither one of them is right to be trying to force their beliefs on other people. Both of them should be minding their own business about what other people do with their own bodies.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Wendy said:


> And how do you know when the soul enters the body??


Or if there is such a thing as a soul that ever enters or leaves anyones body.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or if there is such a thing as a soul that ever enters or leaves anyones body.


Not everyone who is against abortion believes in souls. It really is unimportant.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Both of them should be minding their own business about what other people do with their own bodies.


Well said!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> Yeah, except it's not. Those occasions are rare where an infant needs to be terminated for the mother's life to continue. I mean unless you are talking about her bikini ready party til dawn life*--- *then yeah, I guess you're correct.





dixiegal62 said:


> If that's the case why stop when they are in the womb? Why not a 2 year old? Maybe since you had that child you're out of work or you've become unable to work. Maybe you left you're partner and raising a child alone is harder than you think and it's cramping your lifestyle.


If you could both confine your responses to practical and logical comments without going off on the made up "what if" fantasies and imaginings in your heads it would be easier to have a practical, logical discussion with you. As it is you're so wound up and emotionally charged, bringing up fanciful silly stuff that isn't worthy of comment, so why should anyone else try to have a discussion with you?

And Dixiegal, I find your above post too pointless and even disgusting to think about. How can you come up with such imaginings and think that other people would entertain to discuss or dispute such perverted ideas? It's not even worth the dignity of a response.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Neither one of them is right to be trying to force their beliefs on other people. Both of them should be minding their own business about what other people do with their own bodies.


But only once they are of an age where they can defend and speak up for themselves, right? Who cares about those who can't? Not anyone who feels this way about abortion--- or I seriously question their integrity. 

It is the ultimate denial of liberty for someone else to choose whether or not you live or die before you can even be consulted. 

I'd be fine with abortions-- if they came with a free sterilization. At least that would minimize the damage.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> Not everyone who is against abortion believes in souls. It really is unimportant.


Not everyone who believes a woman has the right to decide for herself believes abortion is a good thing either. I am personally opposed to anyone having an abortion in most cases.... but I am even more opposed to having someone else make that decision for her.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> .................................................................................................
> 
> I had the option offered to me once many years ago to have an abortion and I wouldn't do it. I didn't refuse because of religious beliefs or because I thought I might be murdering a soul. I refused because the baby was important to me, I loved it and I wanted it to be born. Plain and simple. If I was to get pregnant now at my age I'd be burning up the road in my haste to get to an abortionist. There's no way I could tolerate an unwanted thing growing inside my body now.
> 
> ...


So when a baby was important to you, it was a baby... but now that you don't want one, it's a thing? Very convenient.

I would point out as a pro-lifer I have no desire to force anything on you. I will however call a spade a spade and not hide the fact that in my eyes if you have one you murdered an innocent defenseless child.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Both of them should be minding their own business about what other people do with their own bodies.


But the procedure is happening to someone else's body, not the mother's. It is not the mother's body that is being ripped apart, it's the baby's. I am sure they don't like it anymore than the mother would like having her limbs ripped off of her.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> And Dixiegal, I find your above post too pointless and even disgusting to think about. How can you come up with such imaginings and think that other people would entertain to discuss or dispute such perverted ideas? It's not even worth the dignity of a response.


No difference in killing a 2 year old or a baby in the womb and you made it clear you're all for one, so why stop there? If you find it offensive that's your problem. I find it laughable for you to act shocked and offended and then write a post referring to a baby as, ' A thing growing inside your body.' But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> So when a baby was important to you, it was a baby... but now that you don't want one, it's a thing? Very convenient.
> 
> I would point out as a pro-lifer I have no desire to force anything on you. *I will however call a spade a spade and not hide the fact that in my eyes if you have one you murdered an innocent defenseless child*.





Wendy said:


> But the procedure is happening to someone else's body, not the mother's. It is not the mother's body that is being ripped apart, it's the baby's. *I am sure they don't like it anymore than the mother would like having her limbs ripped off of her*.


