# Planned Parenthood



## preparing

Pure EVIL.

If you need more of an explanation you are unfortunately already lost.

I cannot believe G-d allows this country to go on...maybe He isn't.


----------



## painterswife

preparing said:


> Pure EVIL.
> 
> If you need more of an explanation you are unfortunately already lost.
> 
> I cannot believe G-d allows this country to go on...maybe He isn't.


Your God must have allowed much more horrible things to take place every single day and has through out the history. So if he exists then he is more lost than most of us.


----------



## Shine

preparing said:


> Pure EVIL.
> 
> If you need more of an explanation you are unfortunately already lost.
> 
> I cannot believe G-d allows this country to go on...maybe He isn't.


A long while ago I believe that this country brought a smile to His face, any more... not so much. 

There is a lesson to be had if any will just sit and look. There are very few solid men of God to be found anymore when they used to be as far as the eye could see. Not men who could quote every verse of the Bible but those that knew a few snippets and patterned their life upon those snippets. God was entwined into their life.

At one point in the Bible we who believe are told that "we are in this world, not of it." Now there are many who profess to be believers who are "of this world".

As I have said before, I wish for a silver bullet, not to end abortion, not to end Planned Parenthood, not to end the ill way of mankind, but a silver bullet to return men and women to being responsible, to seeing the right thing as the thing to do in every instance, those that want to love one another with their heart rather than just with their bodies.

I was told before, there are silver bullets all around, but the only one with a gun that fits them rests Upon High.


----------



## Tiempo

If you choose any point in our history there were terrible, terrible things happening and some very bad people doing them...and usually on a large scale.


----------



## Cornhusker

Tiempo said:


> If you choose any point in our history there were terrible, terrible things happening and some very bad people doing them...and usually on a large scale.


True, but at no time was there such a mass slaughter of innocents as there is now.


----------



## Shine

Duplicate post...


----------



## gapeach

:facepalm:It is hard to like that, Cornhusker, but so true.


----------



## Cornhusker

Amazing isn't it?
People are up in arms over a lion on another continent, go ballistic when a cop shoots a thug while defending himself, but the murder of new born babies, they make excuses.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> Amazing isn't it?
> People are up in arms over a lion on another continent, go ballistic when a cop shoots a thug while defending himself, but the murder of new born babies, they make excuses.


Where are people murdering newborn babies?


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> Where are people murdering newborn babies?


Planned Parenthood
http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-video-reveals-possibility-babies-born-alive-killed/


----------



## Cornhusker

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-sells-organs-from-babies-born-alive-n2032447


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Planned Parenthood
> http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-video-reveals-possibility-babies-born-alive-killed/


You might want to check your facts.


----------



## Irish Pixie

People will believe anything. You (collective you) realize that this is the same group that released the last two heavily edited videos, right?

You know, the group with the agenda that is being investigated for crimes? C'mon at least wait until they release the unedited version before you take it hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> People will believe anything. You (collective you) realize that this is the same group that released the last two heavily edited videos, right?
> 
> You know, the group with the agenda that is being investigated for crimes? C'mon at least wait until they release the unedited version before you take it hook, line, and sinker.


Was it ok for pp to make a video of Romney that was false? Surely you remember that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

JeffreyD said:


> Was it ok for pp to make a video of Romney that was false? Surely you remember that?


Misread the question... I'm not familiar with the Planned Parenthood video about Romney, can you link it please? If you heavily edit or make a false video it is wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Was it ok for pp to make a video of Romney that was false? Surely you remember that?


Of course it wasn't OK


----------



## Tricky Grama

I had hoped it wasn't that many but the PP butcher said about 10% are born alive...so what was their yearly total?
It's more than I can fathom.
Yes, this means they take a breath. 
So? It's not a baby yet?


----------



## gapeach

*Planned Parenthood changes story on website 'hack'*


By Barbara Boland &#8226; 7/30/15 4:28 PM

Planned Parenthood proclaimed on Thursday that its websites were "not available because of an extremist attack," but seemed to change its story throughout the day after many people pointed to inconsistencies about the alleged hack.
At around noon, the message on the group's homepage was changed to read that "our normal site is currently undergoing maintenance."
At the start of the day, Planned Parenthood claimed it was the victim of a cyberattack. "200,000 people a day are now being blocked from information and care by the attack," the first iteration on the PlannedParenthood.org site said. But many noted on Twitter that it didn't look like a regular attack, as the homepage still seemed to be controlled by the group, and included links to parts of the group's website.
Viewed Thursday morning, the source code for the page indicated it was a page put up in response to a cyberattack, and the site asked users to donate to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the political action fundraising wing of the abortion giant.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-changes-story-on-website-hack/article/2569277










*Busted! They hacked it themselves.*

Whaddyah know, Planned Parenthood Lies.
How often and how many &#8220;affiliates&#8221; of Planned Parenthood also lie?
So great that judge&#8217;s injunction fell through!!
Planned Parenthood just might be worse crooks than Acorn.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> I had hoped it wasn't that many but the PP butcher said about *10%* are born alive...so what was their yearly total?
> It's more than I can fathom.
> Yes, this means they take a breath.
> So? It's not a baby yet?


They said 10% of *second trimester* abortions, which are only about 10% of total abortions

Planned Parenthood only does about 40% of the total abortions in the country.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't we discussing Planned Parenthood?


PP is short for plan parenthood... yes it is ironic to associate parenthood with and a group killing fetuses and babies but marketing is all about image.... true or false does not matter.

Somehow...by by baby did not cut it.
Nor did....bits and pieces for pence or pennies


----------



## Irish Pixie

Misread the original question.


----------



## Guest

Tricky Grama said:


> I had hoped it wasn't that many but the PP butcher said about 10% are born alive...so what was their yearly total?
> It's more than I can fathom.
> Yes, this means they take a breath.
> So? It's not a baby yet?


The numbers tell more, percentages seem so trivial.

Planned Parenthood total abortions so far this year are about 190,000, 10% second trimester would = 19,000 10% born alive = 1,900. (Percentages. The 10% I gleaned from BBFs response to you)

Approx 30,000 16 week and later abortions so far in the U.S. this year 10% = 3,000 and according to BBFs PP does 40% so that would be 1,200 so far this year.

Either case, lots of murder as defined by legislation (laws not biblical)


----------



## painterswife

dlmcafee said:


> The numbers tell more, percentages seem so trivial.
> 
> Planned Parenthood total abortions so far this year are about 190,000, 10% second trimester would = 19,000 10% born alive = 1,900. (Percentages. The 10% I gleaned from BBFs response to you)
> 
> Approx 30,000 16 week and later abortions so far in the U.S. this year 10% = 3,000 and according to BBFs PP does 40% so that would be 1,200 so far this year.
> 
> Either case, lots of murder as defined by legislation (laws not biblical)


Could you point me to where they say there are 10% born alive


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> Could you point me to where they say there are 10% born alive


Sure post #19


----------



## Txsteader

Serious question (the PP website is down for maintenance): 

Doesn't PP offer free birth control/contraceptives?


----------



## preparing

The spiritual component to our thinking cannot be understated. The lost don't know they are being used by the great deceiver. The lost feel superior to those of us who want to call this evil what it is...pure evil.

I have come to the point where my anger has become sadness for our country. 

I agree with the post that reminds us to be "in the world not of the world. But it's hard to hold firm at all times.


----------



## Farmerga

"Planned Parenthood" is a disgusting group that cannot be defended. They are on of the few groups that can be, honestly, compared to NAZI's of the early 20th century and slave masters of the 19th. Don't want to believe that? think about where these "health providers" have their "clinics". Read what their founder said about black people. Hitler got many of his ideas on the "final solution" from animals like the founder of PP and her stated goals would give the most radical, violent racists warm fuzzies.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Well, it lasted for 26 posts. Godwin's law has been enacted and you lose.


----------



## painterswife

Planned Parenthood is a great group. They provide services needed. Who their founder was has nothing to do with who they are now.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Could you point me to where they say there are 10% born alive


If even one was born still alive, it's legally murder and should be enough to shut it down.
But because there are votes to be had and money to be made, I'm sure left wing politicians will sweep this under the rug too.
Vote lives matter


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> If even one was born still alive, it's legally murder and should be enough to shut it down.
> But because there are votes to be had and money to be made, I'm sure left wing politicians will sweep this under the rug too.
> Vote lives matter


A fetus delivered alive does not mean a breathing baby. Most Planned Parenthood locations do not do third trimester abortions and therefore if a fetus is delivered alive it is not viable.

Spinning this into murder is propaganda.


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> Planned Parenthood is a great group. They provide services needed. Who their founder was has nothing to do with who they are now.



Now here's where I have to step in..

If the founder doesn't matter, then why doe it matter in reference to the Confederate Battle Flag and the original KKK? 
Note the original KKK didn't go around burning crosses etc. The original KKK was only in existence for approx. 5 years before being disbanded and the KKK (the hate group) that we know today was started in the 1920's..

YET Liberals and racists want and are trying to dig up the grave of one of the original founders of the original KKK.

So I have to call you this..

If it makes a difference concerning the Battle flag, then it makes a difference concerning Planned Parenthood.

Ironic that I see a lot of hypocrisy in this.. 

One group, where the founder was a racist and set out to destroy the race and the other where the founder set out to stop Carpet Baggers (note, there is no race there) from buying up the land for pennies on the dollar..

Yet one is persecuted as a villain and the other promoted for destroying and killing of people..


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, it lasted for 26 posts. Godwin's law has been enacted and you lose.


 When the shoe fits, as it were.


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> Now here's where I have to step in..
> 
> If the founder doesn't matter, then why doe it matter in reference to the Confederate Battle Flag and the original KKK?
> Note the original KKK didn't go around burning crosses etc. The original KKK was only in existence for approx. 5 years before being disbanded and the KKK (the hate group) that we know today was started in the 1920's..
> 
> YET Liberals and racists want and are trying to dig up the grave of one of the original founders of the original KKK.
> 
> So I have to call you this..
> 
> If it makes a difference concerning the Battle flag, then it makes a difference concerning Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Ironic that I see a lot of hypocrisy in this..
> 
> One group, where the founder was a racist and set out to destroy the race and the other where the founder set out to stop Carpet Baggers (note, there is no race there) for buying up the land for pennies on the dollar..
> 
> Yet one is persecuted as a villain and the other promoted for destroying and killing of people..


What a crock. Comparing the flag as a symbol and Planned Parenthood is so ridiculous that you will have to continue that conversation on your own.


----------



## beowoulf90

painterswife said:


> What a crock. Comparing the flag as a symbol and Planned Parenthood is so ridiculous that you will have to continue that conversation on your own.



We aren't comparing the Battle flag with PP..

We are comparing the Founders of PP and the original KKK..

In one case it supposedly matters and as such liberal and racists are digging up graves, in the other case we are told to ignore the racist origins of the founder of PP.

But your refusal to answer why we are to ignore one, but not the other tells me you have no answer..


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Planned Parenthood is a great group. They provide services needed. Who their founder was has nothing to do with who they are now.


Then why do they continue to give out awards, to their supporters, that bear her name? BTW, slave holders provided an economic boon, to the entire nation, in the early to mid 19th century, justifying their barbarism with assurances that their chattel were not fully human.


----------



## painterswife

beowoulf90 said:


> We aren't comparing the Battle flag with PP..
> 
> We are comparing the Founders of PP and the original KKK..
> 
> In one case it supposedly matters and as such liberal and racists are digging up graves, in the other case we are told to ignore the racist origins of the founder of PP.
> 
> But your refusal to answer why we are to ignore one, but not the other tells me you have no answer..


That is right no answer for a question not worth answering.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Well, it lasted for 26 posts. Godwin's law has been enacted and you lose.


The mere mention of nazis doesn't automatically invoke Godwin's law. Like I've said before, Godwin's goal was to ensure that those who used the term were fully aware of the Holocaust rather than just slinging insults.

And in this case, the correlation is relevant. So I'd say, you're the one that loses.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Now you're a loser too. 

"There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] *For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] *This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> A fetus delivered alive does not mean a breathing baby. Most Planned Parenthood locations do not do third trimester abortions and therefore if a fetus is delivered alive it is not viable.
> 
> Spinning this into murder is propaganda.


A fetus delivered alive?
I thought once it was delivered alive, it was a baby?
Unless it's worth some money, then it's a fetus to be chopped into pieces, without anesthetic, to die a horrible, painful death.
Mommy's choice of course.
If you have to kill it, it's alive and it's murder.
Make excuses all you want.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Now you're a loser too.
> 
> "There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] *For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] *This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law."
> 
> From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law


Yeah, I've read that before. Regardless of any 'tradition' on discussion forums, read Godwin's own words if you genuinely want to understand it's original intent. Otherwise, you're just invoking the meme that's been corrupted from it's original meaning.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> A fetus delivered alive?
> I thought once it was delivered alive, it was a baby?
> Unless it's worth some money, then it's a fetus to be chopped into pieces, without anesthetic, to die a horrible, painful death.
> Mommy's choice of course.
> If you have to kill it, it's alive and it's murder.
> Make excuses all you want.


So you are saying that an 12 week old fetus is a baby because it delivers in one piece? That would be called a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage not murder.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Yeah, I've read that before. Regardless of any 'tradition' on discussion forums, read Godwin's own words if you genuinely want to understand it's original intent. Otherwise, you're just invoking the meme that's been corrupted from it's original meaning.


Of course, you're right because you're always right. No discussion, nothing. You.are.always.right. Always. Got it.  :facepalm:


----------



## Farmerga

To link PP with the The Third Reich is not simply an insult meant to shock and anger. It is a valid link. The Third Reich was heavily influenced by the early 20th century Progressive movement of which Margaret Sanger was a vocal member. Their belief in eugenics, the "master race", and other abhorrent ideas can be traced, directly, to the dogma of the early Progressive movement. Just because PP has wrapped their slaughter houses in a nice little "women's health" package is no more valid that when slave holders justified the bondage of African slaves by saying that they were simply "taking care of them" because they couldn't take care of themselves.


----------



## Guest

painterswife said:


> So you are saying that an 12 week old fetus is a baby because it delivers in one piece? That would be called a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage not murder.


12 weeks is a first trimester pregnancy, delivering a second trimester pregnancy and the assisting in the death of the delivered fetus is murder by law and upheld by the supreme court I do believe. Weeks 14-26 development is pretty rapid then. You may defend the rights of the mother, but it looses it shine when you trivialize the development of life.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> *To link PP with the The Third Reich is not simply an insult meant to shock and anger.* It is a valid link. The Third Reich was heavily influenced by the early 20th century Progressive movement of which Margaret Sanger was a vocal member. Their belief in eugenics, the "master race", and other abhorrent ideas can be traced, directly, to the dogma of the early Progressive movement. Just because PP has wrapped their slaughter houses in a nice little "women's health" package is no more valid that when slave holders justified the bondage of African slaves by saying that they were simply "taking care of them" because they couldn't take care of themselves.


Your own words say it all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> To link PP with the The Third Reich is not simply an insult meant to shock and anger. It is a valid link. The Third Reich was heavily influenced by the early 20th century Progressive movement of which Margaret Sanger was a vocal member. Their belief in eugenics, the "master race", and other abhorrent ideas can be traced, directly, to the dogma of the early Progressive movement. Just because PP has wrapped their slaughter houses in a nice little "women's health" package is no more valid that when slave holders justified the bondage of African slaves by saying that they were simply "taking care of them" because they couldn't take care of themselves.


Do you actually know what Planned Parenthood does *now*? As in 2015, and not 99 years ago?










Abortion has been completely and totally legal for over 43 years. You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. None. Nada. Zip. 

Have a wonderful day.


----------



## gapeach

Cornhusker said:


> A fetus delivered alive?
> I thought once it was delivered alive, it was a baby?
> Unless it's worth some money, then it's a fetus to be chopped into pieces, without anesthetic, to die a horrible, painful death.
> Mommy's choice of course.
> If you have to kill it, it's alive and it's murder.
> Make excuses all you want.


My own only pregnancy was threatened when I was 10-11 wks pregnant at age 31. I started bleeding. My doctors gave me a progesterone shot and did everything that they could to save my baby. When they could not hear a heart beat after that and I felt no movement, they thought that the baby had probably died. 11 days after that, I started feeling a flutter, then a stronger one several times a day. My doctor thought that I was imagining things, then he finally found a heart beat. There was no ultrasound in 1972. The doctor told me to be prepared to be carrying a baby that might not be normal so we did not buy any baby clothes or make any real preparations. My labor was induced at 37 wks. He was perfectly normal, praise God. My husband and our family went out and bought him clothes to bring him home from the hospital in. 

I don't see how anyone could not think a baby born alive is not a baby.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you actually know what Planned Parenthood does *now*? As in 2015, and not 99 years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion has been completely and totally legal for over 43 years. You have no right to tell a woman what she can do with her body. None. Nada. Zip.
> 
> Have a wonderful day.


 I am fully aware of what PP does. Among other things, it kills a couple hundred thousand unborn children a year. If a woman wants to take her uterus out and tattoo the full text of the Roe vs. Wade decision on it, I couldn't care less, as long as there is not another innocent HUMAN living in it. As the old saying goes: "Your rights end where my nose begins" so to, your rights to not be bothered by a pregnancy should end where the life of an innocent human begins.


----------



## Guest

"Do you actually know what Planned Parenthood does now? As in 2015, and not 99 years ago?"


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger_Awards

The Margaret Sanger Award is an honor awarded annually by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America since 1966. Created to honor the legacy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an early advocate of family planning, it is the Federation's highest honor. It is given to individuals to recognize excellence and leadership in the reproductive health and rights movement.​


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I am fully aware of what PP does. Among other things, it kills a couple hundred thousand unborn children a year. If a woman wants to take her uterus out and tattoo the full text of the Roe vs. Wade decision on it, I couldn't care less, as long as there is not another innocent HUMAN living in it. As the old saying goes: "Your rights end where my nose begins" so to, your rights to not be bothered by a pregnancy should end where the life of an innocent human begins.


My body, my choice. What are you going to do to stop women from aborting? Please go into detail. 

Your rights? What right could you possibly have over another person's body? Can you explain your statement?


----------



## Tricky Grama

beowoulf90 said:


> We aren't comparing the Battle flag with PP..
> 
> We are comparing the Founders of PP and the original KKK..
> 
> In one case it supposedly matters and as such liberal and racists are digging up graves, in the other case we are told to ignore the racist origins of the founder of PP.
> 
> But your refusal to answer why we are to ignore one, but not the other tells me you have no answer..


Beo, you can explain all ya want, some do not wish to see.

Heard how many dems were horrified over all this, 1st about the tearing, "crunching", all so matter-of-fact. Even the progressive's Vile Candidate commented, said this was troubling & needed looking into...

But our progressive friends here? Nah. The vids are edited. So no one said "sometimes clients deliver b/4 the procedure can be done"...what the heck do ya think that means?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> A fetus delivered alive does not mean a breathing baby. Most Planned Parenthood locations do not do third trimester abortions and therefore if a fetus is delivered alive it is not viable.
> 
> Spinning this into murder is propaganda.


Ah, of course I see. 
What IS a "fetus delivered alive", then?
An UNfetus?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, of course I see.
> What IS a "fetus delivered alive", then?
> An UNfetus?


Look at your own words and look at mine. No correlation.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> "Do you actually know what Planned Parenthood does now? As in 2015, and not 99 years ago?"
> 
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger_Awards
> 
> The Margaret Sanger Award is an honor awarded annually by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America since 1966. Created to honor the legacy of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an early advocate of family planning, it is the Federation's highest honor. It is given to individuals to recognize excellence and leadership in the reproductive health and rights movement.​


It's exactly the same? Does the same things? Abortion wasn't legalized for 57 years, the birth control pill wasn't used for birth control until 1960, and IUDs sometime in the 60s. 

Not to mention the advance in medical detection of STDs, cancer etc... Still think it's exactly the same as when Margaret Sanger founded it? :thumb:


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> So you are saying that an 12 week old fetus is a baby because it delivers in one piece? That would be called a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage not murder.


Don't think this is what was said, obviously you need to go over the transcripts, read or listen to what was said.


----------



## thestartupman

Many, many people do wrong, and their reaction to it is to deny that they have done wrong. Most will deny it until death, even though deep inside they know they have done wrong. A few will face the truth of their wrong doing, and be set free from the burden they are carrying. I pray that we would all turn away from our wrong doings, and be set free from the burdens they bring.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Don't think this is what was said, obviously you need to go over the transcripts, read or listen to what was said.


Or wait until the unedited version comes out. After all, you want to hear what was _really_ said, don't you?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> My body, my choice. What are you going to do to stop women from aborting? Please go into detail.
> 
> Your rights? What right could you possibly have over another person's body? Can you explain your statement?


 Like with any form of murder, you make it illegal. Just like with murder of the post born, the law will not stop murder, but, it does give recourse for those found guilty of the crime.

What of the rights of the unborn child? What gives you rights over their body? If I find a squatter on my property, I am not allowed to kill said person unless that person is a threat to my life. What gives the State the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property? Again as I fully support anyone doing anything with their body as long as that choice doesn't violate the rights of another. (in which case the rights violated must be weighed and the right to live trumps the right to not be inconvenienced.) Abortion is nearly 100% fatal to a human being.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Like with any form of murder, you make it illegal. Just like with murder of the post born, the law will not stop murder, but, it does give recourse for those found guilty of the crime.
> 
> What of the rights of the unborn child? What gives you rights over their body? If I find a squatter on my property, I am not allowed to kill said person unless that person is a threat to my life. What gives the State the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property? Again as I fully support anyone doing anything with their body as long as that choice doesn't violate the rights of another. (in which case the rights violated must be weighed and the right to live trumps the right to not be inconvenienced.) Abortion is nearly 100% fatal to a human being.


Good luck repealing Roe v. Wade. You won't mind if I don't hold my breath?


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> It's exactly the same? Does the same things? Abortion wasn't legalized for 57 years, the birth control pill wasn't used for birth control until 1960, and IUDs sometime in the 60s.
> 
> Not to mention the advance in medical detection of STDs, cancer etc... Still think it's exactly the same as when Margaret Sanger founded it? :thumb:


Ain't progress grand, agendas solidified and improved with time. Praise be to Sanger..... 190,000 so far this year plus the largest percentage of their existence is centered on the prevention of life.


----------



## Irish Pixie




----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Ain't progress grand, agendas solidified and improved with time. Praise be to Sanger..... 190,000 so far this year plus the largest percentage of their existence is centered on the prevention of life.


You're aginst birth control. 

Okay...now that I know where you're coming from, I can just go ahead and disregard every word you type.

Good gravy. Not even worth the ignore feature.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Farmerga said:


> Like with any form of murder, you make it illegal. Just like with murder of the post born, the law will not stop murder, but, it does give recourse for those found guilty of the crime.
> 
> What of the rights of the unborn child? What gives you rights over their body? If I find a squatter on my property, I am not allowed to kill said person unless that person is a threat to my life. What gives the State the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property? Again as I fully support anyone doing anything with their body as long as that choice doesn't violate the rights of another. (in which case the rights violated must be weighed and the right to live trumps the right to not be inconvenienced.) Abortion is nearly 100% fatal to a human being.


Ah, well said.
Can't understand the use of "my body, my choice"; we've even shown sonos proving it's ANOTHER human's body. Plus, many instances where you cannot do whatever you want w/your body. Why not just go back to the false & idiotic phrase: "it's just a blob of cells"?


----------



## painterswife

This is getting ridiculous. People watch the entire unedited video and read the transcript. Obvious spin and propaganda in the short video.


http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPRMTranscript040715final.pdf

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV2U9unI1NM[/ame]


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> This is getting ridiculous. People watch the entire unedited video and read the transcript. Obvious spin and propaganda in the short video.


I simply don't understand the mentality that blindly accepts a heavily edited video as the truth, and totally disregard the unedited version. It has to be because it doesn't support their agenda.


----------



## painterswife

*Please do your research.* These are three different quotes. The short video combines them together to give the impression that 10% of fetuses are delivered alive. SPIN and PROPAGANDA.

"Ginde: Intact. So we do basically D&Es. Intact is less than ten percent."

"Ginde: No. Because weâre not- itâs not like we do inductions or anything where
we would have an intact delivery of any type. So, itâs really hit or miss on how
everything comes out in the cannula."


"Ginde: Sometimes, we get- if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then they are intact, but thatâs not what we go for."


----------



## Farmerga

To me the video is irrelevant. Don't know if it is "truthful" or not. The fact remains that PP has killed millions in its history. The fact that this video may or may not show how/why the deed is done makes no difference in that fact.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> To me the video is irrelevant. Don't know if it is "truthful" or not. The fact remains that PP has killed millions in its history. The fact that this video may or may not show how/why the deed is done makes no difference in that fact.


Yes, the truth is irrelevant to some.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


>


We've proven that wrong time & time again, but don't let that stop ya from finding more ways to show that you progressives DO NOTHING to assist w/newborns, new moms, etc.


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> You're aginst birth control.
> 
> Okay...now that I know where you're coming from, I can just go ahead and disregard every word you type.
> 
> Good gravy. Not even worth the ignore feature.


Is that what you got out of that?
Mercy, how far do you have to twist to make a false statement anyway. That happens to be a fact, PP concentrates on the prevention of life. No?
No one said it's not right, many believe limiting population-by prevention-is prolly wise.

Can't speak for all here but most couldn't care less if you disregard every word typed.


----------



## Woolieface

Tricky Grama said:


> We've proven that wrong time & time again, but don't let that stop ya from finding more ways to show that you progressives DO NOTHING to assist w/newborns, new moms, etc.


So, are we to look at that little girl and say to ourselves, "she should have had her life snuffed out before she drew breath"?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> We've proven that wrong time & time again, but don't let that stop ya from finding more ways to show that you progressives DO NOTHING to assist w/newborns, new moms, etc.


Huh. So conservatives have *never* complained about food stamps, volunteer food programs, housing allowances, or just welfare in general? Conservatives don't want all entitlement programs at least reduced? How do low income women support all those pregnancies that go to term if there is no abortion or birth control? Just who will support all the children that are born? One poster said 190K (I have no idea if that is true) this year. Can you explain?


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> I simply don't understand the mentality that blindly accepts a heavily edited video as the truth


This isn't about selling tissue. This is all about having a foot in the door to end abortion.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh. So conservatives have *never* complained about food stamps, volunteer food programs, housing allowances, or just welfare in general? Conservatives don't want all entitlement programs at least reduced? How do low income women support all those pregnancies that go to term if there is no abortion or birth control? Just who will support all the children that are born? One poster said 190K (I have no idea if that is true) this year. Can you explain?


 Conservatives don't want GOVERNMENT to do these things, at least on a Federal level, as that power is not given them in the Constitution. We give, en mass, to Churches and other charities who are better equipped to deal with these local issues. More so than a corrupt and distant Federal Government.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Is that what you got out of that?
> Mercy, how far do you have to twist to make a false statement anyway. That happens to be a fact, PP concentrates on the prevention of life. No?
> No one said it's not right, many believe limiting population-by prevention-is prolly wise.
> 
> Can't speak for all here but most couldn't care less if you disregard every word typed.


I'm so sorry that you weren't able to pick up on the tone of that post. No word twisting needed...just basic comprehension skills. Better luck next time. 

Good thing you are able to speak for most here. They can just stop posting and let your spittle-flinging vitriol do the talking for them.


----------



## dixiegal62

Cornhusker said:


> A fetus delivered alive?
> I thought once it was delivered alive, it was a baby?
> Unless it's worth some money, then it's a fetus to be chopped into pieces, without anesthetic, to die a horrible, painful death.
> Mommy's choice of course.
> If you have to kill it, it's alive and it's murder.
> Make excuses all you want.


Have you not heard? The argument from 'some' prochoice is now the baby isn't alive until it leaves the hospital. A few more years and a child won't be considered alive until it's five.


----------



## gapeach

*Planned Parenthood Paid Disgraced Official More Than $200,000 On The Side

PATRICK HOWLEY
*

Planned Parenthood not only pays its disgraced official Deborah Nucatola a salary. The abortion provider has also paid Nucatola a six-figure sum as an outside contractor.
Nucatola, who has served as senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America since February 2009, was caught in an undercover sting video selling aborted baby parts. (RELATED: Nucatola Works For White House Staff).
But Nucatola also founded her own firm called Imagyn Inc. in Sherman Oaks, Calif. The firm was incorporated in the state of California on April 1, 2008. She is still listed as president of the corporation.
Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles paid Nucatola $203,180 as an independent contractor through Imagyn, according to its 2007 IRS 990 form. Nucatolaâs LinkedIn profile indicates that she was medical director at Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo at the time.
What, exactly, was she paid for? And what does her firm do?
The IRS form lists the type of service she provided to Planned Parenthood as âclinician.â (RELATED: Planned Parenthood Official Photographed Feeding A Baby Wine)
Imagyn Inc., which is still active according to the California Secretary of Stateâs office but has not filed a statement since April 2012, is located at a residential three-bedroom house in Sherman Oaks, California. The house, owned at one time by Nucatola, sold in 2006 for $727,500
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/23/p...l-more-than-200000-on-the-side/#ixzz3hTp4fhbI

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

StemExpress, one of the major purchasers of PP aborted baby organs advertises the financial benefit that PP clinics can receive from supplying fetal tissue, with the words: âFinancially Profitable,â âFinancial Profits,â âfinancial benefit to your clinic,â âfiscal growth of your own clinic.â

Such an unorthodox and nasty situation all around; people getting paid for the sins of others, not to mention their sins as well.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Have you not heard? The argument from 'some' prochoice is now the baby isn't alive until it leaves the hospital. A few more years and a child won't be considered alive until it's five.


Starting a new round of propaganda?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Conservatives don't want GOVERNMENT to do these things, at least on a Federal level, as that power is not given them in the Constitution. We give, en mass, to Churches and other charities who are better equipped to deal with these local issues. More so than a corrupt and distant Federal Government.


Who do you think pays the charities? Martians? It still will come from taxpayers in the end, right? You know, the people with actual income.

So if the people won't donate, or won't donate enough, where does the money come from? Or do we just let people fend for themselves even if it means some will die? Pro life means sooo much after birth, doesn't it?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Starting a new round of propaganda?


Are you denying it was said? Google is your friend


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Are you denying it was said? Google is your friend


I can Google "alien sex probe got me pregnant" and find sites to support it. And it would probably be a fringe group that said it just like what you're implying.


----------



## susieneddy

The bible tells us when a fetus becomes a living being.

Many people think that a human being is created at the time of conception but this belief is not supported by the bible. The fact that a living sperm penetrates a living ovum resulting in the formation of a living fetus does not mean that the fetus is a living human being. According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.
After God formed man in Genesis 2:7, He âbreathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living beingâ. Although the man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath.

In Job 33:4, it states: âThe spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.â

Again, to quote Ezekiel 37:5&6, âThus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.â

In Exodus 21:22 it states that if a man causes a woman to have a miscarriage, he shall be fined; however, if the woman dies then he will be put to death. It should be apparent from this that the aborted fetus is not considered a living human being since the resulting punishment for the abortion is nothing more than a fine; it is not classified by the bible as a capital offense.

According to the bible, destroying a living fetus does not equate to killing a living human being even though the fetus has the potential of becoming a human being. One can not kill something that has not been born and taken a breath. This means that a stillborn would not be considered a human being either. Of course, every living sperm has the potential of becoming a human being although not one in a million will make it; the rest are aborted. .

God has decreed, for one reason or another, that at least one-third of all pregnancies shall be terminated by a spontaneous abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy and that a number will be terminated after the first trimester. It would appear that God does not have any more regard for the loss of a fetus than he does for the loss of a placenta or a foreskin despite the fact that these were living tissue as the result of conception.

In a number of versions of the bible, one of the commandments in Exodus 20 that was spoken by God to Moses states: âYou shall not killâ. According to the Mosaic text, this should read âYou shall not murderâ since the bible has commandments stating that people shall be put to death for a number of different offenses. Exodus 21:17 states: âWhoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death.â There are other capital offenses in Exodus 21. Of course, the commandment âYou shall not killâ is not present in the commandments written by God on the stone tablets. For those who are not familiar with the commandments on the stone tablets that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, they are enumerated in Exodus 34. The popular ten commandments that are enumerated in Exodus 20 were spoken by God to Moses who then relayed them to his people; they were never written.

There is nothing in the bible to indicate that a fetus is considered to be anything other than living tissue and, according to scripture, it does not become a living being until after it has taken a breath.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Are you denying it was said? Google is your friend


Lots of stuff is said. How many individuals said that? One, two? That means that every prochoice or even any significant portion believe that?

No propaganda again at it's worse.


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> I can Google "alien sex probe got me pregnant" and find sites to support it. And it would probably be a fringe group that said it just like what you're implying.


Barbara Boxer, she's one of yours isn't she?


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> Pro life means sooo much after birth, doesn't it?


Pro life doesn't apply to the death penalty, being sent to war, or even having adequate healthcare. Once you're born you're on your own.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> Barbara Boxer, she's one of yours isn't she?



Westboro Baptist Church, one of yours. Now that you are tarring individuals with the sins of all of the group you will be admitting you as a Christian believe as they do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Barbara Boxer, she's one of yours isn't she?


Mine? I'm a register Republican.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dixiegal62 said:


> Are you denying it was said? Google is your friend


Since you want to associate pro choice people with a lone nut job, are you comfortable being lumped in with clinic bombers and doctor murderers?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> Mine? I'm a register Republican.


Be that as it may she did say it and you support her cause of prochoice.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> Pro life doesn't apply to the death penalty, being sent to war, or even having adequate healthcare. Once you're born you're on your own.


Yup, I agree. Only the _unborn_ are important to the "pro life" contingent.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> Mine? I'm a register Republican.


Me too!


----------



## Irish Pixie

dixiegal62 said:


> Be that as it may she did say it and you support her cause of prochoice.


She's not "one of mine" wasn't that your question? So what did you really mean? Do I agree with her? I have no clue as I've never read the alleged quote. Do you have a link?


----------



## dixiegal62

basketti said:


> Since you want to associate pro choice people with a lone nut job, are you comfortable being lumped in with clinic bombers and doctor murderers?


Hilary has been quoted as agreeing with the statement as I'm pretty sure many others are. I could care less who you want to lump me with. The line keeps getting more blurred as to when a child is alive... it's only a matter of time before it's a toodler.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> To me the video is irrelevant. Don't know if it is "truthful" or not. The fact remains that PP has killed millions in its history. The fact that this video may or may not show how/why the deed is done makes no difference in that fact.


We get that you're against abortion.
This video is still mostly lies, and you should be against lies also


----------



## Lisa in WA

dixiegal62 said:


> Hilary has been quoted as agreeing with the statement as I'm pretty sure many others are. I could care less who you want to lump me with. The line keeps getting more blurred as to when a child is alive... it's only a matter of time before it's a toodler.


Bull. Got a reputable source on that? Something other than some right wing nut job publication?


----------



## dixiegal62

basketti said:


> Bull. Got a reputable source on that? Something other than some right wing nut job publication?


As I said Google is your friend. The info is there for anyone who takes the time to search.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> As I said Google is your friend. The info is there for anyone who takes the time to search.


Yup, Propaganda. Can't back up what you post.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dixiegal62 said:


> As I said Google is your friend. The info is there for anyone who takes the time to search.


Hard to find something that doesn't exist. Except in the fevered key poundings of certain conservative christain liars who believe the means justify the end. Speaking of liar publications...not yourself, in case you were about to take offense.


----------



## gapeach

A slippery slope indeed.

FETAL HOMICIDE LAWS
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Huh. So conservatives have *never* complained about food stamps, volunteer food programs, housing allowances, or just welfare in general? Conservatives don't want all entitlement programs at least reduced? How do low income women support all those pregnancies that go to term if there is no abortion or birth control? Just who will support all the children that are born? One poster said 190K (I have no idea if that is true) this year. Can you explain?


I could point ya to all those discussions, I could reiterate all we've said but somehow I don't believe it would be heard.

There are many folks on welfare that absolutely need it. You can quote me on that!! Over&over&over. Many folks need help. Too bad the war on poverty is a massive failure, how long & how much $$ gone & what is the outcome?

There will always be birth control. It's FREE now, remember. There's NO need for PP, women have the right to free b.c. 
There is a need for more education. Sadly, that seems to be lacking b/c many women are using abortion for birth control, a real shame. There are folks begging to adopt babies instead of abortion, but that falls on deaf ears. Too much trouble, yup, a life is just too much trouble.


----------



## Tricky Grama

dixiegal62 said:


> Have you not heard? The argument from 'some' prochoice is now the baby isn't alive until it leaves the hospital. A few more years and a child won't be considered alive until it's five.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Evons hubby

I will believe prolifers want to save children when they quit using any form of birth control and do everything in their power to get that egg fertilized each and every time one drops into position. Until then they are pro choice.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.


Post of the day awards for lies. Can't say i did not expect that.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will believe prolifers want to save children when they quit using any form of birth control and do everything in their power to get that egg fertilized each and every time one drops into position. Until then they are pro choice.


And start adopting all the unwanted children, regardless of race and medical issues.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> And start adopting all the unwanted children, regardless of race and medical issues.


This times 100! It's not going to happen tho. Ever. And they will continue to complain, defund, and vilify anyone that needs help... as long as they're born.


----------



## AngieM2

Maybe making adoption less costly and complicated then more children of all races and abilities would be adopted.


----------



## painterswife

AngieM2 said:


> Maybe making adoption less costly and complicated then more children of all races and abilities would be adopted.


If you can't afford to adopt now then you can't afford to adopt those special needs children and drug exposed babies.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will believe prolifers want to save children when they quit using any form of birth control and do everything in their power to get that egg fertilized each and every time one drops into position. Until then they are pro choice.


You have to know how ridiculous this is. Lose cred here, YH!


----------



## WildernesFamily

*Sign the Petition*

_I call for Congressional Hearings and Investigation of Planned Parenthood&#8217;s illegal sale of aborted fetal body parts and the illegal and dangerous abortion procedures Planned Parenthood uses to harvest body parts. I call for an immediate moratorium on taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood pending the outcome of the investigation.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/take-action/
_


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> And start adopting all the unwanted children, regardless of race and medical issues.


Conservatives already do this. Can't say the same for progressives..


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will believe prolifers want to save children when they quit using any form of birth control and do everything in their power to get that egg fertilized each and every time one drops into position. Until then they are pro choice.


 But, prior to conception, the child doesn't exist. I am anti-abortion, like I am anti-all forms of murder. I am pro pre-conception birth control, or, more accurately, fertilization control. In fact, I have taken steps to insure that I will do no more fertilizations.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Conservatives already do this. Can't say the same for progressives..


How many have you adopted?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Post of the day awards for lies. Can't say i did not expect that.


We've posted all the publications on progressives advocating for "abortion" up to 2mos...even 6 mo. old. 
So I'm sure you'll apologize for calling Dixie a liar.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> If you can't afford to adopt now then you can't afford to adopt those special needs children and drug exposed babies.


 It was not a matter of expense as much as the regulatory mind field and throwing away money on Bureaucratic Bull Squeeze, in order to adopt a child, that is the problem. There are waiting lists for adoptions. Most children are born healthy.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> We've posted all the publications on progressives advocating for "abortion" up to 2mos...even 6 mo. old.
> So I'm sure you'll apologize for calling Dixie a liar.


You keep saying progressives. Of course you can back that up with proof of a large group or a majority instead of a couple of people. Otherwise you are posting lies.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> Who do you think pays the charities? Martians? It still will come from taxpayers in the end, right? You know, the people with actual income.
> 
> So if the people won't donate, or won't donate enough, where does the money come from? Or do we just let people fend for themselves even if it means some will die? Pro life means sooo much after birth, doesn't it?


Pixie,

I hope that your don't contrive some way to dismiss my post entirely, and deem it unfit for a response, but I think you've actually picked up a couple threads here in this discussion that bear further exploration.

I think it could be helpful to clarify a couple points held by a lot (if not the majority) of folks on the pro-life side of this debate. Obviously, I can't speak for everybody within a given group, but I can, at least, paint a fuller picture of the people you see as your opposition on this issue.


*First*
For many of us, the reproductive issue is not monolithic. Many of us don't have an issue with (preemptive) birth-control- which I'll call pregnancy-control to avoid confusion or the inclusion of the debated abortificants. Some find it as an affront to the Word. Many who do also, by right of conscientious objection, don't want to see public funding go to it. Many, many of us accept it as a modern reality, and a welcome mitigator of pregnancies that would otherwise end in murder. 

Many who disagree with the public funding of pregnancy-control, do so because of their political beliefs, rather than religious ones, with pregnancy-control ending up lumped in with a much larger group of things that they don't believe the government has any business in spending the public's dollars on. I happen to be in that group, BUT I put that principle aside as a concession to advancing the much more important principle of ending innocent-murder.

So, the position that many on the pro-life (I'll grant that term in contrition to keeping the discussion civil and moving it in the right direction, not because I think it fairly describes the position) side appear to hold, that those on the pro-life side want the impossible outcome of no pregnancy-control, and no innocent-murder, and therefore not worthy of serious discussion, is not fair, or accurate. Continuing to use it is an issue-dodge, and at least as invalidating to any point made in conjunction with it as any point you've tried to make concerning the inclusion of Nazis/Holocaust in a discussion.


*Second* 
Many of us see the issue of the sale/recovery (whatever you care to call it) of the tissues scavenged from the corpses of these murdered innocents as a disgusting side-show to the greater issue, nothing more. Those of us in that position see Planned Parenthood as an abominable organization for the murders they commit, not all the other, arguably, good works that they do. Putting my libertarian political views aside, I can find much more heinous uses of the funds that the government extorts from me than their paying for free mammograms, pregnancy-control, and reproductive education. 

If we ever find ourselves in a place where those are the "worst" things that public funds are being used for, then I will settle-up my argument, pay my taxes without complaint, and even drop by the nearest PP, hand them the cash I have in my wallet that day, and ask them to "keep up the good work".

But mammograms, pregnancy-control, and reproductive education are not everything that PP does. Even if innocent-murder was 0.00001% of what they did, I can't abide them my dollars in merit for the remaining 99.99999% good works that they do. OJ Simpson could dodge linemen like a ballerina. Should still be in jail, though. 


*Third*
Just because something is legal, right here, right now, does not have to mean it is also right. I understand that you object with the correlation to the events of central Europe in the 1940's, but there are myriad other examples throughout history that, when considered, almost have to make you concede this point. That's not to say that you also have to agree with the position that the point is being used to advance, but, for the sake of advancing an engaging adult conversation, sometimes a self-evident point must be conceded. 

Where I am sitting right now, it used to be legal to buy a man. You could buy him, change his name, modify his body, and, if you were dissatisfied with the work he did for you, beat him to death. Killing him was only wasting your own "money". 

Until recently, it was legal for a judge to bar (and, in some places, penalize) a minister from joining the hands of two people of the same sex in matrimony. States that were bound by the US Constitution to observe the freedom of religion were actively preventing consenting adults from marrying, because of a state-held religious objection- even when that given minister found it to be perfectly in-line with his religious beliefs. 

Right now, it is illegal, and you could face SERIOUS prison time for growing your own supply of a naturally occurring plant that, when smoked, has less potential for dangerous impact than alcohol. 

Right now, you could face SERIOUS prison time for distilling your own alcohol.

In most of the world, through nearly all of its history, the procedure you call abortion (I guess it rolls off the tongue than the words that describe what it really is) has been illegal. We're living in a relatively small place and time where the practice of killing developing humans in the womb is considered acceptable. Dismissing the opinions of those of us who object to it, as flippantly as you do, does you no favors if your true intent is to engage in a real conversation about this, or bring any of us to a better understanding of your position. 

If that's not what you're looking for, then please forgive my imposition in posting this, and carry on.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> It was not a matter of expense as much as the regulatory mind field and throwing away money on Bureaucratic Bull Squeeze, in order to adopt a child, that is the problem. There are waiting lists for adoptions. Most children are born healthy.


Would that be the case if you outlawed abortion?

When there is no children waiting and begging to be adopted you might have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> It was not a matter of expense as much as the regulatory mind field and throwing away money on Bureaucratic Bull Squeeze, in order to adopt a child, that is the problem. There are waiting lists for adoptions. Most children are born healthy.


If it's a worthy cause I'd expect you to not worry about he bull squeeze. Doing something you believe in...


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> And start adopting *all* the unwanted children, regardless of race and medical issues.





Tricky Grama said:


> Conservatives already do this. Can't say the same for progressives..


Really? Conservatives already adopt *all* the unwanted children? So the kids on adoption lists are made up? :facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Pixie,
> 
> I hope that your don't contrive some way to dismiss my post entirely, and deem it unfit for a response, but I think you've actually picked up a couple threads here in this discussion that bear further exploration.
> 
> I think it could be helpful to clarify a couple points held by a lot (if not the majority) of folks on the pro-life side of this debate. Obviously, I can't speak for everybody within a given group, but I can, at least, paint a fuller picture of the people you see as your opposition on this issue.
> 
> 
> *First*
> For many of us, the reproductive issue is not monolithic. Many of us don't have an issue with (preemptive) birth-control- which I'll call pregnancy-control to avoid confusion or the inclusion of the debated abortificants. Some find it as an affront to the Word. Many who do also, by right of conscientious objection, don't want to see public funding go to it. Many, many of us accept it as a modern reality, and a welcome mitigator of pregnancies that would otherwise end in *murder*.


Sorry, I read as far as the second paragraph where you veered out of control into left field. Abortion isn't murder as it's not unlawful. I didn't feel the need to read any further.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> Really? Conservatives already adopt *all* the unwanted children? So the kids on adoption lists are made up? :facepalm:


Doesn't every local news channel do a special thing every week on an older child looking for an adoptive family? Monday's child?They have in most places I've lived.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Would that be the case if you outlawed abortion?
> 
> When there is no children waiting and begging to be adopted you might have a leg to stand on.


 That most would be born healthy? Yes, that would still be true. That there would be as many unwanted children born as there are currently abortions performed? Likely not. Take away that disgusting form 
of birth control and many will be more careful with fertilization control and many will fall in love with the "burden" they wished to kill a few months prior.


----------



## gapeach

AngieM2 said:


> Maybe making adoption less costly and complicated then more children of all races and abilities would be adopted.


The cost and also making it easier to adopt children that a family has fostered. We have friends in Atlanta who had fostered 2 young brothers and it took them 2 years to get them adopted even though they had passed all the requirements to be foster parents. The boys were 6 and 8 when they started fostering them and they were 8 and 10 before they were legally able to adopt them.
The couple had spent all of their money on in vitro fertilization that failed. That is why they because foster parents but they never expected to fall so in love with 2 little boys. They finally got them free for adoption and built up some savings. No one knows how desperately people want to have a baby unless you have been in that position. It so hard when you see all of your friends and relatives having babies and you continue to come with no pregnancy. I do believe that children, whether babies or older children are gifts from God to their adoptive parents. The biological mothers are true angels to sign their baby away so that he/she can have a better life than she can give them.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

gapeach said:


> My own only pregnancy was threatened when I was 10-11 wks pregnant at age 31. I started bleeding. My doctors gave me a progesterone shot and did everything that they could to save my baby. When they could not hear a heart beat after that and I felt no movement, they thought that the baby had probably died. 11 days after that, I started feeling a flutter, then a stronger one several times a day. My doctor thought that I was imagining things, then he finally found a heart beat. There was no ultrasound in 1972. The doctor told me to be prepared to be carrying a baby that might not be normal so we did not buy any baby clothes or make any real preparations. My labor was induced at 37 wks. He was perfectly normal, praise God. My husband and our family went out and bought him clothes to bring him home from the hospital in.
> 
> I don't see how anyone could not think a baby born alive is not a baby.


Peach, can you tell us your child's name? I realize this is the internet, so just the first, God-given name is fine, if you're comfortable with that.

I'd like to include them in the 'thank You for' part of my next prayer. That part always comes first, and I'd like to thank Him.


----------



## AngieM2

Abortion, especially later on abortions, and the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Just don't seem able to exist in the same place to my mind. 

That link does seem to have issues for both sides of this argument.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AngieM2 said:


> Abortion, especially later on abortions, and the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act
> 
> Just don't seem able to exist in the same place to my mind.
> 
> That link does seem to have issues for both sides of this argument.


This has been debated ad nauseam on here lately. Do a search.


----------



## painterswife

basketti said:


> Doesn't every local news channel do a special thing every week on an older child looking for an adoptive family? Monday's child?They have in most places I've lived.


There are over 100,000.00 children waiting to be adopted. 20,000.00 age out of the system every year. Lets add another 500,000.00 or more every year if we outlaw abortion( abortions per year is 1 million so I am taking a certain license with that number)

There is aprox 250,000.00 overseas adoptions per year ( even though we have children waiting here).

That is a lot of extra children to be adopted every single year above an beyond what is adopted now.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> My body, my choice. What are you going to do to stop women from aborting? Please go into detail.
> 
> Your rights? What right could you possibly have over another person's body? Can you explain your statement?


Exactly, except you do not consider the body that is living inside of the pregnant woman to be a person until it magically pops out and takes a breath. Until then, you give it the same rights as a pimple on the pregnant ladies butt. Logically this is unsound thinking.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> If it's a worthy cause I'd expect you to not worry about he bull squeeze. Doing something you believe in...


You always have to worry about the bull squeeze. It takes months to years to navigate. Why should unwanted children have to suffer?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> Sorry, I read as far as the second paragraph where you veered out of control into left field. Abortion isn't murder as it's not unlawful. I didn't feel the need to read any further.


Really?
Disagreement on understanding of what a thing is or should be called is enough for you to dismiss an entire idea that is presented to you?

Someone seeing something differently than you is enough to make you not wish to hear what they have to say or respond to them?

Isn't that the definition of close-mindedness?

If you don't want to participate in discussion with me, I am fine with that, and I can walk away, as I've demonstrated before. But, the thoughts I put down there were, genuinely, in hopes of us being able to achieve at least enough of an understanding of each other to allow us to interact with each other beyond just a base dismissal.

There's also the 'ignore' button, I guess, though.


----------



## gapeach

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Peach, can you tell us your child's name? I realize this is the internet, so just the first, God-given name is fine, if you're comfortable with that.
> 
> I'd like to include them in the 'thank You for' part of my next prayer. That part always comes first, and I'd like to thank Him.


William &#9829;

Thank you&#9829;


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> There are over 100,000.00 children waiting to be adopted. 20,000.00 age out of the system every year. Lets add another 500,000.00 or more every year if we outlaw abortion( abortions per year is 1 million so I am taking a certain license with that number)
> 
> There is aprox 250,000.00 overseas adoptions per year ( even though we have children waiting here).
> 
> That is a lot of extra children to be adopted every single year above an beyond what is adopted now.


Ok, painterswife, you sold me. I'm on your side now.

There are 3,500,000 homeless people in America. Should we start having HR professionals execute people at their exit-interviews, or wait and have the Sheriff shoot them in the face after he hangs the eviction notice?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> There are over 100,000.00 children waiting to be adopted. 20,000.00 age out of the system every year. Lets add another 500,000.00 or more every year if we outlaw abortion( abortions per year is 1 million so I am taking a certain license with that number)
> 
> There is aprox 250,000.00 overseas adoptions per year ( even though we have children waiting here).
> 
> That is a lot of extra children to be adopted every single year above an beyond what is adopted now.