Your objections are noted. If I got pregnant now - and thank goodness that's not possible now - but if I did get pregnant through some miracle - I would most certainly have the pregnancy terminated. Your objections and those objections of other pro-lifers would still be noted and then brushed off because they would not be important to me and I wouldn't give them a second thought.

This is something that pro-lifers need to come to terms with, that pro-choicers really don't care what pro-lifers think. You could argue til you're blue in the face but if a woman is bound and determined to get an abortion for whatever reasons, she's going to do it and other people's opinions are not going to make any difference.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> This is something that pro-lifers need to come to terms with, that pro-choicers really don't care what pro-lifers think. You could argue til you're blue in the face but if a woman is bound and determined to get an abortion for whatever reasons, she's going to do it and other people's opinions are not going to make any difference.


Same things with drug use, murder, violence of any kind... prevention is useless. And also, so are laws.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

CraterCove said:


> It's not arbitrary. However, I doubt that it would bring anything to the conversation to outline my reasoning to you. Especially since I still believe it's murder and morally wrong. I don't condone it at all.
> 
> It's not society as a whole that makes these decisions. It's black robed jesters at an eternal masquerade. Every time of recent where a _majority_ has said they want the rules for things like abortion to be different it's run to mommy time for those who disagree. And yet those are largely the same people who trot around with their tongue out 'nah na nah' ing that well they won the election and you lost so deal with it. Funny how that works.
> 
> ...


I do find it rather arbitrary that on day 41 of a pregnancy you seem to accept abortion even if you don't endorse it but on day 42 that same perso becomes a murderous skank.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> Same things with drug use, murder, violence of any kind... prevention is useless. And also, so are laws.


Well we all have our bugaboos that we object to, don't we? For example, I object to trophy hunting and hunting and killing animals for sport and you think it's perfectly acceptable and the law says it's okay. There's nothing either one of us can say or do to persuade the other that our opinion is the right opinion. We both know that because we've already discussed it at length and neither one of us changed our minds about it so we both eventually agreed to disagree and we dropped the subject.

It's like that with opinions about abortion. Sometimes people just need to agree to disagree and leave it at that and get on with their own lives as they see fit for themselves.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> This is something that pro-lifers need to come to terms with, that pro-choicers really don't care what pro-lifers think. You could argue til you're blue in the face but if a woman is bound and determined to get an abortion for whatever reasons, she's going to do it and other people's opinions are not going to make any difference.


 I came to terms with true evil in this world a long time ago. Pro-choice people need to come to terms with the fact that some people will lump you all into the same category as child abusers, child molesters, murderers and every other form of low life. I wouldn't trust anyone who supports the killing of children to hold or care for my child anymore than I would any of the above. I'm certainly not going to stroke your ego and tell you I find a person who kills there own a person with any form of humanity or cry any tears over a woman who dies while killing her child.


----------



## paradox (Nov 19, 2012)

I think if society is going to agree that it is perfectly ok to kill a person that is going to cause you inconvenience for a period of a few months, there are way more appropriate targets than a child.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> I do find it rather arbitrary that on day 41 of a pregnancy you seem to accept abortion even if you don't endorse it but on day 42 that same perso becomes a murderous skank.


No, that person is still a murderous skank. But since there are valid reasons for the medical procedure, it has to be available. I don't accept it. In fact, were I in the position that I would likely die if I carried a child I would still carry it. Progression of the species is about the offspring not the parent. 

And yes, I place human life above other animals. Not everyone does that, and I put those people in the sub-human category. 

Things to do with humans is not in the same category as any subject that involves animals. I've never trophy hunted but I do, in fact, see nothing wrong with it or people who practice it. I see a problem when human life is not held in any regard.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> I came to terms with true evil in this world a long time ago. Pro-choice people need to come to terms with the fact that some people will lump you all into the same category as child abusers, child molesters, murderers and every other form of low life. I wouldn't trust anyone who supports the killing of children to hold or care for my child anymore than I would any of the above. I'm certainly not going to stroke your ego and tell you I find a person who kills there own a person with any form of humanity or cry any tears over a woman who dies while killing her child.