 I have been through that mind field. Most is unnecessary bureaucratic crap that does nothing for the welfare of the child. Take away the bulk of the process, make adoption a more simple process and I would bet that the extra children would be absorbed by the system. How many healthy babies are there on the list of children waiting to be adopted? Since there is are waiting lists for healthy babies and the vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy pregnancies, it would stand to reason that the result would be a shorter wait time for those wishing to adopt with few "unwanted" children. 

Just a question to the pro-abortionists: If your concern is truly the reduction of the "unwanted" in society, why would you not advocate the euthanasia of "flawed" people? Would that not be doing them a favor?


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Really?
> Disagreement on understanding of what a thing is or should be called is enough for you to dismiss an entire idea that is presented to you?
> 
> Someone seeing something differently than you is enough to make you not wish to hear what they have to say or respond to them?
> 
> Isn't that the definition of close-mindedness?
> 
> If you don't want to participate in discussion with me, I am fine with that, and I can walk away, as I've demonstrated before. But, the thoughts I put down there were, genuinely, in hopes of us being able to achieve at least enough of an understanding of each other to allow us to interact with each other beyond just a base dismissal.
> 
> There's also the 'ignore' button, I guess, though.


Really really. It's the same BS rhetoric as the other "pro unborn" I've read on here for 13+ years. You have already indicated that you'll use inflammatory, untrue statements, ie. murder so why should I bother?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> You always have to worry about the bull squeeze. It takes months to years to navigate. Why should unwanted children have to suffer?


Of course you do. But surely it's well worth it for a cause you believe so strongly in. After all, look at what the Christian martyrs endured. Surely a little government "bull squeeze" to adopt unwanted kids is worth it.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Ok, painterswife, you sold me. I'm on your side now.
> 
> There are 3,500,000 homeless people in America. Should we start having HR professionals execute people at their exit-interviews, or wait and have the Sheriff shoot them in the face after he hangs the eviction notice?


Why does it always have to be taken to that point. Terminating a pregnancy before the fetus reaches a point of brain activity and thought is not the same as shooting someone. I understand that you may believe that all potential lives are the same. 

Do you make sure that all those homeless have a meal everyday? Do you provide a home for them all? If you work daily to do that then you may not be shooting them but you are not taking responsibility to make sure they survive.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I have been through that mind field. Most is unnecessary bureaucratic crap that does nothing for the welfare of the child. Take away the bulk of the process, make adoption a more simple process and I would bet that the extra children would be absorbed by the system. How many healthy babies are there on the list of children waiting to be adopted? Since there is are waiting lists for healthy babies and the vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy pregnancies, it would stand to reason that the result would be a shorter wait time for those wishing to adopt with few "unwanted" children.
> 
> Just a question to the pro-abortionists: If your concern is truly the reduction of the "unwanted" in society, why would you not advocate the euthanasia of "flawed" people? Would that not be doing them a favor?


Healthy babies are all that count? That is how your post comes across. That and lets make it quick to adopt. Those people can always foster while waiting to adopt. There is a way to get all those children off the waiting list.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Just a question to the *pro-abortionists*: If your concern is truly the reduction of the "unwanted" in society, why would you not advocate the euthanasia of "flawed" people? Would that not be doing them a favor?


You just shot yourself in the foot. I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I've said this before and I'll say it again- I don't think I could have had an abortion and I'm very thankful I never found myself in that situation, but I still have no right to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their body. Most pro choice people are not pro abortion.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> I have been through that mind field. Most is unnecessary bureaucratic crap that does nothing for the welfare of the child. Take away the bulk of the process, make adoption a more simple process and I would bet that the extra children would be absorbed by the system. How many healthy babies are there on the list of children waiting to be adopted? Since there is are waiting lists for healthy babies and the vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy pregnancies, it would stand to reason that the result would be a shorter wait time for those wishing to adopt with few "unwanted" children.
> 
> Just a question to the pro-abortionists: If your concern is truly the reduction of the "unwanted" in society, why would you not advocate the euthanasia of "flawed" people? Would that not be doing them a favor?


Kind of what conservatives are after ultimately in their never ending quest to deny services to the cast offs of society. Let kids starve to punish their irresponsible parents, drug addicts freeze to death because they don't contribute to society...


----------



## wiscto

I'll share a personal story too I guess. They told my mother that the child born before me was gone...only they were right. The child born before me was stillborn, and my mother suffered serious complications for carrying on. 

As of right now, the data shows that there are far more complications associated with stillbirth than live. Preeclampsia, infection, choriamnionitis, abruptio placentae, hemorrhages... This data could suggest that natural abortions occur; the mother's body protecting itself from fatal damage, and even if that isn't the case, the data suggests that women need the choice. 

When the pro-lifers can shut down those in their ranks who want to eliminate abortion entirely, even as a medical option, moderates such as myself might step in on the side of making _some_ changes. Until then...I'll vote for hard line pro-choicers or people who plan to leave abortion where it stands right now _every time_. Because you don't want to deal with me if you cost the mother of my stillborn child her life after she had no options other than to continue the pregnancy _just in case_. I will not react rationally. At that point it should have been our choice as a family, and ultimately HER choice to stay alive for herself and for those who need her, or hold out hope for the child. And I don't care that we have better capabilities to save mothers these days, that just belies the danger.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Healthy babies are all that count? That is how your post comes across. That and lets make it quick to adopt. Those people can always foster while waiting to adopt. There is a way to get all those children off the waiting list.


 Your point was that, if we were to stop the shameful practice of killing the unborn, that there would be vast herds of unwanted babies roaming the entirety of this nation. My point was that the vast majority of those babies would be healthy and easily re-homed.


----------



## Farmerga

wiscto said:


> I'll share a personal story too I guess. They told my mother that the child born before me was gone...only they were right. The child born before me was stillborn, and my mother suffered serious complications for carrying on.
> 
> As of right now, the data shows that there are far more complications associated with stillbirth than live. Preeclampsia, infection, choriamnionitis, abruptio placentae, hemorrhages... This data could suggest that natural abortions occur; the mother's body protecting itself from fatal damage, and even if that isn't the case, the data suggests that women need the choice.
> 
> When the pro-lifers can shut down those in their ranks who want to eliminate abortion entirely, even as a medical option, moderates such as myself might step in on the side of making _some_ changes. Until then...I'll vote for hard line pro-choicers or people who plan to leave abortion where it stands right now _every time_. Because you don't want to deal with me if you cost the mother of my stillborn child her life after she had no options other than to continue the pregnancy _just in case_. I will not react rationally. At that point it should have been our choice as a family, and ultimately HER choice to stay alive for herself and for those who need her, or hold out hope for the child. And I don't care that we have better capabilities to save mothers these days, that just belies the danger.


 I know of very few who would not wish to allow abortion to save the life of the mother. There is no logic in that.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Your point was that, if we were to stop the shameful practice of killing the unborn, that there would be vast herds of unwanted babies roaming the entirety of this nation. My point was that the vast majority of those babies would be healthy and easily re-homed.


No, not what I said but that re-homed part tells me so much.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> I know of very few who would not wish to allow abortion to save the life of the mother. There is no logic in that.


Oh you know...it's a slippery slope.


----------



## painterswife

basketti said:


> Oh you know...it's a slippery slope.


LOL, way to use their own arguments.


----------



## wiscto

Farmerga said:


> I know of very few who would not wish to allow abortion to save the life of the mother. There is no logic in that.


I believe you. But I have known some, and I just find them to be the greater risk to the people I care for than a strict pro-choice platform.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> You just shot yourself in the foot. I'm not pro abortion, I'm pro choice. I've said this before and I'll say it again- I don't think I could have had an abortion and I'm very thankful I never found myself in that situation, but I still have no right to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their body. Most pro choice people are not pro abortion.


 Most who claim to be "pro-choice" spend a lot of time defending abortion. (what about the unwanted brown people? etc.)


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I simply don't understand the mentality that blindly accepts a heavily edited video as the truth, and totally disregard the unedited version. It has to be because it doesn't support their agenda.


That's funny because, all around the web, even pro-choice advocates are admitting the first 2 vids say what we've claimed here. Progressives admit it. Democrats admit it. But y'all are gonna sit here and mock and argue that it's all a bunch of lies.

Seriously, take off the blinders. You won't be bashed for admitting the truth.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Most who claim to be "pro-choice" spend a lot of time defending abortion. (what about the unwanted brown people? etc.)


What about "unwanted brown people" can you be more specific?

Pro choice means that I leave it up to the pregnant woman to make a choice based on her situation. _She_ chooses to abort or she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term- it's her body and her choice.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Of course you do. But surely it's well worth it for a cause you believe so strongly in. After all, look at what the Christian martyrs endured. Surely a little government "bull squeeze" to adopt unwanted kids is worth it.


 
Worth it? Yes. Unnecessary? Yes. Inefficient? Yes. Cruel? Yes.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Most who claim to be "pro-choice" spend a lot of time defending abortion. (what about the unwanted brown people? etc.)


I will ignore that last part, as racists as it is. Pro Choice means choice not pro abortion. A women's rights.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> That's funny because, all around the web, even pro-choice advocates are admitting the first 2 vids say what we've claimed here. Progressives admit it. Democrats admit it. But y'all are gonna sit here and mock and argue that it's all a bunch of lies.
> 
> Seriously, take off the blinders. You won't be bashed for admitting the truth.


I don't think "truth" means what you think it does.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> That's funny because, all around the web, even pro-choice advocates are admitting the first 2 vids say what we've claimed here. Progressives admit it. Democrats admit it. But y'all are gonna sit here and mock and argue that it's all a bunch of lies.
> 
> Seriously, take off the blinders. You won't be bashed for admitting the truth.


I'll take your word for it cuz there must be idiots among the pro choice group too. 

Et tu, Brute.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Worth it? Yes. Unnecessary? Yes. Inefficient? Yes. Cruel? Yes.


Then maybe all the people who believe that should focus their efforts on reforming adoption law before starting on denying women rights over their bodies. 

Maybe fund research so the fetus can be removed intact from the woman's body and placed into the bodies of millions of clamoring Christians who will then carry the fetus to term and adopt it.

Would you carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity? Someone else's?


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> What about "unwanted brown people" can you be more specific?
> 
> Pro choice means that I leave it up to the pregnant woman to make a choice based on her situation. _She_ chooses to abort or she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term- it's her body and her choice.


 You know exactly what I mean. PP was designed to keep the so-called undesirable populations under control. That is why the majority of their abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods. Abortion is an ugly practice with an ugly, racist history. 

And again, we are not talking about just "her body".


----------



## wiscto

Txsteader said:


> That's funny because, all around the web, even pro-choice advocates are admitting the first 2 vids say *what we've claimed here.* Progressives admit it. Democrats admit it. But y'all are gonna sit here and mock and argue that it's all a bunch of lies.
> 
> Seriously, take off the blinders. You won't be bashed for admitting the truth.


Can you just reiterate that for me? Are you claiming what the people who made the video are claiming, or should I scroll back and read something else?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> You know exactly what I mean. PP was designed to keep the so-called undesirable populations under control. That is why the majority of their abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods. Abortion is an ugly practice with an ugly, racist history.
> 
> And again, we are not talking about just "her body".


Now I see. You are calling the nurses and doctors that work at Planned parenthood racists.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I will believe prolifers want to save children when they quit using any form of birth control and do everything in their power to get that egg fertilized each and every time one drops into position. Until then they are pro choice.


I don't think anyone believes that an egg cell by itself or a sperm cell by itself is a human.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> You know exactly what I mean. PP was designed to keep the so-called undesirable populations under control. That is why the majority of their abortion mills are in minority neighborhoods. Abortion is an ugly practice with an ugly, racist history.
> 
> And again, we are not talking about just "her body".


Are you referring to ugly racist crap from decades ago? Pah.

PP offices are located in low income areas because it serves low income people. You can read all the racist rhetoric into it that you want.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> Then maybe all the people who believe that should focus their efforts on reforming adoption law before starting on denying women rights over their bodies.
> 
> Maybe fund research so the fetus can be removed intact from the woman's body and placed into the bodies of millions of clamoring Christians who will then carry the fetus to term and adopt it.
> 
> Would you carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity? Someone else's?


 So, until everything else is in place, the genocide must continue? Perhaps the abolitionists should have funded research into agriculture technology instead of insisting that slavery be abolished? 

And yes, I would carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity. It would be a neat trick.


----------



## Woolieface

AngieM2 said:


> Maybe making adoption less costly and complicated then more children of all races and abilities would be adopted.


Yep, there are a million stipulations and costs involved with adopting. It is made as difficult as it could possibly be. Truth be told, we would adopt a child who needed a home, but we would never qualify. Amongst other things, I probably dislike the government too much to suit their fancy.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> I don't think anyone believes that an egg cell by itself or a sperm cell by itself is a human.


Then what is it? I here the words potential human all the time.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> You have to know how ridiculous this is. Lose cred here, YH!


Which part is ridiculous? Seriously those are "choices", and any of them prevent that precious child the right to live. Most prolife advocates I know reserve the right to practice choices that they approve of, just not some that others may make.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Are you referring to ugly racist crap from decades ago? Pah.
> 
> PP offices are located in low income areas because it serves low income people. You can read all the racist rhetoric into it that you want.


 
I do know that the vast majority of abortions are performed on people of color. I also know that Margret Sanger's, who is held with high esteem by PP today, stated goal was to control the reproduction of those "other" people. I believe that she would be thrilled with their success.


----------



## Txsteader

wiscto said:


> Can you just reiterate that for me? *Are you claiming what the people who made the video are claiming*, or should I scroll back and read something else?


Correct.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I do know that the vast majority of abortions are performed on people of color. I also know that Margret Sanger's, who is held with high esteem by PP today, stated goal was to control the reproduction of those "other" people. I believe that she would be thrilled with their success.


So because she might be thrilled with their success at providing womens services you are labelling everyone who works for them racists.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> I do know that the vast majority of abortions are performed on people of color. I also know that Margret Sanger's, who is held with high esteem by PP today, stated goal was to control the reproduction of those "other" people. I believe that she would be thrilled with their success.


So your belief makes it right as rain? OK. :facepalm:


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> So, until everything else is in place, the genocide must continue? Perhaps the abolitionists should have funded research into agriculture technology instead of insisting that slavery be abolished?
> 
> And yes, I would carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity. It would be a neat trick.


You mean the genocide by conservatives who refuse to fund programs for the poor? Or slash them?

And when you use the term genocide, what group are you talking about? Racial, religious, ethnic...what?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which part is ridiculous? Seriously those are &quot;choices&quot;, and any of them prevent that precious child the right to live. Most prolife advocates I know reserve the right to practice choices that they approve of, just not some that others may make.


 Prior to conception, there is no child for which rights can be denied.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Prior to conception, there is no child for which rights can be denied.


Oh I get it. You get to decide when it is a child.


----------



## Farmerga

basketti said:


> You mean the genocide by conservatives who refuse to fund programs for the poor? Or slash them?
> 
> And when you use the term genocide, what group are you talking about? Racial, religious, ethnic...what?


 Just because we don't want the government to perform the service, doesn't mean that we don't want the service performed. It is not charity when government force is involved. 

Racial, more than anything else. The vast majority of abortions are performed on people of color.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Oh I get it. You get to decide when it is a child.


 Biology decides. Once an egg is fertilized, that life is a new, unique, human life. (as long as the parents are human, of course)


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> So your belief makes it right as rain? OK. :facepalm:


 Hey, I just call em as I see em. I know what her goals were, I know what PP has done. They match up fairly well. So, it would stand to reason that she would be happy.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Then what is it? I here the words potential human all the time.


It is potentially 50% of the ingredients to become a human. A conceived child is Currently a human 100%


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> It is potentially 50% of the ingredients to become a human. A conceived child is Currently a human 100%


Certain religions are against birth control because they believe all those eggs are babies waiting to happen. In fact one HT's own members has stated that she believes this.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Hey, I just call em as I see em. I know what her goals were, I know what PP has done. They match up fairly well. So, it would stand to reason that she would be happy.


Everyone has an opinion, ain't it great?


----------



## beowoulf90

Tricky Grama said:


> Beo, you can explain all ya want, some do not wish to see.
> 
> Heard how many dems were horrified over all this, 1st about the tearing, "crunching", all so matter-of-fact. Even the progressive's Vile Candidate commented, said this was troubling & needed looking into...
> 
> But our progressive friends here? Nah. The vids are edited. So no one said "sometimes clients deliver b/4 the procedure can be done"...what the heck do ya think that means?



Yes I know hypocrisy runs rampant..

Oh, I'm not anti abortion, but when these clinics commit a crime they should be held accountable. 
Profiting from selling human body parts is illegal and a crime. Thus those that support this are aiding and abetting the crime..
Plus that fact that PP is supposed to be Non-Profit and even gets Government money, makes the fact that they are selling human parts for profit worse. 

Since the current corrupt Adimin, House and Senate won't do anything about this profiteering, PP should lose all Government money (aka Taxpayers dollars). 

I don't care if they remain in business, but let these lowlife criminals do it without taxpayers dollars...

all these liberals constantly complain about Corporate Welfare, well here is a classic example of it.. 

Yet they won't stop it..

Ah yes the hypocrisy of it all!


----------



## gapeach

basketti said:


> Then maybe all the people who believe that should focus their efforts on reforming adoption law before starting on denying women rights over their bodies.
> 
> Maybe fund research so the fetus can be removed intact from the woman's body and placed into the bodies of millions of clamoring Christians who will then carry the fetus to term and adopt it.
> 
> Would you carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity? Someone else's?


That option was never available but if it were I think many women would do just that after years of trying to have a child and when the in vitro does not work. I probably would if that was the only way I could have a baby. My husband wanted a baby just as bad as I did. There are many mothers and fathers who are parents of a child from a surrogate pregnancy. Life is not fair but it does seem extra unfair when couples who want children are unable to have them when some just keep having multiple abortions just because they are too lazy or too drunk to use birth control.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Biology decides. Once an egg is fertilized, that life is a new, unique, human life. (as long as the parents are human, of course)


It can be argued that there is no such thing as a new unique life.... Life began... Some where at some time and that same life is still regenerating itself today. The fertilization of the egg is but one tiny step in a very long chain of events that perpetuates life.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Farmerga said:


> Biology decides. Once an egg is fertilized, that life is a new, unique, human life. (as long as the parents are human, of course)


Then take the fertilized egg out and put it up for adoption.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Prior to conception, there is no child for which rights can be denied.


So you say, the law says there is no child rights that can be denied until said child is born.


----------



## gapeach

basketti said:


> Then take the fertilized egg out and put it up for adoption.



I don't know if that is possible or not because of moral and ethical reasons but it is not a whole lot different from artificial inseminaton which is done every day, probably more than people know. It used to be something that people did not talk about when they resorted to artificial insemination but things are a lot more open now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

basketti said:


> Then take the fertilized egg out and put it up for adoption.





Farmerga said:


> Your point was that, if we were to stop the shameful practice of killing the unborn, that there would be vast herds of unwanted babies roaming the entirety of this nation. My point was that the vast majority of those babies would be healthy and easily re-homed.


So how many of the ones *available now* have you adopted?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you say, the law says there is no child rights that can be denied until said child is born.


 And the law used to say that Blacks and Native Americans were less than human.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> So how many of the ones *available now* have you adopted?


 Tried, good ole government wouldn't give me one because of health problems.


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> So how many of the ones *available now* have you adopted?


Did you not read it earlier. It is too expensive to adopt right now. If we outlaw abortion we will have lots of extra babies and the glut of healthy ones will drive down the cost of adoptions. It should even be cheaper than having your own.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> And the law used to say that Blacks and Native Americans were less than human.


I don't recall that in any of my history lessons, perhaps you could guide me to a law or statute to that affect?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Tried, good ole government wouldn't give me one because of health problems.


I knew the government was poor and in debt up to its eyebrows but had no idea it was in poor health too!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Most who claim to be "pro-choice" spend a lot of time defending abortion. (what about the unwanted brown people? etc.)


This 19 year old Mother figured out what to do with her unwanted 2 year old daughter:


> GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCN) â A North Carolina teen mom has been charged with murder and her bond denied after her dead baby girl was discovered after a Greyhound bus ride in Atlanta last week.





> Family members tell WNCT a detective in case says the preliminary autopsy shows the 2-year-old Tyâmia had ligature marks around her neck and water in her lungs.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I think we do need to revisit abortion at this point and have a national debate. I hope these videos are the catalyst for that even if they were an imperfect one.

At the time of roe v Wade, medical advancements were not what they are today.

Nowadays, medical advancements have made it worthwhile for doctors to attempt to save premature babies that are as young as 21 weeks with some success. They may even be attempting to save younger preemies. 

That was not really an issue that was considered plausible at the time of roe v Wade. Preemies just didn't fare as well.

We've revisited this once and decided partial birth was a problem. I don't like that it seems we as a nation have to fight about whether having a national debate or discussion is ev n reasonable.

At the time of roe v Wade organ transplants and organ harvesting for research labs was not as advanced as it is now either.

Times have changed. We should be able to have this discussion as a country since so much has changed. And, the discussion doesn't need to end with an absolute banishment of all abortions or an absolute endorsement of all abortions.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> So how many of the ones *available now* have you adopted?


Me? Not a one. I had two of my own, planned for and wanted.

But I vote for candidates who support assisting those in need and I donate heavily to PP. As well as other charities that help children. And support a woman's right to choose abortion if that is what she chooses.


----------



## Guest

Code:







basketti said:


> You're aginst birth control.
> 
> *NOPE*
> 
> Okay...now that I know where you're coming from, I can just go ahead and disregard every word you type.
> 
> Good gravy. Not even worth the ignore feature.


And you are a bit too sanctimonious for me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I think we do need to revisit abortion at this point and have a national debate. I hope these videos are the catalyst for that even if they were an imperfect one.


We had a "national debate" back in the 70's when it was legalized
Nothing has changed, and your opinion is in the minority.

People need to learn they have no right to control the actions of anyone other than themselves

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx


----------



## Guest

Do away with any government funding of clinics that provide abortions, and I agree the choice is the woman's. I do not agree with abortion, I will not condone nor will I stifle my objections. When you steal by threat of force from me to fund the multitude of someoneelses social ills it time to fight back.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> I think we do need to revisit abortion at this point and have a national debate. I hope these videos are the catalyst for that even if they were an imperfect one.
> 
> At the time of roe v Wade, medical advancements were not what they are today.
> 
> Nowadays, medical advancements have made it worthwhile for doctors to attempt to save premature babies that are as young as 21 weeks with some success. They may even be attempting to save younger preemies.
> 
> That was not really an issue that was considered plausible at the time of roe v Wade. Preemies just didn't fare as well.
> 
> We've revisited this once and decided partial birth was a problem. I don't like that it seems we as a nation have to fight about whether having a national debate or discussion is ev n reasonable.
> 
> At the time of roe v Wade organ transplants and organ harvesting for research labs was not as advanced as it is now either.
> 
> Times have changed. We should be able to have this discussion as a country since so much has changed. And, the discussion doesn't need to end with an absolute banishment of all abortions or an absolute endorsement of all abortions.


I think you should do what is right for yourself and not inflict your beliefs or discussions on other women. How about a little personal freedom? If it's a "sin" then the sinner can deal with her maker when the time comes.
But I don't think you want a discussion...I think you want roe vs wade overturned. And thats not happening.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Do away with any government funding of clinics that provide abortions, and I agree the choice is the woman's. I do not agree with abortion, I will not condone nor will I stifle my objections. When you steal by threat of force from me to fund the multitude of someoneelses social ills it time to fight back.


I agree that public funding should not be used for abortions.


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> How many have you adopted?


More than you.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a bit too sanctimonious for me.


You should probably use the online dictionary more frequently.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> More than you.


Children. Not dogs. So your kids are adopted?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> We had a "national debate" back in the 70's when it was legalized
> Nothing has changed, and your opinion is in the minority.
> 
> People need to learn they have no right to control the actions of anyone other than themselves
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx


 Nonsense. We have the right, as a society, to control the actions of those who would do us harm and harm others, do we not? We have the right to control the actions of those who would steal from us, do we not?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> We had a "national debate" back in the 70's when it was legalized
> Nothing has changed, and your opinion is in the minority.
> 
> People need to learn they have no right to control the actions of anyone other than themselves
> 
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx


Well, your post quoting me is one of the reasons I didn't even bother posting my thoughts on here until almost 200 posts were already on this thread.

There's been an awful Iot of things that were revisited in history because future generations wanted to relook at something that was decided by a society in the past. And, sometimes it was left alone and sometimes it was changed for better or worse.

The really sad thing I think, is that America was supposed to be a place where people weren't supposed to be told to shut up and deal with it. We used to be known as a place where it was different because people could begin local, state and national debates and the nation would allow mthem.

It seems now we've gotten rid of that mindset on abortion and many other issues.

So, thanks bearfootfarm for your kind words. I guess I should just sit back and shut up because anyone who wasn't around and part of roe v Wade or is in the minority doesn't apparently have a right to have a voice according to some.


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> I think you should do what is right for yourself and not inflict your beliefs or discussions on other women. How about a little personal freedom? If it's a "sin" then the sinner can deal with her maker when the time comes.
> But I don't think you want a discussion...I think you want roe vs wade overturned. And thats not happening.


Well you'd be able rong in your assumptions. I've posted on HT multiple times I am prochoice.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You keep saying progressives. Of course you can back that up with proof of a large group or a majority instead of a couple of people. Otherwise you are posting lies.


I did this, twice. 
How many times do articles from 'prestigious' psych journals, from non-conservative so-called 'ethics" sources have to be posted? Third Xs a charm? Or will it still not be read & absorbed?
Google 'Singer' for one...


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I did this, twice.
> How many times do articles from 'prestigious' psych journals, from non-conservative so-called 'ethics" sources have to be posted? Third Xs a charm? Or will it still not be read & absorbed?
> Google 'Singer' for one...


Yes, I see you keep accusing all progressives of the same beliefs as one person. Still no proof. Still posting lies.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Do away with any government funding of clinics that provide abortions, and I agree the choice is the woman's. I do not agree with abortion, I will not condone nor will I stifle my objections. When you steal by threat of force from me to fund the multitude of someoneelses social ills it time to fight back.


Two words: Hyde Amendment.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Farmerga said:


> I have been through that mind field. Most is unnecessary bureaucratic crap that does nothing for the welfare of the child. Take away the bulk of the process, make adoption a more simple process and I would bet that the extra children would be absorbed by the system. How many healthy babies are there on the list of children waiting to be adopted? Since there is are waiting lists for healthy babies and the vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy pregnancies, it would stand to reason that the result would be a shorter wait time for those wishing to adopt with few "unwanted" children.
> 
> Just a question to the pro-abortionists: If your concern is truly the reduction of the "unwanted" in society, why would you not advocate the euthanasia of "flawed" people? Would that not be doing them a favor?


Oh, gee, if you read "The Complete Lives System"-mostly what the creators of obummerUncare based it on, you'll see a lot of those lovely folks advocated for that, stating that those under the age of 10 & over a certain age-I forget-70? Are of no use to the state.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wiscto said:


> I'll share a personal story too I guess. They told my mother that the child born before me was gone...only they were right. The child born before me was stillborn, and my mother suffered serious complications for carrying on.
> 
> As of right now, the data shows that there are far more complications associated with stillbirth than live. Preeclampsia, infection, choriamnionitis, abruptio placentae, hemorrhages... This data could suggest that natural abortions occur; the mother's body protecting itself from fatal damage, and even if that isn't the case, the data suggests that women need the choice.
> 
> When the pro-lifers can shut down those in their ranks who want to eliminate abortion entirely, even as a medical option, moderates such as myself might step in on the side of making _some_ changes. Until then...I'll vote for hard line pro-choicers or people who plan to leave abortion where it stands right now _every time_. Because you don't want to deal with me if you cost the mother of my stillborn child her life after she had no options other than to continue the pregnancy _just in case_. I will not react rationally. At that point it should have been our choice as a family, and ultimately HER choice to stay alive for herself and for those who need her, or hold out hope for the child. And I don't care that we have better capabilities to save mothers these days, that just belies the danger.


I'm not sure what you are saying here...if the unborn is dead, you think the pro lifers want it left in the womb? Where did you get that idea? 
As well as the idea that an abortion wouldn't be performed if a mothers life is at stake? That's crazy, for decades, even b/4 abortion 'on demand' was legal, an abortion was legal in those cases.
Look at 'self defense' if nothing else.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wiscto said:


> I believe you. But I have known some, and I just find them to be the greater risk to the people I care for than a strict pro-choice platform.


Would those few you know be making any laws?


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Well you'd be able rong in your assumptions. I've posted on HT multiple times I am prochoice.


Well good. I usually skip over the wordier posts so I probably missed it. Regardless: Bearfootfarm is right. The discussion was had and the Supreme Court ruled. There is no way it will be overturned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Nonsense. We have the right, as a society, to control the actions of those who would do us harm and harm others, do we not? We have the right to control the actions of those who would steal from us, do we not?


No one is doing you any harm.


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> Well good. I usually skip over the wordier posts so I probably missed it. Regardless: Bearfootfarm is right. The discussion was had and the Supreme Court ruled. There is no way it will be overturned.


The supreme Court has a history of overturning itself and the state legislatures have the ability to overturn with constitutional changes.

I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to not discuss issues but cause there is no way the laws will change once the supreme court has ruled.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> Two words: Hyde Amendment.


Two words. Reading comprehension 

Money goes to those clinics that provide abortions, I do not care what the clinic says it funds with the government hand out. De-fund it, you still have your clinic at your own cost. Send them all you wish.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> So, thanks bearfootfarm for your kind words. I guess I should just sit back and shut up because anyone who wasn't around and part of roe v Wade or is in the minority doesn't apparently have a right to have a voice according to some.


No one told you to "shut up" so let's don't play that game.



> I don't think it's in anyone's best interest to not discuss issues but cause there is no way the laws will change once the supreme court has ruled.


The court ruling isn't why it won't change.
Regardless of your personal feelings, the "debate" has been done to death, and the majority want abortions to remain legal. 

When will you the accept reality that you have no right to control anyone else, no matter how badly you want to do so?

http://worldabortionlaws.com/


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Two words. Reading comprehension
> 
> Money goes to those clinics that provide abortions, I do not care what the clinic says it funds with the government hand out. De-fund it, you still have your clinic at your own cost. Send them all you wish.


My reading comprehension is just fine. The Hyde Amendment guarantees no Federal government money can be used for abortion, but you already knew that. This was hashed out over 40 years ago so good luck getting it changed. You have about the same chance as getting Roe v. Wade repealed.


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> My reading comprehension is just fine. The Hyde Amendment guarantees no Federal government money can be used for abortion, but you already knew that. This was hashed out over 40 years ago so good luck getting it changed. You have about the same chance as getting Roe v. Wade repealed.


Maybe, maybe not. I think the matter is in front of congress right now, Roe v. Wade is a legal opinion, government funding is a different animal altogether.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one told you to "shut up" so let's don't play that game.
> 
> 
> 
> The court ruling isn't why it won't change.
> Regardless of your personal feelings, the "debate" has been done to death, and the majority want abortions to remain legal.
> 
> When will you the accept reality that you have no right to control anyone else, no matter how badly you want to do so?
> 
> http://worldabortionlaws.com/


What makes you think I have said I want to control anyone else?

The one thing I have said repeatedly on the abortion threads is I don't think we as a nation and our medical providers have done a good enough job of is making sure women are making informed decisions regarding abortion. There are all kinds of problems and complications short vand long term that are not even rare for mothers to have after an abortion. 

I have the same feelings about making informed medical decisions for all kinds of medical care, not just abortion and have said so repeatedly as well.

Medical advancements are coming online and being treated as routine care at a much faster rate than the average citizen, female or male, is able to keep up a reasonable understanding of without relevant info being offered when needed.

I do think abortions are a horrible decision in most cases. Yes, that is because of my faith, in part. But, my faith also makes me believe that God has chosen each child specifically for each mother, and given us free will so we can each make our own choices, and I must respect that God gives each child to each mother and I must respect it is her child and should be her choice for whether it is born or aborted. I wish it wasn't an issue people even had to make such a hard choice on, but women do, that's the world we live in. 

So, I'm for at least supporting women in making informed decisions so theye know before and during and after what is happening or possible to help them struggle as little as possible with complications. That has nothing to do with controlling wmoen and everything to do with empowering them to handle hard decisions and the potential fallout. The same as I feel about all kinds of people needing improvements to better decide all kinds of things from rx, vaccines, therapies, surgeries, treatments, diagnoses, etc.


----------



## Txsteader

basketti said:


> Well good. I usually skip over the wordier posts so I probably missed it. Regardless: Bearfootfarm is right. The discussion was had and the Supreme Court ruled. There is no way it will be overturned.


No need to overturn it. Simply change the hearts and minds of the majority so PP loses all public funding. :thumb:

If PP provides free birth control, there shouldn't be as many abortions anyway. I believe the statistics show that the majority of women are 'economically disadvantaged' which should qualify them for free BC.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Maybe, maybe not. I think the matter is in front of congress right now, Roe v. Wade is a legal opinion, government funding is a different animal altogether.


It's in front of Congress because of those heavily edited videos that the right wing crazies have released and those with an agenda bought hook, line, and sinker. I'm sure the Hyde Amendment has been explained to them by now.


----------



## beowoulf90

Irish Pixie said:


> It's in front of Congress because of those heavily edited videos that the right wing crazies have released and those with an agenda bought hook, line, and sinker. I'm sure the Hyde Amendment has been explained to them by now.



It's in front of Congress because someone committed a crime..

You can lie to yourself and claim that they have been heavily edited all you want, but the truth is a crime was and is being committed, thus Congress is reviewing it..

Take all Government monies out of it and fund it yourself if you wish, because I don't care. 

I don't care if you want to limit / kill off yourself, your progeny, your future.

If some wish to make themselves extinct, that is their business.

But don't force me to pay for it by threat of law and forfeiture.


----------



## wiscto

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm not sure what you are saying here...if the unborn is dead, you think the pro lifers want it left in the womb? Where did you get that idea?
> As well as the idea that an abortion wouldn't be performed if a mothers life is at stake? That's crazy, for decades, even b/4 abortion 'on demand' was legal, an abortion was legal in those cases.
> Look at 'self defense' if nothing else.


Someone told a personal story. I chose not to quote that person to avoid having that person feel attacked. You can scroll back and find it. 

And there are people on the pro-life side of the fence who do not believe in aborting at that point, they want everyone to wait until the still birth so that everyone is sure the baby was dead. Even though it can and usually does cause complications for the mother, sometimes life threatening.


----------



## Irish Pixie

beowoulf90 said:


> It's in front of Congress because someone committed a crime..
> 
> You can lie to yourself and claim that they have been heavily edited all you want, but the truth is a crime was and is being committed, thus Congress is reviewing it..
> 
> Take all Government monies out of it and fund it yourself if you wish, because I don't care.
> 
> I don't care if you want to limit / kill off yourself, your progeny, your future.
> 
> If some wish to make themselves extinct, that is their business.
> 
> But don't force me to pay for it by threat of law and forfeiture.


I know that California is doing a crime investigation on whether or not the right wing crazies committed a crime when they lied and videotaped people without their permission... 

YOU aren't paying for abortion (at least with Federal tax dollars) Hyde Amendment, remember?

ETA: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


----------



## Guest

Irish Pixie said:


> It's in front of Congress because of those heavily edited videos that the right wing crazies have released and those with an agenda bought hook, line, and sinker.* I'm sure the Hyde Amendment has been explained to them by now*.


I am sure they have

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
The* Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but rather is a "rider*" that in various forms has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976.[3] Legislation including the Hyde Amendment generally only restricts the use of funds allocated for the Department of Health and Human Services and primarily affects Medicaid


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> What makes you think I have said I want to control anyone else?
> 
> The one thing I have said repeatedly on the abortion threads is I don't think we as a nation and our medical providers have done a good enough job of is making sure women are making informed decisions regarding abortion. There are all kinds of problems and complications short vand long term that are not even rare for mothers to have after an abortion.
> 
> I have the same feelings about making informed medical decisions for all kinds of medical care, not just abortion and have said so repeatedly as well.
> 
> Medical advancements are coming online and being treated as routine care at a much faster rate than the average citizen, female or male, is able to keep up a reasonable understanding of without relevant info being offered when needed.
> 
> I do think abortions are a horrible decision in most cases. Yes, that is because of my faith, in part. But, my faith also makes me believe that God has chosen each child specifically for each mother, and given us free will so we can each make our own choices, and I must respect that God gives each child to each mother and I must respect it is her child and should be her choice for whether it is born or aborted. I wish it wasn't an issue people even had to make such a hard choice on, but women do, that's the world we live in.
> 
> So, I'm for at least supporting women in making informed decisions so theye know before and during and after what is happening or possible to help them struggle as little as possible with complications. That has nothing to do with controlling wmoen and everything to do with empowering them to handle hard decisions and the potential fallout. The same as I feel about all kinds of people needing improvements to better decide all kinds of things from rx, vaccines, therapies, surgeries, treatments, diagnoses, etc.



What then are you alluding to as far as an "informed decision"? I'm not aware of any medical procedure in which the patient is not informed of possible medical risks or side effects.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Yes, I see you keep accusing all progressives of the same beliefs as one person. Still no proof. Still posting lies.


I'll respectfully ask you not to call me a liar.

And I'll ask you not to change my words as well. B/c no where have I said ALL progressives. It's a fool who doesn't think the pro choice group is composed MOSTLY of progressives. If you don't like that, pick another group to identify with. 

I'll go out on a limb here & say the majority of conservatives are pro life.

Of course, Peter Sanger is the "Champion" of the infanticide movement. Some links to check out: www.equip.org/article/peter-sangers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
Wikipedia, too has stuff about him.
P.s.- he's not a conservative.

So there's 2 other philosophers of note: Alberto Guibilini & Francesco Minerva who write their case for infanticide in THE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS: 
"...merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life...". 
Some of their reasoning for it: "...well being of family is at risk..."
Another proponent: Ann Furedi.

This comes from: "After-Birth Abortion: The Pro-Choice Case for Infanticide". "...the academic left idea..."

Www.slate.com/.../after_birth_abortion

Trends: More college students support post birth abortion. www.thecollegefix.com

If you're unhappy (collective 'you') with what the majority of progressives believe, leave.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll respectfully ask you not to call me a liar.
> 
> And I'll ask you not to change my words as well. B/c no where have I said ALL progressives. It's a fool who doesn't think the pro choice group is composed MOSTLY of progressives. If you don't like that, pick another group to identify with.
> 
> I'll go out on a limb here & say the majority of conservatives are pro life.
> 
> Of course, Peter Sanger is the "Champion" of the infanticide movement. Some links to check out: www.equip.org/article/peter-sangers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
> Wikipedia, too has stuff about him.
> P.s.- he's not a conservative.
> 
> So there's 2 other philosophers of note: Alberto Guibilini & Francesco Minerva who write their case for infanticide in THE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS:
> "...merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life...".
> Some of their reasoning for it: "...well being of family is at risk..."
> Another proponent: Ann Furedi.
> 
> This comes from: "After-Birth Abortion: The Pro-Choice Case for Infanticide". "...the academic left idea..."
> 
> Www.slate.com/.../after_birth_abortion
> 
> Trends: More college students support post birth abortion. www.thecollegefix.com
> 
> If you're unhappy (collective 'you') with what the majority of progressives believe, leave.


I did not call you a liar. I said you have posted lies. Where you got those lies I don't know.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> It's in front of Congress because of those heavily edited videos that the right wing crazies have released and those with an agenda bought hook, line, and sinker. I'm sure the Hyde Amendment has been explained to them by now.


So sorry, but there's a lot of left wing crazies who are appalled & backing this.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll respectfully ask you not to call me a liar.
> 
> And I'll ask you not to change my words as well. B/c no where have I said ALL progressives. It's a fool who doesn't think the pro choice group is composed MOSTLY of progressives. If you don't like that, pick another group to identify with.
> 
> I'll go out on a limb here & say the majority of conservatives are pro life.
> 
> Of course, Peter Sanger is the "Champion" of the infanticide movement. Some links to check out: www.equip.org/article/peter-sangers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
> Wikipedia, too has stuff about him.
> P.s.- he's not a conservative.
> 
> So there's 2 other philosophers of note: Alberto Guibilini & Francesco Minerva who write their case for infanticide in THE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS:
> "...merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life...".
> Some of their reasoning for it: "...well being of family is at risk..."
> Another proponent: Ann Furedi.
> 
> This comes from: "After-Birth Abortion: The Pro-Choice Case for Infanticide". "...the academic left idea..."
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/Www.slate.com/.../after_birth_abortion
> 
> Trends: More college students support post birth abortion. www.thecollegefix.com
> 
> If you're unhappy (collective 'you') with what the majority of progressives believe, leave.


Read it again, she never called you a liar.

The Slate article: You&#8217;ve reached this page because what you were looking for does not exist or there&#8217;s been an error. Rest assured that we are looking into it. In the meantime, we have great content for you to choose from in the menu bar at the top right of the screen. You can also click the Slate logo there to return to the home page.

Pete Sanger link: won't load and says, "Oops."

Did you even read the "The College Fix?" It's *RIGHT WING!* Opinion piece http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23594/

The other three? They don't speak for me, and I'll guess they don't speak for most pro choice supporters. Does the Westboro Baptist Church speak for you?

Thank you for trying to prove your point with links. It is appreciated.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> So sorry, but there's a lot of left wing crazies who are appalled & backing this.


Like I said before, the law of averages indicates that there has to be idiots on the left of center too.


----------



## painterswife

A couple of people and an article that says this , "Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet âself aware.â".

That is your proof that "progressives" believe in infanticide. You are entertaining.


----------



## preparing

...neither cast ye your pearls before swine...


I get caught in this trap too. You think you are enlightening others but all you are doing is the above. This is a spiritual argument. (I know I already said that).

Also, how are some folks able to follow this thread ALL day? Is this their job?

Log off for a while and enjoy the day! This can certainly be addictive.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I just came across this interesting tidbit:

Current domestic terrorism threats include animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, anti government extremists such as âsovereign citizensâ and unauthorized militias, Black separatists, White supremacists,* anti-abortion extremists*, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including âlone wolfs.â Domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses, crimes relating to fraud, and threats and hoaxes.

As of last year, "anti abortion extremists" are considered domestic terrorists.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I did not call you a liar. I said you have posted lies. Where you got those lies I don't know.


Ah, so I post lies.
You don't know where I got them.

How much farther in denial are you going? It's right there for you to read. There's more, too, but it's in my home computer, the iPad is not that much fun to find stuff, copying is all by hand.

Are you afraid to read the articles?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, so I post lies.
> You don't know where I got them.
> 
> How much farther in denial are you going? It's right there for you to read. There's more, too, but it's in my home computer, the iPad is not that much fun to find stuff, copying is all by hand.
> 
> Are you afraid to read the articles?


Uh, most of your links don't work. I tried to read them, I really did.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Oh I get it. You get to decide when it is a child.


So which are you the result of? One egg cell or one sperm cell? I'm really Totally convinced that no one here has a problem figuring this one out. lol


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, so I post lies.
> You don't know where I got them.
> 
> How much farther in denial are you going? It's right there for you to read. There's more, too, but it's in my home computer, the iPad is not that much fun to find stuff, copying is all by hand.
> 
> Are you afraid to read the articles?


I suggest reading all the posts before responding to ones that have been addressed in subsequent posts.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I just came across this interesting tidbit:
> 
> Current domestic terrorism threats include animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, anti government extremists such as âsovereign citizensâ and unauthorized militias, Black separatists, White supremacists,* anti-abortion extremists*, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including âlone wolfs.â Domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses, crimes relating to fraud, and threats and hoaxes.
> 
> As of last year, "anti abortion extremists" are considered domestic terrorists.


We covered that communistic belief of this admin last yr.
Vets are also on the list. They may as well have said "patriots". After all, anyone w/that in their name were targeted by the IRS.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Certain religions are against birth control because they believe all those eggs are babies waiting to happen. In fact one HT's own members has stated that she believes this.


hmm...I don't believe you lol. Show me that post or let me know who it is so I can ask about that. I am 100% certain it is not written down in any religion's manual that an egg cell must be fertilized or you've denied a human right to life.

Some might believe that it is up to God if a child is conceived or not and so we should not prevent it, but that's a bit different than calling every egg cell a human being.

It's preschool stuff. no egg cell nor any sperm cell becomes a human without the other.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Uh, most of your links don't work. I tried to read them, I really did.


I had to write them down by hand...not all of the link showed...
Its amazing to me that anyone who thinks of themselves as educated would not know Peter Sanger. It's even more amazing that anyone would not be able to find a myriad of info on this, unless of course they're terribly embarrassed by it...being pushed by progressives & all.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> I had to write them down by hand...not all of the link showed...
> Its amazing to me that anyone who thinks of themselves as educated would not know Peter Sanger. It's even more amazing that anyone would not be able to find a myriad of info on this, unless of course they're terribly embarrassed by it...being pushed by progressives & all.


I'm amazed by the fact that someone who is tweaking others about their education was unable to read well enough to get the name straight. I believe you mean Peter SINGER.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> hmm...I don't believe you lol. Show me that post or let me know who it is so I can ask about that. I am 100% certain it is not written down in any religion's manual that an egg cell must be fertilized or you've denied a human right to life.
> 
> Some might believe that it is up to God if a child is conceived or not and so we should not prevent it, but that's a bit different than calling every egg cell a human being.
> 
> It's preschool stuff. no egg cell nor any sperm cell becomes a human without the other.




Post 167 for your viewing pleasure Try post 155 as well

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ions-alternate-sex-choices-5.html#post7461981


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> I'm amazed by the fact that someone who is tweaking others about their education was unable to read well enough to get the name straight. I believe you mean Peter SINGER.


Ah, I see you found your mentor...you can google! my iPad doesn't like his name but managed to get it right a time or 2.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, I see you found your mentor...you can google! my iPad doesn't like his name but managed to get it right a time or 2.


What an utterly stupid thing to say. I presume you have heard of Hitler ergo he is your mentor?


Notice: I said it was a stupid thing to say. Didn't say you were stupid, so before you run weeping to the mods.....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> We covered that communistic belief of this admin last yr.
> Vets are also on the list. They may as well have said "patriots". After all, anyone w/that in their name were targeted by the IRS.


Where are they on the list? I can't seem to find vets... 

Here's the link (it works  ) to the DOJ: http://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/national-security/domestic-terrorism


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> Post 167 for your viewing pleasure Try post 155 as well
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...ions-alternate-sex-choices-5.html#post7461981


post 167 of this thread? That's your own post and nothing to do with egg cells.

post 155 is this:
_
Basketti - "Then maybe all the people who believe that should focus their efforts on reforming adoption law before starting on denying women rights over their bodies.

Maybe fund research so the fetus can be removed intact from the woman's body and placed into the bodies of millions of clamoring Christians who will then carry the fetus to term and adopt it.

Would you carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity? Someone else's? "_


----------



## Irish Pixie

Woolieface said:


> post 167 of this thread? That's your own post and nothing to do with egg cells.
> 
> post 155 is this:
> _
> Basketti - "Then maybe all the people who believe that should focus their efforts on reforming adoption law before starting on denying women rights over their bodies.
> 
> Maybe fund research so the fetus can be removed intact from the woman's body and placed into the bodies of millions of clamoring Christians who will then carry the fetus to term and adopt it.
> 
> Would you carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity? Someone else's? "_



Painterswife provided you with a link and post numbers.


----------



## Woolieface

Sorry...not this thread, missed that.

Here are the posts:
_
"Ummm No.
The soul is in us in every part of us that's just one of the reasons it's wrong to spill the seed. So the sperm comes with it's soul to the egg and it's soul.
I'm not sure if souls combine to create a new one or if one of the souls is passed along.
Can't say I care.
But in any case at least from the moment of conception the baby has at least one soul."


"Think of the soul as life. Every living cell has some of your life in it. Just as when you lose a arm the life in that part of your body dies so does the soul in that part of the body. Sperm and eggs are small but living cells with a bit of soul or life them.
When they die that tiny bit of life or soul in them passes too.
It just seems reasonable.
Or I could be mistaken. "_


I think this counts as a personal theory, it relies on nothing written in a religious text. We should ask this poster if sperm has a right to life as a human being by itself.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> post 167 of this thread? That's your own post and nothing to do with egg cells.
> 
> post 155 is this:
> _
> Basketti - "Then maybe all the people who believe that should focus their efforts on reforming adoption law before starting on denying women rights over their bodies.
> 
> Maybe fund research so the fetus can be removed intact from the woman's body and placed into the bodies of millions of clamoring Christians who will then carry the fetus to term and adopt it.
> 
> Would you carry a fetus to term if given the opportunity? Someone else's? "_


Okay try 167
Think of the soul as life. Every living cell has some of your life in it. Just as when you lose a arm the life in that part of your body dies so does the soul in that part of the body. Sperm and eggs are small but living cells with a bit of soul or life them. 
When they die that tiny bit of life or soul in them passes too. 
It just seems reasonable. 
Or I could be mistaken.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> I know that California is doing a crime investigation on whether or not the right wing crazies committed a crime when they lied and videotaped people without their permission...
> 
> YOU aren't paying for abortion (at least with Federal tax dollars) Hyde Amendment, remember?
> 
> ETA: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/


 Since only 3% of their work is prenatal counseling and BCP is readily available elsewhere, why are we giving them ANY taxpayer dollars?

Cut them off and let them sink or swim on their own merits.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> Sorry...not this thread, missed that.
> 
> Here are the posts:
> _
> "Ummm No.
> The soul is in us in every part of us that's just one of the reasons it's wrong to spill the seed. So the sperm comes with it's soul to the egg and it's soul.
> I'm not sure if souls combine to create a new one or if one of the souls is passed along.
> Can't say I care.
> But in any case at least from the moment of conception the baby has at least one soul."
> 
> 
> "Think of the soul as life. Every living cell has some of your life in it. Just as when you lose a arm the life in that part of your body dies so does the soul in that part of the body. Sperm and eggs are small but living cells with a bit of soul or life them.
> When they die that tiny bit of life or soul in them passes too.
> It just seems reasonable.
> Or I could be mistaken. "_
> 
> 
> I think this counts as a personal theory, it relies on nothing written in a religious text. We should ask this poster if sperm has a right to life as a human being by itself.


I never said religous texts.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Since only 3% of their work is prenatal counseling and BCP is readily available elsewhere, why are we giving them ANY taxpayer dollars?
> 
> Cut them off and let them sink or swim on their own merits.


Where are you getting the 3% figure?

This is what PP does:


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> What then are you alluding to as far as an "informed decision"? I'm not aware of any medical procedure in which the patient is not informed of possible medical risks or side effects.


I've known multiple people family and friends over the years who have had many side effects or complications or wrong diagnoses or simply not been informed of other options for all kinds of medical care. Frequently, they were only discussed after the fact or when a different provider became involved. Some of the times it resulted in pwrmenant harm being caused. And, some has involved abortion, but it is a wide range of medical problems. It's very unfortunate.

In some cases the people really should have taken more responsibility themselves. But, in several the people were pressured by drs that didn't want to answer questions or discuss alternatives. And, when time pressures or the stress/incapacity if the patient or kin are added to the equation, they really didn't get the information they should have. And, its sad to see them have to live with the results.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> I've known multiple people family and friends over the years who have had many side effects or complications or wrong diagnoses or simply not been informed of other options for all kinds of medical care. Frequently, they were only discussed after the fact or when a different provider became involved. Some of the times it resulted in pwrmenant harm being caused. And, some has involved abortion, but it is a wide range of medical problems. It's very unfortunate.
> 
> In some cases the people really should have taken more responsibility themselves. But, in several the people were pressured by drs that didn't want to answer questions or discuss alternatives. And, when time pressures or the stress/incapacity if the patient or kin are added to the equation, they really didn't get the information they should have. And, its sad to see them have to live with the results.