I imagine other people who don't want anything to do with children would probably not want nor expect to be entrusted with the care of your children either. I know I surely wouldn't and it wouldn't bother me at all about what you thought about me for not wanting to care for or about your babies because they're your responsibility, not mine. 

When I was having babies and raising my own family it was because I wanted to do that and I loved and showered my children with love and devotion. They were fed mind, body and soul and lacked for nothing. But I can't stand little kids now, I have no patience with them anymore. If little children had to be left in my care now it would have to be a very temporary thing because they would undoubtedly end up suffering from emotional neglect if left in my care for very long. They'd get fed and clothed and sheltered from the elements but that would be it because I no longer have anything more to offer them. At least I recognize that in myself and I'm not ashamed to be honest and admit it and don't care what other people think about that.

So, feeling the way you do about what kind of people you would entrust with the care of your children, it's probably a really good idea for you to ask the babysitter if she's ever had an abortion.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> You could argue til you're blue in the face but if a woman is bound and determined to get an abortion for whatever reasons, she's going to do it and other people's opinions are not going to make any difference.


Actually, many women have changed their minds after being given the real facts about abortion.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> I imagine other people who don't want anything to do with children would probably not want nor expect to be entrusted with the care of your children either. I know I surely wouldn't and it wouldn't bother me at all about what you thought about me for not wanting to care for or about your babies because they're your responsibility, not mine.
> 
> When I was having babies and raising my own family it was because I wanted to do that and I loved and showered my children with love and devotion. They were fed mind, body and soul and lacked for nothing. But I can't stand little kids now, I have no patience with them anymore. If little children had to be left in my care now it would have to be a very temporary thing because they would undoubtedly end up suffering from emotional neglect if left in my care for very long. They'd get fed and clothed and sheltered from the elements but that would be it because I no longer have anything more to offer them. At least I recognize that in myself and I'm not ashamed to be honest and admit it and don't care what other people think about that.
> 
> So, feeling the way you do about what kind of people you would entrust with the care of your children, it's probably a really good idea for you to ask the babysitter if she's ever had an abortion.


Lord I hope your kids never give you grandchildren! My kids are grown now and blessing me with grandkids to love.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Wendy said:


> Actually, many women have changed their minds after being given the real facts about abortion.


I know that is true. I do think it's important that if a woman is considering getting an abortion she should know all the facts and that it's not a decision to be taken lightly. I don't believe that abortion should be thought of as simply a means of birth control because there are so many other easy BC methods available to women today. If a woman thinks of it as simple birth control then she's uneducated and being irresponsible and probably shouldn't ever be having any children at any time. Better to get her tubes tied and not have a family if she's going to be so cavalier about her own body and life and the potential life or fate of as yet unborn children.



dixiegal62 said:


> Lord I hope your kids never give you grandchildren! My kids are grown now and blessing me with grandkids to love.


I'm happy for you if you're happy that your children are providing you with grandkids to love and care for and I'm happy for you that you consider it to be a blessing. Clearly you're a maternal person and having babies and providing for them is important to you. It's good to know that if anything untoward ever happens to your children that your grandchildren or great-grandchildren will have a loving family home with their grandmother to raise them and not be shunted off to the care of people who don't have any familial investment in them.

My children already have adult children of their own and their children are all delightful, happy, healthy, intelligent, well balanced, well educated and successful individuals who are now well embarked on the way to starting another new generation of families of their own. They all know that I'm available to babysit the great-grandchildren briefly for a few hours if it's absolutely necessary and they all understand why it would have to be for only a few hours. They don't hold it against me that I no longer wish to be burdened with the responsibilities of raising small children. They're non-judgemental and I love them all for that - they were all raised to be non-judgemental if possible.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I am grateful to live in a country that gives women the choice to raise however many children they choose. Not all governments see fit to allow such freedom.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am grateful to live in a country that gives women the choice to raise however many children they choose. Not all governments see fit to allow such freedom.


To the best of my knowledge there are only 2 countries in the world that have birth rate policies and they have them because of over-population. They are China and India, both countries each having somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.2 to 1.5 billion population. 

In 1952 India was the first country to implement an non-enforced voluntary policy to slow population growth with the goal being 4 or less children per family for civilians and only 2 children for government officials. Their policy has been proving to be successful beyond their expectations and the average number of children per civilian family is now 3 rather than the 6 that it was in 1952.

In 1979 China implemented their enforced family planning policy of 1 child per family, with exemptions being ethnic minorities, or families in which neither parent has siblings may have 2 children, and families in all rural areas where 2 children are allowed if the first child is a girl or is a disabled boy. China's restrictions will be changing in April this year from a 1-child policy to a 2-child policy. Families everywhere, including in the cities, will soon be allowed to have 2 children if one of the parents is an only child which is what most of new young families are now.

Personally I think that if any country anywhere is over-populated that a voluntary policy to slow population would be a good thing to be implemented and guided by their government, such as the successful policy that was implemented by India's government.

I don't think that any of us here in North America have anything to worry about with regards to how many children we may choose to have. I doubt that North America will ever see a population of 1 billion.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am grateful to live in a country that gives women the choice to raise however many children they choose. Not all governments see fit to allow such freedom.



America the land of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all it's citizens, except infants.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> America the land of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all it's citizens, except infants.


Infants have the same rights and protections as any other minor citizen... a fetus however is not a citizen. One of the requirements for citizenship is to get yourself born on american soil. See the 14th amendment of the US Constitution for details.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

So rights are derived from words written on special paper and warded over by some ritual? I thought people were more sensible and less superstitious these days.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

So on a larger scale, would you trust a presidential candidate who is prochoice with the fate of the nation? Seems the two big contenders were both prochoice last time. Is there any room for compromise there? I just find so much gray area when it comes to abortion.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> So rights are derived from words written on special paper and warded over by some ritual? I thought people were more sensible and less superstitious these days.


wrong post sorry


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Infants have the same rights and protections as any other minor citizen... a fetus however is not a citizen. One of the requirements for citizenship is to get yourself born on american soil. See the 14th amendment of the US Cnstitution for details.


You're forgetting the infants aborted alive and then left to die.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

bowdonkey said:


> So on a larger scale, would you trust a presidential candidate who is prochoice with the fate of the nation? Seems the two big contenders were both prochoice last time. Is there any room for compromise there? I just find so much gray area when it comes to abortion.


And what exactly was the difference between those two again? I can't really tell them apart.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> So rights are derived from words written on special paper and warded over by some ritual? I thought people were more sensible and less superstitious these days.


:huh: 

Uh oh, look out, now you've done gone put yourself on the hate list of all the patriotic constitutionalists and bibliophiles who live by the words of the bible.

eep:


Speaking of sensibility and superstition - isn't that kind of like the pot calling the kettle black? What sensible, non-superstitious proof do you have that a few cells growing inside a uterus possess a human soul? For that matter, what sensible, non-superstitious evidence do you have that there even is such a thing as a human soul?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> :huh:
> 
> Uh oh, look out, now you've done gone put yourself on the hate list of all the patriotic constitutionalists and bibliophiles who live by the words of the bible.
> 
> ...


I am not the person talking about souls. Holy Hera, pay attention: I am a nihilist. I am not religious.

ETA: Uhh... human sperm plus human egg = human... or do you live somewhere that they occasionally come out as puppies?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> I am not the person talking about souls. Holy Hera, pay attention: I am a nihilist. I am not religious.
> 
> ETA: Uhh... human sperm plus human egg = human... or do you live somewhere that they occasionally come out as puppies?


Okay - human sperm plus human egg = human cells. So what? Cancer and fibroid tumours are human cells, fast growing flesh that possess a life of their own and get cut out of uteruses when they become a threat too. What's the difference between one type of human cells and another if neither one possesses a soul?