So what are you proposing?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I've known multiple people family and friends over the years who have had many side effects or complications or wrong diagnoses or simply not been informed of other options for all kinds of medical care. Frequently, they were only discussed after the fact or when a different provider became involved. Some of the times it resulted in pwrmenant harm being caused. And, some has involved abortion, but it is a wide range of mxedical problems. It's very unfortunate.
> 
> In some cases the people really should have taken more responsibility themselves. But, in several the people were pressured by drs that didn't want to answer questions or discuss alternatives. And, when time pressures or the stress/incapacity if the patient or kin are added to the equation, they really didn't get the information they should have. And, its sad to see them have to live with the results.


Watch the last video. PP's consent meetings average 1.5 hours. I think they are pretty informed.


----------



## Lisa in WA

painterswife said:


> Watch the last video. PP's consent meetings average 1.5 hours. I think they are pretty informed.


And since women have to actually go to PP and ask for an abortion, I'm not sure how a doctor would be pressuring them to abort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What makes you think I have said I want to control anyone else?


Reading your posts



> So, I'm for at least supporting women in making informed decisions so theye know before and during and after what is happening or possible to help them struggle as little as possible with complications.


They are informed. 

I don't know why you keep claiming they aren't.

They even sign documents to that effect.

You're grasping at straws


----------



## Shine

Sean Hannity interview [don't much like Sean Hannity]

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRmUtTj9i3E[/ame]


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> I never said religous texts.


 Originally Posted by painterswife View Post
Certain religions are against birth control because they believe all those eggs are babies waiting to happen. In fact one HT's own members has stated that she believes this.

Alright then....no Religions are, as a rule, against birth control and even those members of some who are hold that opinion because conception is left to God to decide, not a belief that a sperm or an egg is a human being.

The post mentioned is personal theory, not a religious edict. I'd have to bet that personal theory still does not consider spermicide synonymous with infanticide but I won't speak for him.

Sort of altogether a moot point since none of us are Actually confusing an egg cell with a person any more than we might expect the infertile chicken eggs in our fridge to sprout feathers and cluck.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> Originally Posted by painterswife View Post
> Certain religions are against birth control because they believe all those eggs are babies waiting to happen. In fact one HT's own members has stated that she believes this.
> 
> Alright then....no Religions are, as a rule, against birth control and even those members of some who are hold that opinion because conception is left to God to decide, not a belief that a sperm or an egg is a human being.
> 
> The post mentioned is personal theory, not a religious edict. I'd have to bet that personal theory still does not consider spermicide synonymous with infanticide but I won't speak for him.
> 
> Sort of altogether a moot point since none of us are Actually confusing an egg cell with a person any more than we might expect the infertile chicken eggs in our fridge to sprout feathers and cluck.


I believe Catholic are against birth control


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> So what are you proposing?


One major problem I have is with all of the fingers that are in the pot besides patients and drs. There's so many pressures and restrictions put on drs by insurance coverages, liability insurance and lawyers, hospital admit strators, big pharma drug rx pushes, workers comp attorneys, etc. That it really impacts what drs have time and a willingness to say to patients. The time pressures on drs really seems to stunt a pts ability to even get some drs attached ntion long enough to express their concerns. 

There's plenty of Dr shortages and we don't seem to have any adequate plans for how to make pursuing medicine a feesable option for more American students. We seem to have decided that licensing foreign trained drs is an adequate solution, even though there may be considerable differences in the education they received. That could use some attention. 

Drs can't afford to be straight with ots and say they really don't know or have made a mistake, and they can't afford (many if them) to give pts enough time to pts to hear things that would help get diagnoses or treatments that were correct or best on the first attempt. Half the time drs don't even confirm a diagnoses or rule out of things before the pt is sent away with an rx that is wrong and causes side effects.

There's a ridiculous amount of rx meds that are written to pregnant women and children, and half the people taking them or the parents don't even understand that mamy of those meds were never tested on pregnant women or children for safety or effectiveness studies.

If you set aside the aborted child issue that many people have very decided feelings on, abortion is just like many other health or women's health areas where I have seen the ball gets dropped more often than is acceptable for making sure the women are being informed. Now if you look at the fact that because abortion is so contentious, many women who are pregnant or considering abortion, or who have had an abortion are not nearly as likely to openly discuss it with other people, they are very clearly at a disadvantage for making informed decisions or having others by chance mention that complications or side effects may be related to an abortion.

It's not as uncommon in my experience for friends or relatives to be comfortable with others knowing they have flu, ear infections, cancer treatments, pregnancy/postpartum, accident or work injury info passed back and forth at least to some degree. And, I've seen plenty of times when helpful was shared or even just mention of something brings out "you know that might be related to xxxx, you might ask your Dr about it or follow up and see about such and such, cause that's what so and so found out was wrong and what you said sounds similar."

So women who are pregnant or have had an abortion don't have at all even the same level of freedom or access to community or medical support or info in the same open way. Prolife might cast them as a villain, and prochoice might say that it was their private business, so the woman should keep it to herself. Drs are so busy and afraid of lawsuits they just process them through asap. That's the catch 22 I've seen several women in personally.

Women talk about so many personal things with each other. But, abortions has truly been a very off-limits topic for many in my experience. I've met several over the years, but it's only come up under very out of the ordinary experiences. For all roe v Wade was supposed to do to liberate women, it sure doesn't seem to have brought them much freedom to deal with their abortions in a decent or supportive way. Manyt women I know don't even want to freely pick up literature in a lobby or let people see what they're reading online or what books they read about abortion or even let anyone know they have been to a Dr to discuss one because it's too difficult to determine if others will be at all helpful once it's revealed the topic has come up because she's dealing with an abortion herself instead of it being just a philosophical or political topic.

There's a lot that could be proposed that might help with issues like that. I don't have it all figured out to solve it all. But, I am interested in people at least being open to identifying those types of issues and trying out ideas for improvements or solutions. 

It seems like that has gotten lost a lot in the debate between whether abortions should be legal or not.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> I just came across this interesting tidbit:
> 
> Current domestic terrorism threats include animal rights extremists, eco-terrorists, anarchists, anti government extremists such as âsovereign citizensâ and unauthorized militias, Black separatists, White supremacists,* anti-abortion extremists*, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including âlone wolfs.â Domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses, crimes relating to fraud, and threats and hoaxes.
> 
> As of last year, "anti abortion extremists" are considered domestic terrorists.


What is the purpose of this post?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> What is the purpose of this post?


Information I would say.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Information I would say.


Information for whom, specifically? How is it relative to this thread? Perhaps Pixie should answer the question.

Also, please provide a link to where you got that quote.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Information for whom, specifically? How is it relative to this thread? Perhaps Pixie should answer the question.


I found it interesting information about ant-abortion extremists. I might even do more research.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> I found it interesting information about ant-abortion extremists. I might even do more research.


That's great. I'm glad for you.

I'd still like to hear from Pixie about why she decided to plop that 'tidbit' into this discussion.

ETA: It looks remarkably like a threat, mean to shut this debate down because the other side feels their losing the argument. It strikes me as the pro-choice version of yelling 'RACIST!' because they can't get anyone to take their bait and get the thread locked.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> I believe Catholic are against birth control


Does Catholicism believe that an egg is a human or that we are interfering in God's will in whether there is conception or not? Catholicism represents a denomination, by the way, not a religion by itself.


----------



## Woolieface

Txsteader said:


> What is the purpose of this post?


I don't know what her purpose for posting it was, but it sure shows us something, doesn't it? Who are the "domestic terrorists" as far as the agenda of this country goes? We are.... yeah, that says quite a bit.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> Does Catholicism believe that an egg is a human or that we are interfering in God's will in whether there is conception or not? Catholicism represents a denomination, by the way, not a religion by itself.


I don't know, you will have to ask them.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> I believe Catholic are against birth control






FALSE​Again... miss understanding and twisting of fact to support an agenda.

Catholics have always been able to practice birth control..It is also true that most birth control is condoned.

One form of birth control is one hundred percent effective. Abstinence
another form of birth control is the rhythm method... much less effective.

Children are a blessing timing might be to our liking.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> One major problem I have is with all of the fingers that are in the pot besides patients and drs. There's so many pressures and restrictions put on drs by insurance coverages, liability insurance and lawyers, hospital admit strators, big pharma drug rx pushes, workers comp attorneys, etc. That it really impacts what drs have time and a willingness to say to patients. The time pressures on drs really seems to stunt a pts ability to even get some drs attached ntion long enough to express their concerns.
> 
> There's plenty of Dr shortages and we don't seem to have any adequate plans for how to make pursuing medicine a feesable option for more American students. We seem to have decided that licensing foreign trained drs is an adequate solution, even though there may be considerable differences in the education they received. That could use some attention.
> 
> Drs can't afford to be straight with ots and say they really don't know or have made a mistake, and they can't afford (many if them) to give pts enough time to pts to hear things that would help get diagnoses or treatments that were correct or best on the first attempt. Half the time drs don't even confirm a diagnoses or rule out of things before the pt is sent away with an rx that is wrong and causes side effects.
> 
> There's a ridiculous amount of rx meds that are written to pregnant women and children, and half the people taking them or the parents don't even understand that mamy of those meds were never tested on pregnant women or children for safety or effectiveness studies.
> 
> If you set aside the aborted child issue that many people have very decided feelings on, abortion is just like many other health or women's health areas where I have seen the ball gets dropped more often than is acceptable for making sure the women are being informed. Now if you look at the fact that because abortion is so contentious, many women who are pregnant or considering abortion, or who have had an abortion are not nearly as likely to openly discuss it with other people, they are very clearly at a disadvantage for making informed decisions or having others by chance mention that complications or side effects may be related to an abortion.
> 
> It's not as uncommon in my experience for friends or relatives to be comfortable with others knowing they have flu, ear infections, cancer treatments, pregnancy/postpartum, accident or work injury info passed back and forth at least to some degree. And, I've seen plenty of times when helpful was shared or even just mention of something brings out "you know that might be related to xxxx, you might ask your Dr about it or follow up and see about such and such, cause that's what so and so found out was wrong and what you said sounds similar."
> 
> So women who are pregnant or have had an abortion don't have at all even the same level of freedom or access to community or medical support or info in the same open way. Prolife might cast them as a villain, and prochoice might say that it was their private business, so the woman should keep it to herself. Drs are so busy and afraid of lawsuits they just process them through asap. That's the catch 22 I've seen several women in personally.
> 
> Women talk about so many personal things with each other. But, abortions has truly been a very off-limits topic for many in my experience. I've met several over the years, but it's only come up under very out of the ordinary experiences. For all roe v Wade was supposed to do to liberate women, it sure doesn't seem to have brought them much freedom to deal with their abortions in a decent or supportive way. Manyt women I know don't even want to freely pick up literature in a lobby or let people see what they're reading online or what books they read about abortion or even let anyone know they have been to a Dr to discuss one because it's too difficult to determine if others will be at all helpful once it's revealed the topic has come up because she's dealing with an abortion herself instead of it being just a philosophical or political topic.
> 
> There's a lot that could be proposed that might help with issues like that. I don't have it all figured out to solve it all. But, I am interested in people at least being open to identifying those types of issues and trying out ideas for improvements or solutions.
> 
> It seems like that has gotten lost a lot in the debate between whether abortions should be legal or not.



Oh for pity's sake. Do you have a thousand word minimum per post rule for yourself? Boil it dwn and post with a minimum of wordiness and be clear and concise.
It's Comp 101. Long, rambling posts give people headaches. And they usually make little sense.


If all these scared, pregnant women whom you miraculously "know" are seeking abortions and too timid to seek out information, I think it unlikely that they are coming to you for help. Are you a medical professional?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> What is the purpose of this post?



What is the purpose of yours?


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> Oh for pity's sake. Do you have a thousand word minimum per post rule for yourself? Boil it dwn and post with a minimum of wordiness and be clear and concise.
> It's Comp 101. Long, rambling posts give people headaches. And they usually make little sense.
> 
> 
> If all these scared, pregnant women whom you miraculously "know" are seeking abortions and too timid to seek out information, I think it unlikely that they are coming to you for help. Are you a medical professional?


No I don't have a thousand word minimum post. You already said you don't like reading wordy posts, and I write in a way you consider wordier than some. Did you learn the word wordier in comp 101? If it gives you a headach, scroll past like you said you like to do. You asked a question of me I answered.

I didn't claim any miracles. I didn't claim any came to me for medical help. And, I didn't claim to be a medical professional.

Everyone here is free to believe or dismiss parts or entire posts or threads as they see fit.

I think I've seen more than average probably because I have several relatives with health issues, I've been made the power of Atty for numerous relatives, including some who hav been with us through hospice care, and I've been a sahm for several years, so typically whenever someone is sick or needs care or toting to pharmacies or drs appts etc, most of the sahms I know, including myself volunteer or are volunteered to be the ones who help because we don't have to ask for it me off from work.

Of course, its also occurred to me more recently, that perhaps the subject has come up of medical problems and frustrations with others for discussion because I guess maybe some of us are a little less off putting and better listeners and less judgmental, lol.

The internet has helped I think let people access more information in recent years. But, not everyone can use it well or often. And, many times people aren't sure of the validity of what they find online.


----------



## Txsteader

Woolieface said:


> I don't know what her purpose for posting it was, but it sure shows us something, doesn't it? Who are the "domestic terrorists" as far as the agenda of this country goes? We are.... yeah, that says quite a bit.


Unless I missed something, I've not seen anything in this thread that could be construed as anything close to anti-abortion extremism, so I found it curious that she would drop that 'tidbit' in the middle of the discussion. It struck me as an intimidation tactic.

Still waiting to hear her answer.


----------



## Txsteader

basketti said:


> What is the purpose of yours?


:hand:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> That's great. I'm glad for you.
> 
> I'd still like to hear from Pixie about why she decided to plop that 'tidbit' into this discussion.
> 
> ETA: It looks remarkably like a threat, mean to shut this debate down because the other side feels their losing the argument. It strikes me as the pro-choice version of yelling 'RACIST!' because they can't get anyone to take their bait and get the thread locked.


Puh lease. I found it looking for something about Planned Parenthood and thought it was interesting. I didn't know that anti abortion extremists were considered domestic terrorists. Consider it a public service announcement.

I don't want this thread locked, unlike many people I _like_ discussion. 

I'm curious, are you an anti abortion extremist? If not, why would the "tidbit" bother you?

Oh, and I posted the link in thread #244 it's from the DOJ 

ETA: I'm so sorry I kept you waiting. I was out to dinner with my husband.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Puh lease. I found it looking for something about Planned Parenthood and thought it was interesting. I didn't know that anti abortion extremists were considered domestic terrorists. Consider it a public service announcement.
> 
> I don't want this thread locked, unlike many people I _like_ discussion.
> 
> I'm curious, are you an anti abortion extremist?* If not, why would the "tidbit" bother you*?


For precisely the reason I stated above, posts 265 and 273.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> That's great. I'm glad for you.
> 
> I'd still like to hear from Pixie about why she decided to plop that 'tidbit' into this discussion.
> 
> ETA: It looks remarkably like a threat, mean to shut this debate down because the other side feels their losing the argument. It strikes me as the pro-choice version of yelling 'RACIST!' because they can't get anyone to take their bait and get the thread locked.


You're kidding, right?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh, and I posted the link in thread #244 it's from the DOJ


Thanks for answering and thanks for the link. 

No harm, no foul.


----------



## mreynolds

You can be anti-abortion and not be an extremist, right?


----------



## Lisa in WA

mreynolds said:


> You can be anti-abortion and not be an extremist, right?


Well I don't know. trickyGrama seems to think that If you are pro choice you must also be an extremist and believe in infanticide. Wouldn't it work the Same way for anti-choice folks? By her logic you'd be Supporting the killing of abortion doctors.

Do you?


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> I believe Catholic are against birth control


It's in direct violation of Canon Law. Every sperm in sacred. (Monty Python, The Meaning of Life)


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> FALSE​Again... miss understanding and twisting of fact to support an agenda.
> 
> Catholics have always been able to practice birth control..It is also true that most birth control is condoned.
> *
> One form of birth control is one hundred percent effective. Abstinence*
> another form of birth control is the rhythm method... much less effective.
> 
> Children are a blessing timing might be to our liking.


unless your name is Mary and you travel around the desert on a donkey.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> For precisely the reason I stated above, posts 265 and 273.


If you're frightened I suggest you report it.  Although if you are an anti abortion extremist you're probably already on the radar, just sayin'.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Where are you getting the 3% figure?
> 
> This is what PP does:


That's what I had heard on the radio, but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong. This article puts the number at 5.4%

http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/12/16/5-startling-facts-found-in-planned-parenthoods-annual-report/

So, ok, 3% or 5.4%...Why are we funding Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars? Why is the U.S. taxpayer funding any NGO that is founded on eugenics?

Again, let's cut their funding and they can sink or swim on their own.

Seems like a fair proposal to me...


----------



## Jolly

They may not have the votes, but this is a great campaign issue.

Kudos to the Republican senators for keeping this alive until next fall...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/push-defund-planned-parenthood-lacks-votes-pass


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> That's what I had heard on the radio, but I'm willing to admit I might be wrong. This article puts the number at 5.4%
> 
> http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/12/16/5-startling-facts-found-in-planned-parenthoods-annual-report/
> 
> So, ok, 3% or 5.4%...Why are we funding Planned Parenthood with taxpayer dollars? Why is the U.S. taxpayer funding any NGO that is founded on eugenics?
> 
> Again, let's cut their funding and they can sink or swim on their own.
> 
> Seems like a fair proposal to me...


Or 97% goes directly to help low income woman with health problems, cancer screenings, and birth control. It's a needed agency in places that don't have adequate health care. 

Are you really so upset over the fact that 3% of what they do are abortions (that you don't pay for through Federal taxes) that you'll take the other 97% away from them?


----------



## mreynolds

basketti said:


> Well I don't know. trickyGrama seems to think that If you are pro choice you must also be an extremist and believe in infanticide. Wouldn't it work the Same way for anti-choice folks? By her logic you'd be Supporting the killing of abortion doctors.
> 
> Do you?


Well, I have to admit to not seeing her say that so I'll just have to take your word for now. As to the other, are you really asking me if I am for killing Drs?

The answer I hope is obvious.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> If you're frightened I suggest you report it.  Although if you are an anti abortion extremist you're probably already on the radar, just sayin'.


No reason to be frightened & I'm not in the habit of reporting posts.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Or 97% goes directly to help low income woman with health problems, cancer screenings, and birth control. It's a needed agency in places that don't have adequate health care.
> 
> Are you really so upset over the fact that 3% of what they do are abortions (that you don't pay for through Federal taxes) that you'll take the other 97% away from them?


Perhaps PP should simply get out of the abortion business. That way, they can keep their funding and keep doing their good work....the less controversial portion. It's a win-win. :thumb:


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> Or 97% goes directly to help low income woman with health problems, cancer screenings, and birth control. It's a needed agency in places that don't have adequate health care.
> 
> Are you really so upset over the fact that 3% of what they do are abortions (that you don't pay for through Federal taxes) that you'll take the other 97% away from them?


That is a rhetorical question, right. Because I think you know the answer.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Perhaps PP should simply get out of the abortion business. That way, they can keep their funding and keep doing their good work....the less controversial portion. Win-win. :thumb:


And where would low income woman go to terminate a pregnancy? It's a needed agency, it's legal, and PP has the right to preform abortions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> That is a rhetorical question, right. Because I think you know the answer.


I'm giving him a chance to do the right thing. He can do it, I know he can.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: I'm so sorry I kept you waiting. I was out to dinner with my husband.


No apology necessary. I simply meant that I'd rather hear your answer than someone else answering for you. 

Hope you had a nice dinner.


----------



## Marshloft

I noticed anti-abortion extremists were at the bottom, in comparison, to animal rights activists at the top.
A whole nuther thread for: what is an "unauthorized militia".
I always did wonder tho, would an animal rights activist also be prone to also be pro-abortion. That would be an interesting poll.

_Current domestic terrorism threats include *animal rights extremists*, eco-terrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as &#8220;sovereign citizens&#8221; and *unauthorized militias*, Black separatists, White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists, and other unaffiliated disaffected Americans, including &#8220;lone wolfs.&#8221; Domestic terrorism cases often involve firearms, arson or explosive offenses, crimes relating to fraud, and threats and hoaxes._


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> No apology necessary. I simply meant that I'd rather hear your answer than someone else answering for you.
> 
> Hope you had a nice dinner.


A wonderful newish Italian place in our little town (the only restaurant that doesn't serve pizza) and it was excellent. Delicious right from the appetizer, arancini, the salad was delish with goat cheese, blueberries, walnuts, and cranberries, I had veal saltimbocca that was truly the best I've ever had. The hub had the "godfather platter" that all things delicious and covered in red sauce, I think he licked the plate. Dessert was a slightly warm blueberry cheesecake, we shared. I had a couple glasses of a really nice Riesling too. 

I shouldn't have snarked quite so much.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> My body, my choice. What are you going to do to stop women from aborting? Please go into detail.
> 
> Your rights? What right could you possibly have over another person's body? Can you explain your statement?


So you are cool with killing one born alive?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> So you are cool with* killing one born alive*?


Who has even mentioned that other than you?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> So you are cool with killing one born alive?


I'm pro choice, and has I've stated repeatedly I don't think I could have had an abortion. Thankfully I never had to make that decision. I am against 3rd trimester abortions, unless there are fetal abnormalities. 

What is one born alive? Like a partial birth? They are illegal and aren't done.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> And where would low income woman go to terminate a pregnancy? It's a needed agency, it's legal, and PP has the right to preform abortions.


You're fond of referring to the Hyde Amendment. According to that amendment, federal funds already pay for abortions of low-income women due to rape, incest or to save the life of the mother (even though everyone insists that federal funds aren't used to pay for abortions). Those funds could be diverted to hospitals - which, BTW, was assumed to be where abortions would be done after passage of Roe v. Wade. Safe, clean environment.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Or 97% goes directly to help low income woman with health problems, cancer screenings, and birth control. It's a needed agency in places that don't have adequate health care.
> 
> Are you really so upset over the fact that 3% of what they do are abortions (that you don't pay for through Federal taxes) that you'll take the other 97% away from them?


I think they are lying about the 3% figure. I think it's closer to 10%. And I think federal money does help pay for abortions - it helps put a roof over their heads and pay for the utilities, consumables and staff.

Regardless, even at 3%, I would cut their funding. Their other services that are paid for with taxpayer dollars, can be relocated elsewhere. I would suggest funneling those monies to state public health programs, and let those guys pick up the slack.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> Or 97% goes directly to help low income woman with health problems, cancer screenings, and birth control. It's a needed agency in places that don't have adequate health care.
> 
> Are you really so upset over the fact that 3% of what they do are abortions (that you don't pay for through Federal taxes) that you'll take the other 97% away from them?


OBAMA CARE DOES WHAT​


It aids the poor by giving them affordable health care and FREE CHECK UPS 

.........heath concerns covered... b.s. meter alert. Plan parenthood not needed anymore.​


----------



## gibbsgirl

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm pro choice, and has I've stated repeatedly I don't think I could have had an abortion. Thankfully I never had to make that decision. I am against 3rd trimester abortions, unless there are fetal abnormalities.
> 
> What is one born alive? Like a partial birth? They are illegal and aren't done.


I don't believe abortion providers are intentionally going to try and botch an abortion. But, even though they are illegal, they do happen. It's an ugly thing to imagine and must be pretty terrible for all involved, but they are practicing medicine and its not foolproof. I don't believe based on reading that it is a really common problem. But, it does appear to happen and be tracked (at least the ones reported).

If it wasn't ever an issue, we wouldn't have likely had the partial birth abortion becone an issue and dealt with.


----------



## Woolieface

Txsteader said:


> Unless I missed something, I've not seen anything in this thread that could be construed as anything close to anti-abortion extremism, so I found it curious that she would drop that 'tidbit' in the middle of the discussion. It struck me as an intimidation tactic.
> 
> Still waiting to hear her answer.


I think you have to define "extremism" they way they do to catch their meaing


----------



## Woolieface

mreynolds said:


> You can be anti-abortion and not be an extremist, right?


I'm extremely anti-abortion. Does that count?


----------



## wiscto

Irish Pixie said:


> Where are you getting the 3% figure?
> 
> This is what PP does:


Woh hey woh... Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good witch hunt.


----------



## kasilofhome

So, can folks who are of a faith that finds abortion murder being discriminated because we stand for not killing our future generations of children..


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> So, can folks who are of a faith that finds abortion murder being discriminated because we stand for not killing our future generations of children..


Come again?


----------



## kasilofhome

Clue me in what word was confusing... I really want to help


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> Clue me in what word was confusing... I really want to help


Not one word, the whole thing. I honestly can't figure out what you're asking here.


----------



## kasilofhome

If a peaceful non violent religion holds the belief not to murder... as stated in the ten commandments... is calling - labeling them extremist and dangerous how is that not discrimination of religion?



Third strike your out.


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> If a peaceful non violent religion holds the belief not to murder... as stated in the ten commandments... is calling - labeling them extremist and dangerous how is that not discrimination of religion?
> 
> 
> 
> Third strike your out.


Who called any religion extremist? 
Oh...except for a whole bunch of righties here, calling Muslims extremists. 
Didn't you too? 

How is that not discrimination of religion?


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> Woh hey woh... Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good witch hunt.


The fact is that PP gets taxpayer money. I do not want my taxes to fund an organization that provides abortions. They say they do not use the federal funds for abortion, but I'm telling you that they cannot segregate the funds sufficiently to guarantee that the funds are not being used to help fund their abortion enterprise. That's not how you budget a business.