Your frustrated resort to sarcasm and attempted insults about puppies is unbecoming of you, it belittles and discredits your own intelligence and ability to carry on a conversation and be taken seriously. I expected personal attacks and insults to come from someone like Dixiegal and wasn't surprised when she did that, but not from you. :hand:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> So rights are derived from words written on special paper and warded over by some ritual? I thought people were more sensible and less superstitious these days.


At the risk of sounding too superstitious I would say our rights are derived from God... the Constitution being the highest written law of our land which is designed to insure our rights are protected by our government. I didnt write the rules... just trying to point them out.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> You're forgetting the infants aborted alive and then left to die.


I didnt forget.... I was simply unaware that this was a standard practice.


----------



## Breezy833 (Jun 17, 2013)

Crater cove, thanks for ur reply earlier. Seemed like a better debate a few posts back. I think i have said my peice on this issue. 

I do have a question though. How many lists do u have? Lol skanks,sub-human non-human. I think there were a couple others i forgot. How do u keep track of them all? Spread sheet? .. 
 

Take care


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> ETA: Uhh... human sperm plus human egg = human...


I have heard this.... but if this is what its all about, is it not "murder" to prevent these two cells from getting together at every opportunity?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Okay - human sperm plus human egg = human cells. So what? Cancer and fibroid tumours are human cells, fast growing flesh that possess a life of their own and get cut out of uteruses when they become a threat too. What's the difference between one type of human cells and another if neither one possesses a soul?
> 
> Your frustrated resort to sarcasm and attempted insults about puppies is unbecoming of you, it belittles and discredits your own intelligence and ability to carry on a conversation and be taken seriously. I expected personal attacks and insults to come from someone like Dixiegal and wasn't surprised when she did that, but not from you. :hand:


Oh no, you don't get to say how low I can stoop. That's a decision I make myself. You guys have slipped way far down the hill from a serious discussion. To not understand the difference between a human in process and a tumor means there just isn't much of anything to discuss. We obviously don't have the same level of understanding when it comes to biology... which is surpising because I did consider you to know a whole heck of a lot more than me.

And Breezy, naw, I don't need a list of my lists... after all this time it comes pretty naturally.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> At the risk of sounding too superstitious I would say our rights are derived from God... the Constitution being the highest written law of our land which is designed to insure our rights are protected by our government. I didnt write the rules... just trying to point them out.



That document was mostly written to protect our rights /from/ our government... not set out so they could protect them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> That document was mostly written to protect our rights /from/ our government... not set out so they could protect them.


Agreed


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I didnt forget.... I was simply unaware that this was a standard practice.


 
Yes it is. If you don't consider babies humans until they are born and breathing then what about these babies? These babies are living breathing American citizens and yet they are left to die. Where is their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Yes it is. If you don't consider babies humans until they are born and breathing then what about these babies? These babies are living breathing American citizens and yet they are left to die. Where is their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?


In those cases one would think their rights have been Denied and the doctor who neglects their care could be charged with criminal neglect. Like l said, I have not heard of this before.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In those cases one would think their rights have been Denied and the doctor who neglects their care could be charged with criminal neglect. Like l said, I have not heard of this before.


It is, in fact, standard and accepted practice. You can easily find the testimonies of many people who used to work in abortion clinics speak of live born 'abortions' that were simply tossed in the trash, even drowned in toilets.

And people who advocate for unrestricted abortion argue that charging docs with neglect or anything in these circumstances will send abortion right back to the dark alley--- instead of admitting that this is obviously not a procedure that should be done in a location where a neonatal unit is not available.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In those cases one would think their rights have been Denied and the doctor who neglects their care could be charged with criminal neglect. Like l said, I have not heard of this before.


You would think they would be charged but the problem is pro choice advocates are ok with this, law makers are ok with it, even our president and first lady are ok with it. You've never heard of the 'born alive infant protection act'?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In those cases one would think their rights have been Denied and the doctor who neglects their care could be charged with criminal neglect. *Like l said, I have not heard of this before*.


That's because it doesn't happen as often as pro-lifers believe and want other people to believe. It's part of the pro-life propaganda. I agree with what Raymond said earlier, when he stated that _"the unborn are not human beings legally or religiously as they have not had a soul enter the body. The soul enters on the first breath and leaves on the last."_ He called it the soul, and wise men who have known about this for thousands of years have called it prana, the life-force which is what makes a being a being when they take their first independent breath. Any motility that happens with a fetus before it takes its first independent breath at birth is simply that, spontaneous electrically induced motility that is a necessary part of the growth process of the developing fetus. Prior to taking that first breath there is no personality, no thought process, no experience, no memory, no spirit and no instinct other than that endowed by the mother at the cellular level. Even the cellular instinct/memory transference that happens between mother to child in utero dissipates within 7 days of the baby being born and taking it's first independent breath. By then it has become humanized, an independent being with breathed in life force of its own permeated right to the cellular level and is developing its own personality. It's not the same kind of thing as what happens when cellular memory and personality transference occurs between an organ donor and an organ recipient. And if pro-lifers do believe it's the same kind of thing then they all need to stop having surgeries to remove bits of themselves and stop cutting their hair and fingernails because to do so would be the same as them having abortions.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Sorry, if it happens once that's enough to be concerned about... It's really amazing how hard people work to make it not matter and not a big deal.

I don't give one flying fart about some 'soul'--- wise men indeed... shamanistic tomfoolery.

The ability to perceive and record, the start of a nervous system seems like a pretty simple place to draw a line, overall. Infants react to outside stimulation before they draw their first breath. They react to sound, to differences in light, many things before taking their first breath.

Prior to a central nervous system beginning to develop there is no perception and no consciousness. It's still a human in process and it's still slaughtering a human to rid yourself of it but at least it's not an individual at that point.

You sound completely silly talking about souls and first breaths.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Even a cloned human ear growing on the back of a mouse has a nervous system. By your reckoning I guess if it has a nervous system then it must be a living human being.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Even a cloned human ear growing on the back of a mouse has a nervous system. By your reckoning I guess if it has a nervous system then it must be a living human being.


Yeah cause that happens all the time... mice spawning human parts. It's not like the fetus is part of a natural process that is what we are designed for or anything right? Unlike the cloned human ear? 

Your over simplification is becoming droll.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I guess it may seem droll to someone like you who believes that people who kill independent living things for their own personal hedonistic pleasure is perfectly acceptable but women who choose to stop a burden from growing inside their own bodies in self defense of their own well being is not acceptable.

I'm done with this. Ciao.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> That's because it doesn't happen as often as pro-lifers believe and want other people to believe..


 It happens. It shouldn't matter how often it happens though there is plenty of proof it has happened more than once. Even once is too much. A child born breathing is a living soul by your own words. Deny/double speak all you want but it won't change the facts.

"And if pro-lifers do believe it's the same kind of thing then they all need to stop having surgeries to remove bits of themselves and stop cutting their hair and fingernails because to do so would be the same as them having abortions." :hysterical:You meant this as a joke...right?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Paumon said:


> Even the cellular instinct/memory transference that happens between mother to child in utero dissipates within 7 days of the baby being born and taking it's first independent breath. By then it has become humanized, an independent being with breathed in life force of its own permeated right to the cellular level and is developing its own personality.


So in your mind it's what until 7 days you speak of ?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I guess it may seem droll to someone like you who believes that people who kill independent living things for their own personal hedonistic pleasure is perfectly acceptable but women who choose to stop a burden from growing inside their own bodies in self defense of their own well being is not acceptable.
> 
> I'm done with this. Ciao.


Because I should feel the same way about humans killing any other animal on the planet as I do about humans murdering humans. Because that somehow makes sense.

If we are allowed to kill humans for being burdens then I have a really long list to start on.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

OK, I have been doing some reading up on this business of letting a born alive child die. It appears to me that a live birth is the exception rather than the standard practice. It also appears to me that in those instances it is a felony to neglect it or otherwise cause harm to this child. This law has been in effect for quite some time. What s the rub? :shrug:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK, I have been doing some reading up on this business of letting a born alive child die. It appears to me that a live birth is the exception rather than the standard practice. It also appears to me that in those instances it is a felony to neglect it or otherwise cause harm to this child. This law has been in effect for quite some time. What s the rub? :shrug:


Lack of enforcement. Advocacy for removing such restrictions and making it a crime instead to attempt to assist such 'exceptions'. But, if you don't think it's wrong to kill an infant then I don't see what the difference is. 