They will not allow _assignment_ of federal funds for an abortion, but that does not mean that the utility bills, salaries or the medical supplies were not partially paid for with federal funds.

Again, pull the tax money and let them operate on their own. If you feel so strongly that PP should provide abortions, send them some of your own money.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well. If a extremist was define to include those with ovaries.... I might think that women were being targeting... but I like to connect dots to see a direction things are going


----------



## kasilofhome

Note as for Muslims..... anti murderous.... kinda covers that.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> I think they are lying about the 3% figure. I think it's closer to 10%. And I think federal money does help pay for abortions - it helps put a roof over their heads and pay for the utilities, consumables and staff.
> 
> Regardless, even at 3%, I would cut their funding. Their other services that are paid for with taxpayer dollars, can be relocated elsewhere. I would suggest funneling those monies to state public health programs, and let those guys pick up the slack.


SMH. And you'd know right? Even tho it's heavily regulated because of the pro unborn crowd. The public funding does keep the lights on... that's the point.

I wish I could be more like you- uncaring unless it suited my agenda. My conscience won't allow it. I mean, after all, you have yours right? Why worry about someone less fortunate? Sad.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> You're fond of referring to the Hyde Amendment. According to that amendment, federal funds already pay for abortions of low-income women due to rape, incest or to save the life of the mother (even though everyone insists that federal funds aren't used to pay for abortions). Those funds could be diverted to hospitals - which, BTW, was assumed to be where abortions would be done after passage of Roe v. Wade. Safe, clean environment.


The case of rape, incest, and to save the mother's life is a clearly made exclusion and has been for over 40 years. 

You have a problem with abortion and paying for it under those terms? Isn't the trauma the woman/girl has already went through enough? You'd want them to carry to term?


----------



## Irish Pixie

wiscto said:


> Woh hey woh... Don't let facts get in the way of a perfectly good witch hunt.


What the short sighted among us don't realize (or don't care) that if you defund PP and it's free birth control the abortion rate is going to skyrocket at least until other places can be found to distribute or PP can reorganize. 

You'd think the pro unborn wouldn't want this, huh? I don't understand the "logic" either.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> If a peaceful non violent religion holds the belief not to murder... as stated in the ten commandments... is calling - labeling them extremist and dangerous how is that not discrimination of religion?
> 
> 
> 
> Third strike your out.


There is a difference between describing someone and discriminating against them. Has anyone refused to serve you or sell you a product due your religion?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> SMH. And you'd know right? Even tho it's heavily regulated because of the pro unborn crowd. The public funding does keep the lights on... that's the point.
> 
> I wish I could be more like you- uncaring unless it suited my agenda. My conscience won't allow it. I mean, after all, you have yours right? Why worry about someone less fortunate? Sad.


Ma'am, I spent 34 years in healthcare, most of the time working with indigent patients.

Junkies, dopers, convicts, trash of all kinds and colors -the kind of people you meet as they're having sex with their mother in the hospital room. The highlight of my day, was providing healthcare to honest, hard-working poor people.

I've had a knife pulled on me, I've been shot at, and I had to claw a spaced-out patient off a doctor and two nurses as he was slinging them through a stainless steel and glass cabinet - and then subdue him by myself. I've had to run into surgery, without scrubbing, to hand squeeze units of blood into a GSW patient. I've been exposed to darn near every infectious disease you can catch through droplet or airborne transmission. Along with doing medical mission work in places where you'd have to lean over a surgery patient to keep the rats from dropping onto the patient. 

And I've staggered to work with 103 fever and so sick I was spitting blood in the trashcan.

Care about people? Yeh, I'd say that. In fact, I'd love for you to walk a mile in my moccasins.

Your snark - as it is most of the time - is totally unwarranted.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Ma'am, I spent 34 years in healthcare, most of the time working with indigent patients.
> 
> Junkies, dopers, convicts, trash of all kinds and colors -the kind of people you meet as they're having sex with their mother in the hospital room. The highlight of my day, was providing healthcare to honest, hard-working poor people.
> 
> I've had a knife pulled on me, I've been shot at, and I had to claw a spaced-out patient off a doctor and two nurses as he was slinging them through a stainless steel and glass cabinet - and then subdue him by myself. I've had to run into surgery, without scrubbing, to hand squeeze units of blood into a GSW patient. I've been exposed to darn near every infectious disease you can catch through droplet or airborne transmission. Along with doing medical mission work in places where you'd have to lean over a surgery patient to keep the rats from dropping onto the patient.
> 
> And I've staggered to work with 103 fever and so sick I was spitting blood in the trashcan.
> 
> Care about people? Yeh, I'd say that. In fact, I'd love for you to walk a mile in my moccasins.
> 
> Your snark - as it is most of the time - is totally unwarranted.


You _say_ that but you still want to defund an agency that provides medical care to low income women in areas where they have convenient access. All because you're pro unborn on your terms, and don't want public money for abortions even tho there hasn't been in over 40 years. 

Aren't opinions great? I form mine by actually reading what is posted. Everyone is a hero on the internet, even when they're not.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> The case of rape, incest, and to save the mother's life is a clearly made exclusion and has been for over 40 years.
> 
> You have a problem with abortion and paying for it under those terms? Isn't the trauma the woman/girl has already went through enough? You'd want them to carry to term?


Personally, I believe the only 2 justifiable reasons for abortions are in the case of incest (and that depends how close the relationship was; i.e. father/daughter) or to save the mother's life. So, those are the only instances I wouldn't have a problem w/ my tax dollars being used. 

Rape is a traumatic thing to go through, but I don't think taxpayers should be responsible for paying for the abortion. Same for 'personal choice' and financial reasons. There are other options; self-pay, insurance, charity or put the child up for adoption.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> What the short sighted among us don't realize (or don't care) that if you defund PP and it's free birth control the abortion rate is going to skyrocket at least until other places can be found to distribute or PP can reorganize.
> 
> You'd think the pro unborn wouldn't want this, huh? I don't understand the "logic" either.


You'd think the pregnancy/abortion rate would be much lower since *free* birth control is available. 

That's what doesn't make sense to me......it's been argued that women can't afford birth control. :shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> You'd think the pregnancy/abortion rate would be much lower since *free* birth control is available.
> 
> That's what doesn't make sense to me......it's been argued that women can't afford birth control. :shrug:


So you do agree when access to free birth control (as it is now) is removed by the defunding of Planned Parenthood the abortion rate will go up at least until the dust settles? Doesn't this fly in the face of what the pro unborn believe? No abortion? Or is more about your tax money?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Personally, I believe the only 2 justifiable reasons for abortions are in the case of incest (and that depends how close the relationship was; i.e. father/daughter) or to save the mother's life. So, those are the only instances I wouldn't have a problem w/ my tax dollars being used.
> 
> Rape is a traumatic thing to go through, but I don't think taxpayers should be responsible for paying for the abortion. Same for 'personal choice' and financial reasons. There are other options; self-pay, insurance, charity or put the child up for adoption.


So it is more about your tax dollars. Good to know. The fact that you lump a rape pregnancy in with personal choice and financial reasons is telling as well. Just my opinion.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Or 97% goes directly to help low income woman with health problems, cancer screenings, and birth control. It's a needed agency in places that don't have adequate health care.
> 
> Are you really so upset over the fact that 3% of what they do are abortions (that you don't pay for through Federal taxes) that you'll take the other 97% away from them?


Obama fixed the health care
Just ask him


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> And where would low income woman go to terminate a pregnancy? It's a needed agency, it's legal, and PP has the right to preform abortions.


Killing after a live birth isn't "abortion" by any stretch of the definition


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Personally, I believe the only 2 justifiable reasons for abortions are in the case of incest (and that depends how close the relationship was; i.e. father/daughter) or to save the mother's life. So, those are the only instances I wouldn't have a problem w/ my tax dollars being used.
> 
> Rape is a traumatic thing to go through, but I don't think taxpayers should be responsible for paying for the abortion. Same for 'personal choice' and financial reasons. There are other options; self-pay, insurance, charity or put the child up for adoption.


This almost sounds like you do believe in "choice", so long as it's your choice or a choice made on your terms. You can't have it both ways. If abortion is murder it's murder. If it isn't then every woman should be able to make her own decisions.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Killing after a live birth isn't "abortion" by any stretch of the definition


Where are you getting "live birth"? The newest heavily edited video by anti abortion extremists?


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm pro choice, and has I've stated repeatedly I don't think I could have had an abortion. Thankfully I never had to make that decision. I am against 3rd trimester abortions, unless there are fetal abnormalities.
> 
> What is one born alive? Like a partial birth? They are illegal and aren't done.


Apparently there are reports of PP doing just that
A "fetus" is born alive so they just kill it and part it out.
That's not legal, but hey, as long as we are killing babies, why split hairs right?


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Where are you getting "live birth"? The newest heavily edited video by anti abortion extremists?


I think you are dismissing the videos a little too easily.
Do you believe that if there is even a chance they are true, they should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted?
Or should we just mock the opponents and sweep another one under the rug?


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a difference between describing someone and discriminating against them. Has anyone refused to serve you or sell you a product due your religion?


Now, really ...then were blacks discriminated against when as slaves they were 

GIVEN A JOB, SHELTER, FOOD, TRANPORTATION, AND SOME TIMES CHAINS AND WHIPPINS.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Apparently there are reports of PP doing just that
> A "fetus" is born alive so they just kill it and part it out.
> That's not legal, but hey, as long as we are killing babies, why split hairs right?





Cornhusker said:


> I think you are dismissing the videos a little too easily.
> Do you believe that if there is even a chance they are true, they should be investigated and perhaps prosecuted?
> Or should we just mock the opponents and sweep another one under the rug?


I agree. All the videos should be reviewed, the unedited versions only, and if there are any crimes (on either agency) they should be prosecuted.

So, the only "proof" you have that late term abortions are being preformed is the heavily edited video? May I suggest you at least watch the unedited version and not rely on the heavily edited one as fact? You are a rational man, why would anyone release a highly edited video?


----------



## kasilofhome

irish pixie said:


> what the short sighted among us don't realize (or don't care) that if you defund pp and it's free birth control the abortion rate is going to skyrocket at least until other places can be found to distribute or pp can reorganize.
> 
> You'd think the pro unborn wouldn't want this, huh? I don't understand the "logic" either.


obama care. Remember it​


----------



## kasilofhome

irish pixie said:


> you _say_ that but you still want to defund an agency that provides medical care to low income women in areas where they have convenient access. All because you're pro unborn on your terms, and don't want public money for abortions even tho there hasn't been in over 40 years.
> 
> Aren't opinions great? I form mine by actually reading what is posted. Everyone is a hero on the internet, even when they're not.


you didn't hear about obama care..​


----------



## kasilofhome

irish pixie said:


> so you do agree when access to free birth control (as it is now) is removed by the defunding of planned parenthood the abortion rate will go up at least until the dust settles? Doesn't this fly in the face of what the pro unborn believe? No abortion? Or is more about your tax money?


obama care it past​


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Killing after a live birth isn't "abortion" by any stretch of the definition


I see lots of spin but no where does it say that happens.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Apparently there are reports of PP doing just that
> A "fetus" is born alive so they just kill it and part it out.
> That's not legal, but hey, as long as we are killing babies, why split hairs right?


You need to do your research and stop listening to the propaganda. It says intact specimens not live babies. Look for the lies and that is all you get.


----------



## kasilofhome

why do you think they are they blOCKING the video.
As a senator.. Obama publicly supported infanticide.
Why is the white how not crying out ....to get to the bottom on this when 
he is avoiding this like Christopher Stevens .....true reason for being kill.

Now, it really is about a video....


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Abortion is murder. 
Hitler. 



There, now I don't have to worry about Pixie or Bear trifling to read this post or respond, since neither ever has had anything of substance to to add to a discussion, and both only participate here for a snarkily-satisfying outlet for advancing their agenda, rather than changing minds or exposing their own thinking to modification through discovery of other views. I'd like one, the other, or both, so I'm putting this to the actual participants of this discussion. 

Where does the excuse for cases of rape or incest come from?

I get that pregnancies resulting from both situations are unpalatable, and both have effects on the victims' lives that are far-reaching and horrific, but, if abortion is murder, doesn't that transgression trump both the other ones? Of course, one may believe that the suitable punishment for rape is death, but that is a separate debate, as a resultant abortion is not a punishment directed at the transgressor in that case. 

If I come home from work, and find out that my neighbor raped my wife, and I go punch my neighbor in the face while waiting for the police to get there, both my neighbor and I are going to face charges. I'll get a year, or so, for assault. My neighbor will get 10, or so, for rape. The baby resulting from the crime, the one innocent party in the equation, could get the death penalty. 

Since abortion is murder, doesn't it require that the baby do something to deserve its own death being rendered in order for it to be something else? 

How is excuse of the murder in this case not hypocrisy pointing to a true, inner belief that abortion is just a bodily choice for the mother's making?


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> why do you think they are they blOCKING the video.
> As a senator.. Obama publicly supported infanticide.
> Why is the white how not crying out ....to get to the bottom on this when
> he is avoiding this like Christopher Stevens .....true reason for being kill.
> 
> Now, it really is about a video....


Catch up. Planned parenthood is not blocking the videos. Stem Express is getting any footage of them blocked.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> T*his almost sounds like you do believe in "choice", so long as it's your choice or a choice made on your terms.* You can't have it both ways. If abortion is murder it's murder. If it isn't then every woman should be able to make her own decisions.


Yes, my tax dollars, my choice. Everyone who pays taxes has the right to say how their tax dollars are spent. Abortion also happens to be a moral issue. That's why the topic of abortion funding is, and always will be, SO controversial.

Not speaking for anyone else, these are my personal opinions: 

Abortion _is_ murder. That's why I don't take it lightly and only consider incest or the life of the mother as justifiable reasons why tax dollars should be spent for it. 

All other abortions can use alternative sources for funding; i.e. insurance, self-pay, charity.


----------



## kasilofhome

Thank you for defining THEY incorrectly..

The they I mean are the ones clearly scrambling to cover butt of the crimes.
Where is the most transparent president... avoiding the news,


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Thank you for defining THEY incorrectly..
> 
> The they I mean are the ones clearly scrambling to cover butt of the crimes.
> Where is the most transparent president... avoiding the news,


Your welcome. Now that you understand you had that wrong maybe you will research more of the story and get the facts instead of the spin.


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> What an utterly stupid thing to say. I presume you have heard of Hitler ergo he is your mentor?
> 
> 
> Notice: I said it was a stupid thing to say. Didn't say you were stupid, so before you run weeping to the mods.....


Really. 
What reference is there to me having Hitler for a mentor? What possible connection?
However, for progressives, Singer is a real advocate of their causes. Abortion ON DEMAND even at 2mo of age. 
Not sure if he's still in the advisory capacity but he was on Obama's healthcare team.
Yup, a real maker of policy.
Such a guy..."H.C. Under Obama care should openly acknowledge rationing & the country should acknowledge the necessity of intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants."
"It is reasonable for gov't or private ins. to deny treatment to severely disabled infants."

There's more on the elderly but that's not the discussion here.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Where are they on the list? I can't seem to find vets...
> 
> Here's the link (it works  ) to the DOJ: http://www.justice.gov/usao/priority-areas/national-security/domestic-terrorism


Perhaps someone else can find it, was all over the news prolly a yr or 2 ago.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> You need to do your research and stop listening to the propaganda. It says intact specimens not live babies. Look for the lies and that is all you get.


How would you explain this? Emphasis mine:


> Ginde:
> Sometimes, we get
> -
> _*if some*_
> _*one delivers before we get to see them for a *_
> _*procedure, then they are intact*_, but thatâs not what we go for.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Perhaps someone else can find it, was all over the news prolly a yr or 2 ago.


The key here is that my link is to the DOJ and the official list and "Vets" are not listed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How would you explain this? Emphasis mine:
> Quote:
> Ginde:
> Sometimes, we get
> -
> if some
> one delivers *before we get to see them for a
> procedure*, then they are intact, but that&#8217;s not what we go for.


That's a stillbirth, not an abortion, since they *didn't see them to do a procedure*

Why should that have to be explained?


----------



## gapeach

Txsteader said:


> You'd think the pregnancy/abortion rate would be much lower since *free* birth control is available.
> 
> That's what doesn't make sense to me......it's been argued that women can't afford birth control. :shrug:


It is nothing but an excuse to justify abortion which it really does not do.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Or 97% goes directly to help low income woman with health problems, cancer screenings, and birth control. It's a needed agency in places that don't have adequate health care.
> 
> Are you really so upset over the fact that 3% of what they do are abortions (that you don't pay for through Federal taxes) that you'll take the other 97% away from them?


You do know that there are many clinics for low income women as well as pregnancy help centers that ass't FREE and actually council them, help w/newborns, moms. Unlike PP who kill failed abortion victims. Did you think PP is the only free provider? It's not even free for some.
It's a right to free birth control. You can get it-free.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a stillbirth, not an abortion, since they *didn't see them to do a procedure*
> 
> Why should that have to be explained?


So, why does it have to be dead... Plan parenthood...........did not see them the child was safe from the killers.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a stillbirth, not an abortion, since they *didn't see them to do a procedure*
> 
> Why should that have to be explained?


Why would it automatically be a stillbirth? If the woman has not been seen yet, who's to say that the child isn't born alive? Where does it say that the child is already dead?

Enlighten me.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> How would you explain this? Emphasis mine:


Intact is the key word. Where does it say alive? Where does it say a baby capable of breathing?

Do you understand what happens in a miscarriage? An intact fetus not a living baby.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Why would it automatically be a stillbirth? If the woman has not been seen yet, who's to say that the child isn't born alive?
> 
> Enlighten me.


They do abortion below 18 weeks at that clinic. No third trimester abortions where it is even a possibility of a fetus surviving.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm pro choice, and has I've stated repeatedly I don't think I could have had an abortion. Thankfully I never had to make that decision. I am against 3rd trimester abortions, unless there are fetal abnormalities.
> 
> What is one born alive? Like a partial birth? They are illegal and aren't done.


Since partial birth is illegal, now tell us what is done when a "fetus" is born alive. Go ahead, tell us what is done. PP has weighed in on that, do you know the answer?
Happens "occasionally".


----------



## kasilofhome

Honey live babies are born intact.

Every miscarriage I have known was dealt as a dead body. Mourned,and buried or cremated.. not sold to the highest bidder.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> They do abortion below 18 weeks at that clinic. No third trimester abortions where it is even a possibility of a fetus surviving.


But in the context of the conversation, she knew the buyer was talking about a later gestational age.


> Buyer:
> Ok. So, if they know that what weâre looking for is intact, and gestational
> age later, are they able to
> -
> Iâm ignorant of this, so Iâm relying on you. Are they
> able to adjust the technique to provide that?
> Ginde:
> No. Because weâre not
> -
> itâs not like we do
> inductions or anything where
> we would have an intact delivery of any type. So, itâs really hit or miss on how
> everything comes out in the cannula.
> Buyer:
> *Ok, and you canât control that at all? Itâs just what presents.
> Ginde:
> Sometimes, we get
> -
> if some
> one delivers before we get to see them for a
> procedure, then they are intact, but thatâs not what we go for. *


----------



## kasilofhome

Yes, and miscarriages are not sold to the highest bidders... families mourn the loss.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Really.
> What reference is there to me having Hitler for a mentor? What possible connection?
> However, for progressives, Singer is a real advocate of their causes. Abortion ON DEMAND even at 2mo of age.
> Not sure if he's still in the advisory capacity but he was on Obama's healthcare team.
> Yup, a real maker of policy.
> Such a guy..."H.C. Under Obama care should openly acknowledge rationing & the country should acknowledge the necessity of intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants."
> "It is reasonable for gov't or private ins. to deny treatment to severely disabled infants."
> 
> There's more on the elderly but that's not the discussion here.


Singer was never on obamas healthcare team. That was a rumor propagated by fevered right wing nut job websites.
And so what if Singer is an advocate of progressive causes. The shooter in SC is an advocate of conservative causes. Does that mean you want to shoot people in a church? 
You make no sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Why would it automatically be a stillbirth? If the woman has not been seen yet, who's to say that the child isn't born alive? Where does it say that the child is already dead?
> 
> Enlighten me.


Because it can't survive outside the womb at that age.

If it's outside the womb when they show up for a procedure, it's still removed through a suction tube

They never said it was "born" as in "exited the body"



> Ginde: No. Because weâre not- itâs not like we do inductions or anything where we would have an intact delivery of any type. So, itâs really hit or miss on how *everything comes out in the cannula. *
> Buyer: Ok, and you canât control that at all? Itâs just what presents.
> Ginde: Sometimes, we get- if someone delivers before we get to see them for a procedure, then they are intact, but thatâs not what we go for.


He never said "born" nor "alive", only "intact"


----------



## Woolieface

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Abortion is murder.
> Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> There, now I don't have to worry about Pixie or Bear trifling to read this post or respond, since neither ever has had anything of substance to to add to a discussion, and both only participate here for a snarkily-satisfying outlet for advancing their agenda, rather than changing minds or exposing their own thinking to modification through discovery of other views. I'd like one, the other, or both, so I'm putting this to the actual participants of this discussion.
> 
> Where does the excuse for cases of rape or incest come from?
> 
> I get that pregnancies resulting from both situations are unpalatable, and both have effects on the victims' lives that are far-reaching and horrific, but, if abortion is murder, doesn't that transgression trump both the other ones? Of course, one may believe that the suitable punishment for rape is death, but that is a separate debate, as a resultant abortion is not a punishment directed at the transgressor in that case.
> 
> If I come home from work, and find out that my neighbor raped my wife, and I go punch my neighbor in the face while waiting for the police to get there, both my neighbor and I are going to face charges. I'll get a year, or so, for assault. My neighbor will get 10, or so, for rape. The baby resulting from the crime, the one innocent party in the equation, could get the death penalty.
> 
> Since abortion is murder, doesn't it require that the baby do something to deserve its own death being rendered in order for it to be something else?
> 
> How is excuse of the murder in this case not hypocrisy pointing to a true, inner belief that abortion is just a bodily choice for the mother's making?


I have to agree...I don't really understand making two victims out of one crime. The "product" of rape or incest is still a baby. I understand the emotional toll it takes on the mother is hard, but at the same time, something tells me that in the long run the emotional scars of having endured trauma and then ending a life run deeper than anyone wants to think about.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> What the short sighted among us don't realize (or don't care) that if you defund PP and it's free birth control the abortion rate is going to skyrocket at least until other places can be found to distribute or PP can reorganize.
> 
> You'd think the pro unborn wouldn't want this, huh? I don't understand the "logic" either.


Again, FREE b. c. is everyone's right. No problem so why is PP needed?
Remember, anyone can get FREE b.c.
My DH has it thru his ins. Had a great policy-he LIKED his ins, & wanted to keep it but was 1 of those 5.5 million who LOST ins b/c of ObummerUNcare.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> Ma'am, I spent 34 years in healthcare, most of the time working with indigent patients.
> 
> Junkies, dopers, convicts, trash of all kinds and colors -the kind of people you meet as they're having sex with their mother in the hospital room. The highlight of my day, was providing healthcare to honest, hard-working poor people.
> 
> I've had a knife pulled on me, I've been shot at, and I had to claw a spaced-out patient off a doctor and two nurses as he was slinging them through a stainless steel and glass cabinet - and then subdue him by myself. I've had to run into surgery, without scrubbing, to hand squeeze units of blood into a GSW patient. I've been exposed to darn near every infectious disease you can catch through droplet or airborne transmission. Along with doing medical mission work in places where you'd have to lean over a surgery patient to keep the rats from dropping onto the patient.
> 
> And I've staggered to work with 103 fever and so sick I was spitting blood in the trashcan.
> 
> Care about people? Yeh, I'd say that. In fact, I'd love for you to walk a mile in my moccasins.
> 
> Your snark - as it is most of the time - is totally unwarranted.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> You _say_ that but you still want to defund an agency that provides medical care to low income women in areas where they have convenient access. All because you're pro unborn on your terms, and don't want public money for abortions even tho there hasn't been in over 40 years.
> 
> Aren't opinions great? I form mine by actually reading what is posted. Everyone is a hero on the internet, even when they're not.


Please document how PP is the only provider of poor women's h.c.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You need to do your research and stop listening to the propaganda. It says intact specimens not live babies. Look for the lies and that is all you get.


Did you miss the part where they speak of "women DELIVERING b/4 the abortion can be performed"?
I'd like your take on that or did you edit it out?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Did you miss the part where they speak of "women DELIVERING b/4 the abortion can be performed"?
> I'd like your take on that or did you edit it out?


Stillborns and miscarriages are also delivered. I thought you were a nurse or something. How do you not know this?


----------



## Woolieface

basketti said:


> Stillborns and miscarriages are also delivered. I thought you were a nurse or something. How do you not know this?


I believe the obvious difference is that a stillborn baby is already dead upon delivery.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Woolieface said:


> I believe the obvious difference is that a stillborn baby is already dead upon delivery.


Yes, but where did it say that they were alive? It said intact.


----------



## Tricky Grama

kasilofhome said:


> why do you think they are they blOCKING the video.
> As a senator.. Obama publicly supported infanticide.
> Why is the white how not crying out ....to get to the bottom on this when
> he is avoiding this like Christopher Stevens .....true reason for being kill.
> 
> Now, it really is about a video....


Yup, and 14 dem congress critters viciously attacked a bill to protect infants who survive abortion.


----------



## kasilofhome

Term of pregnancy.after five months still born before five month miscarriage.

Answered.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> *Honey* live babies are born intact.
> 
> Every miscarriage I have known was dealt as a dead body. Mourned,and buried or cremated.. not sold to the highest bidder.


To whom are you referring with your name calling?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Please document how PP is the only provider of poor women's h.c.


Please tell me where I said that?