Since cruelty and neglect/ abuse are the exception rather than the standard practice and there is already a set of laws against it, why should we be concerned when it happens at all? Who cares, right?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> OK, I have been doing some reading up on this business of letting a born alive child die. It appears to me that a live birth is the exception rather than the standard practice. It also appears to me that in those instances it is a felony to neglect it or otherwise cause harm to this child. This law has been in effect for quite some time. What s the rub? :shrug:





CraterCove said:


> Lack of enforcement. Advocacy for removing such restrictions and making it a crime instead to attempt to assist such 'exceptions'.


What CraterCove said.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

tried to post a video but no luck

http://youtu.be/_sKQ-quoZyE

Holder: "I Don't Know" if DOJ ever enforced Born Alive Infant Protection Act


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> What CraterCove said.


I am not sure I understand every thing CraterCove just said!  it sounds almost like more laws are needed because the current laws are not being enforced??? In my mind the current law should be sufficient. The rights of born infants are protected by law... even the rights of unborn are protected if they are able to survive outside the womb. Adding more laws will not change enforcement policy.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Since when has writing more laws made the laws already on the books enforced? That makes no sense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

CraterCove said:


> Since when has writing more laws made the laws already on the books enforced? That makes no sense.


Exactly!!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not sure I understand every thing CraterCove just said!  it sounds almost like more laws are needed because the current laws are not being enforced??? In my mind the current law should be sufficient. The rights of born infants are protected by law... even the rights of unborn are protected if they are able to survive outside the womb. Adding more laws will not change enforcement policy.


Eric Holder couldn't even say the current law protecting live abortion babies is being enforced. Even though he was told there have been 18 thousand chances to do so. That's 18 thousand breathing babies left to die. Not such a small number.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> Eric Holder couldn't even say the current law protecting live abortion babies is being enforced. Even though he was told there have been 18 thousand chances to do so. That's 18 thousand breathing babies left to die. Not such a small number.


I read several articles with various numbers cited, including this18 k you mention. What seems to be the problem? No evidence sufficient to prosecute? Or maybe a lack of incentive on holders part? If the latter I recommend firing him and getting someone who will do the job.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I read several articles with various numbers cited, including this18 k you mention. What seems to be the problem? No evidence sufficient to prosecute? Or maybe a lack of incentive on holders part? If the latter I recommend firing him and getting someone who will do the job.


I agree, Holder needs to be fired right away, and I mean right away. He's the worst person in the world to be AG. I can't even begin to list all the crimes he is associated with and the treaties he's broken!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I read several articles with various numbers cited, including this18 k you mention. What seems to be the problem? No evidence sufficient to prosecute? Or maybe a lack of incentive on holders part? If the latter I recommend firing him and getting someone who will do the job.


My opinion is it's because those innocent lives are collateral damage. Just imagine the outrage by the PC crowd if they where punished for killing living babies and forced to stop the practice. To them the lives of a few hundred or thousand babies are worth it.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> I agree, Holder needs to be fired right away, and I mean right away. He's the worst person in the world to be AG. I can't even begin to list all the crimes he is associated with and the treaties he's broken!


Even if he where fired tomorrow the next in line would do the same thing. Too many votes to lose.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

So... what is your solution?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So... what is your solution?


Wouldn't it be nice if it where that simple. I don't think there is a solution. As long as there are people who view babies as medical waste and politicians who want their votes it won't stop, not in my lifetime anyway. 

The best I can hope for is that sometime in the future people will start to care and stop... there was a time when people looked at blacks as inhuman and disposable so maybe our more enlightened future generations will do the same for children. 

In the meantime it was a very small step from killing a 2 month old fetus to killing a birthed breathing baby.... how small a step will it be to a month old baby?


----------