----------



## kasilofhome

Honey, why was that confusing?:facepalm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Honey, why was that confusing?:facepalm:


When logic and reasoning fail, name calling is the way to go, right?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Irish Pixie said:


> When logic and reasoning fail, name calling is the way to go, right?


At least she isn't calling you redhead names. She seems to have a problem with red hair. Unresolved sister issues. So sad when siblings are jealous of each other.


----------



## kasilofhome

Hey... they are having to move to distraction mode.


Proof that plan parenthood is not needed for the medical reasons they provide...done
Proof that birth control available is available....done


Defund plan parenthood hood gaining steam.. 

Thus an attempt to derail and shut down and lock up thread.

Been played to often.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> It is nothing but an excuse to justify abortion which it really does not do.


There's no reason to justify abortion, it's legal and has been for over 40 years. It's every woman's right, and her choice.


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> Singer was never on obamas healthcare team. That was a rumor propagated by fevered right wing nut job websites.
> And so what if Singer is an advocate of progressive causes. The shooter in SC is an advocate of conservative causes. Does that mean you want to shoot people in a church?
> You make no sense.


Do you have a link to. That otherwise, to quote PW, you are posting lies.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> There's no reason to justify abortion, it's legal and has been for over 40 years. It's every woman's right, and her choice.


Justification is not just about the legality

How often have wealthy persons who legally gain their wealth are expected to justify their pay?

Or have people justified having a second helping?

Or buying more clothing or shoes


----------



## Guest

Tricky Grama said:


> Perhaps someone else can find it, was all over the news prolly a yr or 2 ago.


Yes they were on a list disseminated by DHS to LE compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center, returning vets were considered a possible terrorist threat. News got a hold of the leaked list, media attention caused congress to feign shock and pressured the removal of the vets from the list. This occurred in 2009.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Do you have a link to. That otherwise, to quote PW, you are posting lies.


A link to what?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> You _say_ that but you still want to defund an agency that provides medical care to low income women in areas where they have convenient access. All because you're pro unborn on your terms, and don't want public money for abortions even tho there hasn't been in over 40 years.
> 
> Aren't opinions great? I form mine by actually reading what is posted. Everyone is a hero on the internet, even when they're not.


Excuse me, but I form my opinions from reading a lot more than just what is posted here and then applying that reading to the real world. Reading is simply not enough. You can read how to cut out a cabriole leg all day long, but until you pick up a piece of wood, sight the grain lines and make the cut, you don't *know* anything.

Louisiana is a poor state. Yet, there two, count 'em, two PP's in the state - one in New Orleans and one in Baton Rouge. So, how do you think the rest of the poor women in the state receive healthcare? Do you think they drive 200 miles to New Orleans? Do you think they die in the streets? If they do, I haven't seen anybody stepping over the dead bodies. 

Therefore, if a poor state like Louisiana can deliver indigent healthcare to its female population, why can't states with a lot more money? The fact is, they can. There is nothing sacred about the PP logo and there is nothing provided there -with the exception of possibly abortions - that cannot be funded and found elsewhere.

If abortion is such a sacred mission, let PP operate on their own money or monies donated to them. But I no longer want my tax money to fund such an enterprise. Not one dollar, not one dime, not one red cent.

Lastly, I think you owe everybody on this board an apology. Just because people are pro-life, does not mean they do not care about the poor and and what happens to them. I suspect people who are pro-life care an awful lot about human life, even people who cannot be an advocate for themselves.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> Excuse me, but I form my opinions from reading a lot more than just what is posted here and then applying that reading to the real world. Reading is simply not enough. You can read how to cut out a cabriole leg all day long, but until you pick up a piece of wood, sight the grain lines and make the cut, you don't *know* anything.
> 
> Louisiana is a poor state. Yet, there two, count 'em, two PP's in the state - one in New Orleans and one in Baton Rouge. So, how do you think the rest of the poor women in the state receive healthcare? Do you think they drive 200 miles to New Orleans? Do you think they die in the streets? If they do, I haven't seen anybody stepping over the dead bodies.
> 
> Therefore, if a poor state like Louisiana can deliver indigent healthcare to its female population, why can't states with a lot more money? The fact is, they can. There is nothing sacred about the PP logo and there is nothing provided there -with the exception of possibly abortions - that cannot be funded and found elsewhere.
> 
> If abortion is such a sacred mission, let PP operate on their own money or monies donated to them. But I no longer want my tax money to fund such an enterprise. Not one dollar, not one dime, not one red cent.
> 
> Lastly, I think you owe everybody on this board an apology. Just because people are pro-life, does not mean they do not care about the poor and and what happens to them. I suspect people who are pro-life care an awful lot about human life, even people who cannot be an advocate for themselves.


http://www.americashealthrankings.org/la

From what I've read, LA healthcare pretty much sucks. And who says the women ARE getting healthcare? You not stepping over dead bodies doesn't mean jack.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...aw-worsening-reproductive-health-care-crisis/


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Excuse me, but I form my opinions from reading a lot more than just what is posted here and then applying that reading to the real world. Reading is simply not enough. You can read how to cut out a cabriole leg all day long, but until you pick up a piece of wood, sight the grain lines and make the cut, you don't *know* anything.
> 
> Louisiana is a poor state. Yet, there two, count 'em, two PP's in the state - one in New Orleans and one in Baton Rouge. So, how do you think the rest of the poor women in the state receive healthcare? Do you think they drive 200 miles to New Orleans? Do you think they die in the streets? If they do, I haven't seen anybody stepping over the dead bodies.
> 
> Therefore, if a poor state like Louisiana can deliver indigent healthcare to its female population, why can't states with a lot more money? The fact is, they can. There is nothing sacred about the PP logo and there is nothing provided there -with the exception of possibly abortions - that cannot be funded and found elsewhere.
> 
> If abortion is such a sacred mission, let PP operate on their own money or monies donated to them. But I no longer want my tax money to fund such an enterprise. Not one dollar, not one dime, not one red cent.
> 
> Lastly, I think you owe everybody on this board an apology. Just because people are pro-life, does not mean they do not care about the poor and and what happens to them. I suspect people who are pro-life care an awful lot about human life, even people who cannot be an advocate for themselves.


How are you going to force them not to use your state tax money on PP? Or federal tax money for that matter? Or is it just a righteous indignation/internet story thang?

The "pro unborn" care about the unborn, after the birth not so much. I'm not apologizing for my opinion. You have a choice- put me on ignore or just don't read my posts. Choice is good. 

You realize that defunding PP would effect women in other states, right? It's a national organization.


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> http://www.americashealthrankings.org/la
> 
> From what I've read, LA healthcare pretty much sucks. And who says the women ARE getting healthcare? You not stepping over dead bodies doesn't mean jack.
> 
> http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...aw-worsening-reproductive-health-care-crisis/


Excellent link.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> How are you going to force them not to use your state tax money on PP? Or federal tax money for that matter? Or is it just a righteous indignation/internet story thang?
> 
> The "pro unborn" care about the unborn, after the birth not so much. I'm not apologizing for my opinion. You have a choice- put me on ignore or just don't read my posts. Choice is good.
> 
> You realize that defunding PP would effect women in other states, right? It's a national organization.


http://www.alaskagop.org/arp_calls_for_defunding_of_planned_parenthood

Not done but working on it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> http://www.alaskagop.org/arp_calls_for_defunding_of_planned_parenthood
> 
> Not done but working on it.


You do realize that the link is a right wing opinion piece? What the Alaska GOP wants along the same lines as your "court case" against gay marriage. 

Let us know when it actually passes and PP is defunded. K?


----------



## painterswife

A petition to defund something that already does not happen. A good use of time and money.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that the link is a right wing opinion piece? What the Alaska GOP wants along the same lines as your "court case" against gay marriage.
> 
> Let us know when it actually passes and PP is defunded. K?


Another attempt though failed to derail and get this locked...


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> A petition to defund something that already does not happen. A good use of time and money.


Saving lives matter...


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Saving lives matter...


Then defunding a place that prevents more abortions then they do in the first place is counter productive.


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> Another attempt though failed to derail and get this locked...


Any refutation to your posts is an attempt to get this thread locked. Duly noted.


----------



## kasilofhome

basketti said:


> Any refutation to your posts is an attempt to get this thread locked. Duly noted.


Attempt to bait... not hungry


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Saving lives matter...


False. That assumes _all_ lives and the pro unborn only care about the unborn based on their attempts to shut down PP. My opinion.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Then defunding a place that prevents more abortions then they do in the first place is counter productive.


just because plan parenthood deals with birth control.. due to the passage of Obama care really it sort made plan parenthood unnecessary.

Free birth control... Free medical check up. No selling human remains..


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> False. That assumes _all_ lives and the pro unborn only care about the unborn based on their attempts to shut down PP. My opinion.


As everyone else your opinions are heard.


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> Attempt to bait... not hungry


False. 

Name calling. I'm rubber, you're glue......:facepalm:


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> False.
> 
> Name calling. I'm rubber, you're glue......:facepalm:


OK... I remember this tactic... 

We've fallen to this level. lol


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> OK... I remember this tactic...
> 
> We've fallen to this level. lol


Apparently. :thumb:


----------



## Jolly

basketti said:


> http://www.americashealthrankings.org/la
> 
> From what I've read, LA healthcare pretty much sucks. And who says the women ARE getting healthcare? You not stepping over dead bodies doesn't mean jack.
> 
> http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2...aw-worsening-reproductive-health-care-crisis/


You need to go back and read your own links.

The second link is an opinion piece.. Ok, the guy has an opinion. He equates all women's health care with abortion access. I don't. He mentions how many lower income Louisiana residents do not have health insurance, basing his opinion on stats that are misleading - in Louisiana, at the time of his stats, any family of four making less than $34K/yr could receive _totally free_ healthcare - from a runny nose to a quadruple bypass - for nothing. Nada. Zippola. Free. Anything over $34K would be on a sliding scale.

But the first piece contains the real nugget...We're currently debating healthcare access. To quote your link, one of Louisiana's strengths is:



> Small disparity in health status by educational attainment


Please note that higher education status means people make more money. If people who have money - and by inference, insurance - why isn't their health status much better than the poor residents of the state?

Could it be that _money_ or _access to healthcare_ may not be the dominate factors in why Louisiana residents are not the healthiest in the nation? Could genetics have anything to do with it? Environment? Diet? the fact that parts of Baton Rouge are known as Cancer Alley, because they produce most of the nation's bulk and specialty chemicals?

Does Louisiana healthcare suck? I'm sure some of it does. But LSU-Shreveport is a nation-wide center of excellence for eye disease and treatment. Tulane is among the foremost institutions in the world concerning tropical disease treatment.

I worked as a very small cog in a wellness program for diabetics that was studied and later adopted for teaching by Harvard Medical School. They thought it was pretty good.

Maybe it's not as bad as you think it is.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> You need to go back and read your own links.
> 
> The second link is an opinion piece.. Ok, the guy has an opinion. He equates all women's health care with abortion access. I don't. He mentions how many lower income Louisiana residents do not have health insurance, basing his opinion on stats that are misleading - in Louisiana, at the time of his stats, any family of four making less than $34K/yr could receive _totally free_ healthcare - from a runny nose to a quadruple bypass - for nothing. Nada. Zippola. Free. Anything over $34K would be on a sliding scale.
> 
> But the first piece contains the real nugget...We're currently debating healthcare access. To quote your link, one of Louisiana's strengths is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please note that higher education status means people make more money. If people who have money - and by inference, insurance - why isn't their health status much better than the poor residents of the state?
> 
> Could it be that _money_ or _access to healthcare_ may not be the dominate factors in why Louisiana residents are not the healthiest in the nation? Could genetics have anything to do with it? Environment? Diet? the fact that parts of Baton Rouge are known as Cancer Alley, because they produce most of the nation's bulk and specialty chemicals?
> 
> Does Louisiana healthcare suck? I'm sure some of it does. But LSU-Shreveport is a nation-wide center of excellence for eye disease and treatment. Tulane is among the foremost institutions in the world concerning tropical disease treatment.
> 
> I worked as a very small cog in a wellness program for diabetics that was studied and later adopted for teaching by Harvard Medical School. They thought it was pretty good.
> 
> Maybe it's not as bad as you think it is.


What kind of cog were you?


----------



## Jolly

basketti said:


> What kind of cog were you?


Is that germaine to the discussion?

I'll tell you if you'd like to know, but I don't see where what I did couldn't have been done by other people, including my staff.


----------



## Txsteader

Shine said:


> OK... I remember this tactic...
> 
> We've fallen to this level. lol


Me, too. But it's been so long, I can't remember which grade. Was it 4th or 5th?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Txsteader said:


> Me, too. But it's been so long, I can't remember which grade. Was it 4th or 5th?


Your aiming too high, tx. Starts much earlier than that to bury such habits so deep that it's still a fallback tactic into adulthood.

Jolly, great posts. I appreciate that you're willing to share info about your work history and experience with life in louisiana.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Another attempt though failed to derail and get this locked...





Txsteader said:


> Me, too. But it's been so long, I can't remember which grade. Was it 4th or 5th?





gibbsgirl said:


> Your aiming too high, tx. Starts much earlier than that to bury such habits so deep that it's still a fallback tactic into adulthood.
> 
> Jolly, great posts. I appreciate that you're willing to share info about your work history and experience with life in louisiana.


You did a good job of insulting other HT posters. I guess you really did want to shut this thread down. Congratulations on your wonderful posts.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> You did a good job of insulting other HT posters. I guess you really did want to shut this thread down. Congratulations on your wonderful posts.


Oh please. Like he/she hasn't been insulting people for pages?

Sorry, but the 'ninny-ninny-boo-boo' snarky posts get old.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> You did a good job of insulting other HT posters. I guess you really did want to shut this thread down. Congratulations on your wonderful posts.


I can only speak for me, but it's very hard to remain composed in the face of unfounded snark.

But back to our regularly scheduled discussion...Do you have anything to add about PP, their methods or their funding?


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> I can only speak for me, but it's very hard to remain composed in the face of unfounded snark.
> 
> But back to our regularly scheduled discussion...Do you have anything to add about PP, their methods or their funding?


So far I have demonstrated how the proganda is wrong. No one here has yet provide proof of any wrong doing. I don't think I need to add anything at this point.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Your aiming too high, tx. Starts much earlier than that to bury such habits so deep that it's still a fallback tactic into adulthood.
> 
> Jolly, great posts. I appreciate that you're willing to share info about your work history and experience with life in louisiana.


And such a surprise that the lot of you ignored the face palm smiley. Subtlety and facetiousness sails right over your heads.


----------



## wiscto

There is a pretty massive difference between killing people who know who they are, understand that they are alive, are cognitively capable of wanting to live and not be burned alive in a furnace....and aborting a fetus that has none of those traits. If you want to argue that we shouldn't presume to know what a fetus knows once that heart starts beating, okay, I can understand that. The science is still inconclusive on when the brain is developed enough to "feel." 

But if you can't even understand the fundamental difference between abortion and the holocaust... You may take yourself seriously, but the vast majority of the educated world is just too rational to take you seriously. It is a completely irrational comparison. And it makes me think that you really don't understand life, or human emotion for that matter. I just might be wondering, right now, if you need someone to look down on more than you need to end suffering.


----------



## beenaround

painterswife said:


> Your God must have allowed much more horrible things to take place every single day and has through out the history. So if he exists then he is more lost than most of us.


Is that the best you got? I tell you what He "allows", man a chance to live well.
If it wasn't for God restraining just about everything and keeping order the creation would be gone in the same amount of time He took to speak it into existence.

If you'd like a glimpse read the story of Moses in Egypt. All the things that happened were by God...doing...nothing. Contrary to mans constant insults aimed at Him, He keeps things going here despite mans best efforts to destroy it all.

Read the History of the Aztecs by Prescott to see what happens to people who brutally butcher their most innocent.


----------



## beenaround

painterswife said:


> So far I have demonstrated how the proganda is wrong. No one here has yet provide proof of any wrong doing. I don't think I need to add anything at this point.


Wrong doing? They butcher babies.

Here's the deal, people do wrong and people pay for doing the wrong, but the payment for doing the wrong compounds astronomically when the wrong is called a right. That sets in motion repercussions greater upon the people greater than the wrong ever did.

You're "no wrong" is the same as saying no ones done anything about it yet. 

When a people attacked a roman out post thinking they's driven off Rome and were free from anyone telling them they were wrong, a lot of time passed and then rumors of payday started. In the end there was nothing left of those people, not even one stone on top of another. History which no one needs here to know the wrong teaches payday equal to the wrong and greater is coming.

FWIW the abuses in the health care industry were/are so great it was inevitable government would take it over. I said that while everyone else said I was a tin foil hat freak.


----------



## painterswife

beenaround said:


> Wrong doing? They butcher babies.
> 
> Here's the deal, people do wrong and people pay for doing the wrong, but the payment for doing the wrong compounds astronomically when the wrong is called a right. That sets in motion repercussions greater upon the people greater than the wrong ever did.
> 
> You're "no wrong" is the same as saying no ones done anything about it yet.
> 
> When a people attacked a roman out post thinking they's driven off Rome and were free from anyone telling them they were wrong, a lot of time passed and then rumors of payday started. In the end there was nothing left of those people, not even one stone on top of another. History which no one needs here to know the wrong teaches payday equal to the wrong and greater is coming.
> 
> FWIW the abuses in the health care industry were/are so great it was inevitable government would take it over. I said that while everyone else said I was a tin foil hat freak.


Yes, that would be your opinion. That does not make it mine or even relevant to mine.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> There is a pretty massive difference between killing people who know who they are, understand that they are alive, are cognitively capable of wanting to live and not be burned alive in a furnace....and aborting a fetus that has none of those traits. If you want to argue that we shouldn't presume to know what a fetus knows once that heart starts beating, okay, I can understand that. The science is still inconclusive on when the brain is developed enough to "feel."
> 
> But if you can't even understand the fundamental difference between abortion and the holocaust... You may take yourself seriously, but the vast majority of the educated world is just too rational to take you seriously. It is a completely irrational comparison. And it makes me think that you really don't understand life, or human emotion for that matter. I just might be wondering, right now, if you need someone to look down on more than you need to end suffering.


The older you get, the more you realize what a precious thing is life.

You can't snap your fingers and make it happen. You can't will it into being. You can't synthesize it in a lab.

You think back on living things you knew. People you were friends with, that were killed in a car accident. An old classmate that died with a heart attack. Your favorite pet dog that had to be put down because of disease. Holding your mom's hand as she drew her last breath, taken away by cancer.

Neither you, nor I, have the power to bring back to life any of these. 

Oh, but we can kill life. In fact, we're the best organism on the planet, when we want to...Even better than bacteria, viruses, parasites or starvation. We have that power, we have that dominion.

Want your heart jerked in a knot? Folks in a hospital don't grieve very much when an old person dies...They lived their life, they had their experiences, hopefully they loved and were loved back. People in the hospital grieve when a young person dies. So much potential unrealized. So much life not lived.

One of my first cousins used to be the administrator of a Shriner's Burn Hospital. Know what his biggest problem was? Hiring nurses. Not because they didn't pay or had good benefits. The nurses couldn't take it emotionally. And the ones that could, were usually too calloused to be good nurses. It takes a really special person to care for a child in tremendous pain, listening to them scream as you debride the dead tissue, watching them die from the secondary infections so common in burn patients and not go into a state of serious depression.

Or maybe something a bit closer to our discussion...Back when I started in the hospital, if a woman had a baby of less than about 900g, the nurse would clean up the baby, place it in a sterile pan and cover it with a cloth. They'd check back every so often, so as to note Time of Death. So sad, to watch them gasping for air, slowly turning purple and dying from lack of oxygen, and there wasn't anything anybody could do except wait for the inevitable.

Nowadays, we've got a decent shot at saving a 500g baby. Yes, there might be some lingering effects for many, but some will grow up to be perfectly normal in all ways.

That's a baby about 22 weeks gestation, BTW. That's the same size many of you would have us kill, because it inconveniences the mother and it's her body, right? Probably close to the size Isaac Newton was; when born it was said he would fit in a drinking mug.

Yes, so easy to kill. So hard to sustain life and so impossible to make.

But let's not inconvenience anybody, shall we?...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But let's not inconvenience anybody, shall we?...


You still don't get that it's not your choice to make for anyone other than yourself


----------



## wiscto

Okay. So now Jolly has told us all how he feels. The problem with it is how he does it. He thinks his epiphany in life is the same as everyone's. Stop talking like your experience makes you more knowledgeable and righteous, man, it's nothing more than presumption. You don't know how old I am. You don't know my life experience. You don't know the values of the people in my life who are knocking on death's door after eight or nine decades of, "The older you get..." You don't know how many of them I speak to. You have nothing more than what you feel and what you want everyone else to feel. And that isn't different than the people who just want to treat a fetus as a curable disease. It's a different opinion, but it's the exact same self centered certainty. 

And no. We're not better at killing than viruses, that's just wide eyed mysticism designed to aggrandize your opinion. Here's mine... Every cow you've ever eaten wanted to live more than any three week old fetus in the history of our species.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Abortion is murder.
Hitler.




wiscto said:


> Okay. So now Jolly has told us all how he feels. The problem with it is how he does it. He thinks his epiphany in life is the same as everyone's. Stop talking like your experience makes you more knowledgeable and righteous, man, it's nothing more than presumption. You don't know how old I am. You don't know my life experience. You don't know the values of the people in my life who are knocking on death's door after eight or nine decades of, "The older you get..." You don't know how many of them I speak to. You have nothing more than what you feel and what you want everyone else to feel. And that isn't different than the people who just want to treat a fetus as a curable disease. It's a different opinion, but it's the exact same self centered certainty.
> 
> And no. We're not better at killing than viruses, that's just wide eyed mysticism designed to aggrandize your opinion. Here's mine... Every cow you've ever eaten wanted to live more than any three week old fetus in the history of our species.


Wiscto,

Jolly's sharing emotional details that paint a fuller picture of his story is a much more appropriate vehicle for trying to give others the colors from which to understand his view than the snark and condescension that Pixie and Bear use as a vehicle to try to rhetorically invalidate every one else's view (I said Hitler above, so we don't have to worry about them, here amongst us adults). If you dismiss what he was saying on the basis that he added color to the story of how he got there in an attempt to "aggrandize" it, you're doing yourself a greater disservice, than anything you could be doing to him, by stealing away your own opportunity to see, even if it is just a glimpse, into the perspective of how the other side sees something that is so different than how you do. Seeing someone else's view doesn't mean agreeing with it. It just means being open to the opportunity for a better understanding of the other views that are out there. What he said is real, whether you want to admit it or not.

The problem I'm seeing, more and more, with this forum, is that many of the more frequent participants in it are less interested in developing, for themselves, and contributing in, for others, a more complete understanding of something, and more interested just in, somehow, "winning".

If you truly want to advance the discussion, and give people a better understanding of your position, address his point about the ability of modern medical science to save these 500g / 22 week-gestastional babies, that are currently acceptable to kill through abortion. Isn't that what we're debating here? Some of think that the process is murder, while some of think that it is a morally acceptable reality because this "tissue" isn't alive yet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The problem I'm seeing, more and more, with this forum, is that many of the more frequent participants in it are less interested in developing, for themselves, and contributing in, for others, a more complete understanding of something, and *more interested just in, somehow, "winning"*.


Is that why you keep doing the not so subtle trolling?
Repeating yourself isn't really "contributing"


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I said "Hitler", Bear. Don't you have some business over on the jungle gym?


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Abortion is murder.
> Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiscto,
> 
> Jolly's sharing emotional details that paint a fuller picture of his story is a much more appropriate vehicle for trying to give others the colors from which to understand his view than the snark and condescension that Pixie and Bear use as a vehicle to try to rhetorically invalidate every one else's view (I said Hitler above, so we don't have to worry about them, here amongst us adults). If you dismiss what he was saying on the basis that he added color to the story of how he got there in an attempt to "aggrandize" it, you're doing yourself a greater disservice, than anything you could be doing to him, by stealing away your own opportunity to see, even if it is just a glimpse, into the perspective of how the other side sees something that is so different than how you do. Seeing someone else's view doesn't mean agreeing with it. It just means being open to the opportunity for a better understanding of the other views that are out there. What he said is real, whether you want to admit it or not.
> 
> The problem I'm seeing, more and more, with this forum, is that many of the more frequent participants in it are less interested in developing, for themselves, and contributing in, for others, a more complete understanding of something, and more interested just in, somehow, "winning".
> 
> If you truly want to advance the discussion, and give people a better understanding of your position, address his point about the ability of modern medical science to save these 500g / 22 week-gestastional babies, that are currently acceptable to kill through abortion. Isn't that what we're debating here? Some of think that the process is murder, while some of think that it is a morally acceptable reality because this "tissue" isn't alive yet.


No one has said that it is acceptable to have late term abortions. We wish to have there be no need for that. However you can't begin to understand as a man the process that a women goes through to make that kind of decision. Jolly can think his life experience gives him a glimpse but that glimpse is so tiny and unexplainable.

Those late term abortions are a small percentage and thankfully getting smaller each year.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> No one has said that it is acceptable to have late term abortions. We wish to have there be no need for that. However you can't begin to understand as a man the process that a women goes through to make that kind of decision. Jolly can think his life experience gives him a glimpse but that glimpse is so tiny and unexplainable.
> 
> Those late term abortions are a small percentage and thankfully getting smaller each year.


That is exactly what I'm talking about, Mrs. Painter. Thank you.

I'll offer a branch and concede that I haven't seen anyone, on our forum, that is on the "abortion is not murder" side suggest that they even 'like' abortion, of any gestational period.

That said, if the dividing line we're across from each other on is the view that these fetuses are either alive/not-alive-yet or human/not-human-yet, then you surely can see where some of us can't stomach their destruction. If the answer for that question, or even just its agreed middle-ground lies somewhere in the realm of "late-term", doesn't that bring into question the efficacy of at least _those_ instances?

A small percentage, of a small percentage, of a large number, is often, still, a large number. At the very least, it is not zero. So much rending of hair, and gnashing of teeth happens when a single lion is killed in a terrible manner, or a single puppy gets trapped in a well. Is it so unreasonable to expect magnitudes greater ire if it were even just a single baby who was murdered? If you don't agree with our view, at least accept that that is what we see happening, and we see your "small-percentage" of the institution of abortion as _thousands_ of babies this is happening to every year.

As an acknowledgement and a counter to your specific point; you're absolutely correct that I can't image the process a woman goes through when deciding to keep or kill her baby. I'll never find myself in that position, and can never fully understand it. Likewise, you can never understand the process a man goes through when a woman he has impregnated choses to kill his baby, and there is NOTHING he can do to stop it. Many personal injustices can be remedied with vigilante action, assuming the person is willing to pay the price in terms of prison time, if they really think it secures the justice they're looking for. In this case, though, hurting the mother, even, gives that father no recourse. There is NOTHING he can do to stop the murder of his child, and society says that his feelings on the matter aren't even worth consideration. 

The struggles of the mother are profound, to be sure, but you can't dismiss the dilemma of the father either.


----------



## gibbsgirl

The term late term abortion isn't a definitive date during gestation.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That is exactly what I'm talking about, Mrs. Painter. Thank you.
> 
> I'll offer a branch and concede that I haven't seen anyone, on our forum, that is on the "abortion is not murder" side suggest that they even 'like' abortion, of any gestational period.
> 
> That said, if the dividing line we're across from each other on is the view that these fetuses are either alive/not-alive-yet or human/not-human-yet, then you surely can see where some of us can't stomach their destruction. If the answer for that question, or even just its agreed middle-ground lies somewhere in the realm of "late-term", doesn't that bring into question the efficacy of at least _those_ instances?
> 
> A small percentage, of a small percentage, of a large number, is often, still, a large number. At the very least, it is not zero. So much rending of hair, and gnashing of teeth happens when a single lion is killed in a terrible manner, or a single puppy gets trapped in a well. Is it so unreasonable to expect magnitudes greater ire if it were even just a single baby who was murdered? If you don't agree with our view, at least accept that that is what we see happening, and we see your "small-percentage" of the institution of abortion as _thousands_ of babies this is happening to every year.
> 
> As an acknowledgement and a counter to your specific point; you're absolutely correct that I can't image the process a woman goes through when deciding to keep or kill her baby. I'll never find myself in that position, and can never fully understand it. Likewise, you can never understand the process a man goes through when a woman he has impregnated choses to kill his baby, and there is NOTHING he can do to stop it. Many personal injustices can be remedied with vigilante action, assuming the person is willing to pay the price in terms of prison time, if they really think it secures the justice they're looking for. In this case, though, hurting the mother, even, gives that father no recourse. There is NOTHING he can do to stop the murder of his child, and society says that his feelings on the matter aren't even worth consideration.
> 
> The struggles of the mother are profound, to be sure, but you can't dismiss the dilemma of the father either.


I don't dismiss anyone's dilemma or position. No one wins here. Everyone loses. You can't however have a say in the desicion the women makes for herself and her life.

You can however work very hard to put systems, education and possibilities in place that will reduce the need for a women to ever have to make this agonizing choice.


----------



## Nevada

gibbsgirl said:


> The term late term abortion isn't a definitive date during gestation.


From Roe v Wade, I think we can safely say that the 3rd trimester (the last 3 months of pregnancy) would be considered late term.

Roe v Wade created a trimester framework to define who has what interest during various stages of pregnancy. It breaks down something like this:

*First Trimester* -- The decision to abort during the first trimester is left solely to the mother and doctor, since the court believed that no one else has interest in the matter. That is, abortion is safe enough during the first 3 months that the mother's life is not at risk, and the fetus is not well enough developed to survive outside of the womb. The state should not have interest in either the mother's life or the life of the fetus during the first trimester. The court ruled that the doctor has interest in first trimester abortions because of a doctor's right to practice medicine freely, absent a compelling state interest.
*Second Trimester* -- Second trimester abortions pose a significant risk to the mother, so the court agreed that states have interest in second trimester abortion for the mother's health, although states would not have interest in the the health of the fetus because it could not survive outside of the womb.
*Third Trimester* -- The fetus can be considered viable during the third trimester, so the state has interest in preserving both the life of the mother and the life of the fetus during that time.

I think we can conclude from the court's trimester framework that all third trimester abortions are late term.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada, roe v Wade was determining viability based on medical capabilities at the time. Even the understanding of gestational development has advanced in that time. And, the capabilities of medical providers to assist in infants born prematurely surviving has advanced rather far since the 70s.

Medical intervention has improved at assisting infant survival from 21 weeks through full term deliveries and is done on a much larger scale than 40 years ago with much more success.

Even the jama doesn't agree with what the gestational date for viability is. They don't even have a consensus for when late term begins.

Eta: my point is that people need to determine what they mean by late term abortion and when that perion of a pregnancy begins before they can agree that as long as no one does late term abortions its all good.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> The term late term abortion isn't a definitive date during gestation.


It's a definitive legal term that guides what is allowed in many states.


----------



## Nevada

gibbsgirl said:


> Nevada, roe v Wade was determining viability based on medical capabilities at the time. Even the understanding of gestational development has advanced in that time. And, the capabilities of medical providers to assist in infants born prematurely surviving has advanced rather far since the 70s.
> 
> Medical intervention has improved at assisting infant survival from 21 weeks through full term deliveries and is done on a much larger scale than 40 years ago with much more success.
> 
> Even the jama doesn't agree with what the gestational date for viability is. They don't even have a consensus for when late term begins.
> 
> Eta: my point is that people need to determine what they mean by late term abortion and when that perion of a pregnancy begins before they can agree that as long as no one does late term abortions its all good.


Maybe so, but we've got a clearly written court decision on the matter. We're kind of stuck with the guidelines in Roe v Wade unless the court reconsiders.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Nevada, roe v Wade was determining viability based on* medical capabilities at the time*. Even the understanding of gestational development has advanced in that time. And, the capabilities of medical providers to assist in infants born prematurely surviving has advanced rather far since the 70s.


None of that matters, so I'm not sure why it comes up in so many of your posts



> Eta: my point is that people need to determine what they mean by late term abortion and when that perion of a pregnancy begins before they can agree that as long as no one does late term abortions its all good.


People have determined that, and it's recorded in various state statutes.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> Maybe so, but we've got a clearly written court decision on the matter. We're kind of stuck with the guidelines in Roe v Wade unless the court reconsiders.


Yes, we are stuck with all our laws and court rulings until things get reconsidered. And, abortion, along with many other things should looked at from time to time for reconsideration, IMO.


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Yes, we are stuck with all our laws and court rulings until things get reconsidered. And, abortion, along with many other things should looked at from time to time for reconsideration, IMO.


What process do you feel is required to look at the current ruling? Public vote, independent review or otherwise and how much public funds do you feel it would involve to establish protocol for rulings that need review.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Wr, I think it should not involve the federal govt. It should be up to each state to determine what process and what outcome is right and when the issue should be revisited.


----------



## Nevada

gibbsgirl said:


> Wr, I think it should not involve the federal govt. It should be up to each state to determine what process and what outcome is right and when the issue should be revisited.


Why is that?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> Why is that?


It's no different than my feelings on an abundance of things I don't think the federal govt has any right to be involved in.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Abortion is murder.
Hitler.



painterswife said:


> I don't dismiss anyone's dilemma or position. No one wins here. Everyone loses. You can't however have a say in the desicion the women makes for herself and her life.
> 
> You can however work very hard to put systems, education and possibilities in place that will reduce the need for a women to ever have to make this agonizing choice.


I'm glad to hear you say that you don't dismiss others' views entirely. In our defense, that is a tactic often employed by the other side, and these boards are obviously not immune from it. There are a couple/few on here who, if their posts attempting to invalidate others' views, would have posts counts in the single digits.

And I very much agree with your position that education and viable alternatives to the murder of these children is of penultimate importance (only because stopping the murders themselves is paramount). While, politically, I don't agree with public funds going to this sort of thing, on their face, I accept the greater crisis as justifying that allowance. I won't argue for my tax dollars going to promote education and pregnancy-control, if it saves a life.

Where our (pro-lifers) position often falls into conflict with the other side, is in the inference that we believe that our moral right excuses a trespass against the individual rights of a women over her body. 

I certainly can't speak for the entire side, and readily admit that there are some that think that biblical mandates allow them to impose abstinence as the only acceptable remedy, but many of us respect the woman's individual right, alongside our desire to stop abortion. I don't wish to prevent, nor have any say in the matter, should a woman wish to end her reproductive function through hysterectomy, or temporarily suspend it through the use of pregnancy-control measures. I even go so far as to suspend my political ideology long enough to allow for public funding of both of these options, and others. 

My issue with the woman's right to choose what to do with her body begins at the space between the last atom of her uterine lining, and the first atom of the baby's developing skin. 

And this is where much of the divide between our position lies. If it is, as you see it, just tissue resulting as a natural growth within the woman's body, then you are right, and dictating to the woman what she can do with it is just an imposition against her rights. 

But, if it is as I see it, then this tissue is a human being, and the mother's rights end, as they were, at the baby's nose.

We may never be able to see eye to eye on the surface issue of abortion, because of our difference on the underlying issue of our understanding of life, but there are basis for both positions. Current American legal definitions suggest that yours is correct.

But, as an aspect that was desperately attempted to be shut down by other, less thoughtful participants in other threads, legal definitions change almost as frequently as understanding does, and this thing that is, here and now, defined as a woman's right to choose was, throughout most of human history, and, perhaps not as unlikely as some would have us a believe, could, again in the future, be defined as murder. Is that such a safe position from which to imply something as universally true?


----------



## wr

gibbsgirl said:


> Wr, I think it should not involve the federal govt. It should be up to each state to determine what process and what outcome is right and when the issue should be revisited.


I can understand your reasoning but wouldn't it be a costly process to set up some form of review to decide what rulings need review and would that not be a costly process for each state?


----------



## Nevada

gibbsgirl said:


> It's no different than my feelings on an abundance of things I don't think the federal govt has any right to be involved in.


Abortion was taken-up as an individual rights issue, and the court found that expectant mothers have certain rights. States can't override that.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> I can understand your reasoning but wouldn't it be a costly process to set up some form of review to decide what rulings need review and would that not be a costly process for each state?


That would be for each state to determine and decide for themselves.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> Abortion was taken-up as an individual rights issue, and the court found that expectant mothers have certain rights. States can't override that.


The states have the ability to override if enough chose to do so. There is a constitutional process for that. Scotus can overturn itself to, its hapoened.


----------



## painterswife

Has Scotus ever ruled to take away an individual right?


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Has Scotus ever ruled to take away an individual right?


We have changed laws and court rulings to recognized the rights of people who's rights were not previously protected or recognized. Slavery, voting, etc.

And, the scotus has overturned itself multiple times. Never say never, IMO.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> We have changed laws and court rulings to recognized the rights of people who's rights were not previously protected or recognized. Slavery, voting, etc.
> 
> And, the scotus has overturned itself multiple times. Never say never, IMO.


Yes, but they have never taken away an individual right.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Has Scotus ever ruled to take away an individual right?


The legislative and judicial branches at all levels have a long history of taking away individual rights. Laws and rulings and mandates and regulations from agencies constantly restrict our lives and ability to do as we choose.


----------



## Shine

gibbsgirl said:


> We have changed laws and court rulings to recognized the rights of people who's rights were not previously protected or recognized. Slavery, voting, etc.
> 
> And, the scotus has overturned itself multiple times. Never say never, IMO.


Roe v Wade could be overturned in a heart beat [no pun intended] if the right of the unborn child is reconsidered. Thank Goodness that Planned Parenthood is doing what they are doing, this might be the impetus that has been needed for quite some time.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> The legislative and judicial branches at all levels have a long history of taking away individual rights. Laws and rulings and mandates and regulations from agencies constantly restrict our lives and ability to do as we choose.


If they get fought all the way to to Scotus they get overturned.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Yes, but they have never taken away an individual right.


Oh my, the list of things individuals are not allowed to have or so is quite long and extensive. And, the executive and judiciary have a long history of not even applying the restrictions on freedoms consistently.

There could easily be several other threads to cover the many issues that fall under that umbrella.


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> Stillborns and miscarriages are also delivered. I thought you were a nurse or something. How do you not know this?


So you are telling this nurseorsomething that 10% who come to PP for an abortion have a still birth or spontaneous abortion WHILE THEY ARE WAITING for the procedure?
BWhaha!


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> If they get fought all the way to to Scotus they get overturned.


Scotus has no business ruling on many issues they accept to come before their court.

State scotus and state legislatures should have to fight it out themselves with no federal intervention. But, the feds just can't help themselves and continue to ride roughshod over the states and their citizens.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Please tell me where I said that?


You seemed to infer that w/o PP there would be a deluge of births.
Not sure why, no one having a clue what to do, I guess. But women can get free b.c.


----------



## kasilofhome

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/obamacare-birth-control_n_5888320.html



Jeffrey Young Headshot
Jeffrey Young Become a fan
[email protected]
Email
Birth Control Is Free Under Obamacare, But Not Everyone Got The Memo
Posted: 09/26/2014 4:34 pm EDT Updated: 09/29/2014 5:59 pm EDT


----------



## Tricky Grama

basketti said:


> A link to what?


Yup didn't think ya did.
So, you're thinking Singer is in the same group as Roof?
Was there an analogy?
B/c Singer is an esteemed prof at Princeton, & what I read was that he was on Obama's HC team. Figures, one guy he had advocated for b.c. in the drinking water. John Holgren.
Singer writes for esteemed med journals, is a LEADER among progressives. But as far as having monstrous ideas, I can see the similarity.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> How are you going to force them not to use your state tax money on PP? Or federal tax money for that matter? Or is it just a righteous indignation/internet story thang?
> 
> The "pro unborn" care about the unborn, after the birth not so much. I'm not apologizing for my opinion. You have a choice- put me on ignore or just don't read my posts. Choice is good.
> 
> You realize that defunding PP would effect women in other states, right? It's a national organization.


Yup, here we go again w/the not helping the poor infants.
Everything, ABSOLUTELY all you can read on this subject will tell you that liberals talk a lot of good things but DO NADA, whiLe conservatives actually DO for the poor.
So you can be assured, every time this is brought up y'all will be reminded of how you're all talk & conservatives actually DO.

Is there any other scenario where: "I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me!"?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup didn't think ya did.
> So, you're thinking Singer is in the same group as Roof?
> Was there an analogy?
> B/c Singer is an esteemed prof at Princeton, & what I read was that he was on Obama's HC team. Figures, one guy he had advocated for b.c. in the drinking water. John Holgren.
> Singer writes for esteemed med journals, is a LEADER among progressives. But as far as having monstrous ideas, I can see the similarity.


Asking what you are looking for a link to, is obviously not the same as not having one. 
But if you are asking for a link showing that Singer is not one of Obamas healthcare advisors, well hopefully you know that proving a negative can be difficult. Kind of like if I said Tricky Grama was on obamas health care team. Find a link to prove you weren't.
But since you've supposedly read that he is, why don't you go ahead and provide a link. Anyone can google Singer and see that being on the administrations health care team is not on his CV. 

you're playing stupid word games to try and cover for the fact that you thought he was something he isn't and you now know that he is not. Lame.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, here we go again w/the not helping the poor infants.
> Everything, ABSOLUTELY all you can read on this subject will tell you that liberals talk a lot of good thing but DO NADA, whiLe conservatives actually DO for the poor.
> So you can be assured, every time this is brought up y'all will be reminded of how you're all talk & conservatives actually DO.


Pretty sure Pixie has gone on vacation so she'll be unavailable to answer you. She spends her vacations enjoying the company of her husband and family rather than sparring with people here. Some people just have better things to do when they are relaxing.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> No one has said that it is acceptable to have late term abortions. We wish to have there be no need for that. However you can't begin to understand as a man the process that a women goes through to make that kind of decision. Jolly can think his life experience gives him a glimpse but that glimpse is so tiny and unexplainable.
> 
> Those late term abortions are a small percentage and thankfully getting smaller each year.


Why is that? Why not acceptable then? No breath. No person. Why do you think late term is not acceptable?


----------



## Tricky Grama

beenaround said:


> Wrong doing? They butcher babies.
> 
> Here's the deal, people do wrong and people pay for doing the wrong, but the payment for doing the wrong compounds astronomically when the wrong is called a right. That sets in motion repercussions greater upon the people greater than the wrong ever did.
> 
> You're "no wrong" is the same as saying no ones done anything about it yet.
> 
> When a people attacked a roman out post thinking they's driven off Rome and were free from anyone telling them they were wrong, a lot of time passed and then rumors of payday started. In the end there was nothing left of those people, not even one stone on top of another. History which no one needs here to know the wrong teaches payday equal to the wrong and greater is coming.
> 
> FWIW the abuses in the health care industry were/are so great it was inevitable government would take it over. I said that while everyone else said I was a tin foil hat freak.


And I don't suppose it's any conflict of interest AT ALL to counsel women to abort or not, when you're needing another box of livers/hearts/kidneys to sell.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Why is that? Why not acceptable then? No breath. No person. Why do you think late term is not acceptable?


I can only answer for myself.

I can't see continuing a pregnancy for that long if I did not really want to carry it to term. I can not even imagine dealing with the circumstances that would cause me to choose to have an abortion at that time.

It would be far easier to carry it to term and give it up for me than to have an abortion at that stage therefore the circumstance for even considering it would need to be very grave.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> So you are telling this nurseorsomething that *10% who come to PP for an abortion* have a still birth or spontaneous abortion WHILE THEY ARE WAITING for the procedure?
> BWhaha!


These numbers seem to still confuse you, even though it's been explained more than once.

The percentage that "deliver intact" is about 10% *of the 10%* who come in for second trimester "late term" procedures, which means it's *less than 1% of the total.*

Try reading the transcripts instead of listening to the edited videos

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPRMTranscript040715final.pdf


----------



## Shine

1 elective is too many.


----------



## oneraddad

basketti said:


> Pretty sure Pixie has gone on vacation so she'll be unavailable to answer you. She spends her vacations enjoying the company of her husband and family rather than sparring with people here. Some people just have better things to do when they are relaxing.



We all have better things to do than sparring with people on HT, if were on vacation or not.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I can only answer for myself.
> 
> I can't see continuing a pregnancy for that long if I did not really want to carry it to term. I can not even imagine dealing with the circumstances that would cause me to choose to have an abortion at that time.
> 
> It would be far easier to carry it to term and give it up for me than to have an abortion at that stage therefore the circumstance for even considering it would need to be very grave.


So just not you? No problem w/all the other late term kills?


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> And I don't suppose it's any conflict of interest AT ALL to counsel women to abort or not, when you're needing another box of livers/hearts/kidneys to sell.


From what some posters here seem to believe there should be no shortage of livers and kidneys or hearts available for research. So many in fact PP gives them away.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> So just not you? No problem w/all the other late term kills?


Not what I said. Don't twist my words.

I take the time to honestly answer and you post that. I see your agenda and that is why Prolife is not making any headway with Prochoice. You can't have a civil conversation. Well at least some of the Prolife.


----------



## Lisa in WA

painterswife said:


> Not what I said. Don't twist my words.



She has to.


----------



## AngieM2

Jolly, thank you for your posts about what you've seen and done. Cogs are needed too.


----------



## gibbsgirl

I do believe that botched abortions that lead to a live birth are probably a very small percentage of abortions. But, drs are not perfect, it has happened in the past and likely happens even now.

WHo even has a code assignment icd-10 p96.4 ( I think) for it to be reported. But, drs very rationally would be hesitant to report them because we have not addressed the issue of what to do sufficiently.

Wmoen legally can choose an abortion, but when it goes wrong and the child survives, IMO, women should probably not have the right to have those children not be afforded the same immediate care that any other wanted preemie would receive. One difficulty in addressing that is when, clinics that are not part of a hospital with a picu or nicu unit onsite.

Personally, I don't think it is in a woman's best interest to receive care for an abortion rights n an outpatient clinic for her own safety. But, I feel that way about many procedures that have been farmed out to out patient clinics. 

I had surgery once, and we were living in los Angeles at the time. Because of my asthma, I have a history of complications with anesthesia. My husband took me all the way to Utah for surgery, because that was the closest provider we could find that had his clinic inside a hospital that provided the surgery on was getting that we could afford. I had a heck of a time finding anyone who offered it in a hospital anymore, and we didn't want to risk me coding (like I'd done before) and having to wait for an ambulance ride to the hospital.

And, though the number of botched abortions is very likely a small percent of the whole, IMO, we should be addressing the way they are dealt with in a way that doesn't just say "well they're illegal not w so its no longer an issue".

My gosh, whenever I have heard of a potential issue with the success of a method of the death penalty being questioned as reliable or humane, I've seen quick action including immediate need moratoriums on any being carried out, and that is for a person that we've convicted of a crime and sentenced to death for their conviction. But, we should just ignore the scenario of a botched abortion live birth cause there's not a lot of them?

Even in hospice transitions for patients, it can only happen if the pt requests it or their poa kin/reps and a doctor signs off that death is imminent. If the other is expected to even possibly recover and be able to continue living its very difficult to be approved for hospice.

A child in the womb, in most circumstances would receive a diagnosis of being expected to develop to healthy growth and to not need to be kept alive by the mother after gestation long before full term in many cases even when nicu care would be required for a time.

I don't think acknowledging these ideas or realities has to translate to taking the rights of women away to decide it. But, we should, IMO, at least own those issues and acknowledge them and look at them even if the laws don't change.

IMO, women who have abortions have to think those questions through on their own at some point before, during, after. If we (as a nation) won't acknowledge that and say we're going to support their choices or respect their right to make those calls, they aren't as free to make them. How many drs do you think even ask a mother if they should try and save the baby if it goes wrong? Not many I'd guess since that's supposedly never happening.

I don't think God wants me to force my preferences on kin or elected reps making the call for what the right medical decisions are for others. I think I'm supposed to do what I understand is right for me and mine. But, I'm not terribly big on sweeping uncomfortable subjects under the rug or minimizing things to make it less trying to hash out what all should be considered when choices are made.

I'm not even opposed to euthenasia being available to those who choose it or gave been assigned the pofa as kin/reps for others. I don't believe God wants murder, but I think he doesn't consider mercy killings done by those who want that relief to be murder. If hospice was a more integral part of our medical system, euthenasia might not even be called for as much as a political issue that needs addressing.

I've seen people beg to be given the peace to be let go, and that is very difficult in western medicine care which has the ability to keep people technically alive by very artificial means. It's not easy for some people to be allowed to die in peace when drs can do so many things to technically keep their bodies from total failure and a person has simply had all they can take.

But, advancement in medical care really has made these topics pretty necessary for us all to have and have regularly as the ability to save young lives and extend elderly lives has grown.


----------



## kasilofhome

My gosh, whenever I have heard of a potential issue with the success of a method of the death penalty being questioned as reliable or humane, I've seen quick action including immediate need moratoriums on any being carried out, and that is for a person that we've convicted of a crime and sentenced to death for their conviction. But, we should just ignore the scenario of a botched abortion live birth cause there's not a lot of them?

Gibbs...a connection I had not made....


----------



## gibbsgirl

Wistco made a comment earlier, it alluded to the idea that since we don't have solid medical evidence or the input directly from a fetus that it has an awareness of pain or ev n its own existence or life or death, it shouldn't get a say in its fate. That's basically the way I interpreted his words anyway.

That bothered me a lot, because if that is the criteria for right to life, there's a lot more people who fit that set of parameters than just fetuses/unborn children.

And, of those other people, drs will typically not approve euthanasia or hospice simply based on that. They will fight to keep them alive even if they will continue in that state as long as their is a reasonable chance they may improve or recover or even just can exist in that state.

So, if you think about an unborn child in the womb, very, very often those children have a fantastic chance of developing into independent functioning (medically speaking) people in about 40 weeks. So, even they don't fit the criteria of terminal or permenantly dependent many times that drs would consider for palliative care eligibility.

I still think moms have to decide what to do with the pregnancy God gave them. I still think abortions are really horrible. I still think there are times they are the lesser of two evils. And, I still think God has a lot of grace and forgiveness for us all because probably none of us have it 100% right according to him.

But, there's a lot that isn't regularly part of the discussions that involce abortions.

Even, if you remove the discussion of the baby from the topic, women do not have a great understanding many times of the risks and complications to themselves that come with having an abortion. And, that really disgusts me.


----------



## wiscto

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Abortion is murder.
> Hitler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiscto,
> 
> Jolly's sharing emotional details that paint a fuller picture of his story is a much more appropriate vehicle for trying to give others the colors from which to understand his view than the snark and condescension that Pixie and Bear use as a vehicle to try to rhetorically invalidate every one else's view (I said Hitler above, so we don't have to worry about them, here amongst us adults). If you dismiss what he was saying on the basis that he added color to the story of how he got there in an attempt to "aggrandize" it, you're doing yourself a greater disservice, than anything you could be doing to him, by stealing away your own opportunity to see, even if it is just a glimpse, into the perspective of how the other side sees something that is so different than how you do. Seeing someone else's view doesn't mean agreeing with it. It just means being open to the opportunity for a better understanding of the other views that are out there. What he said is real, whether you want to admit it or not.
> 
> The problem I'm seeing, more and more, with this forum, is that many of the more frequent participants in it are less interested in developing, for themselves, and contributing in, for others, a more complete understanding of something, and more interested just in, somehow, "winning".
> 
> If you truly want to advance the discussion, and give people a better understanding of your position, address his point about the ability of modern medical science to save these 500g / 22 week-gestastional babies, that are currently acceptable to kill through abortion. Isn't that what we're debating here? Some of think that the process is murder, while some of think that it is a morally acceptable reality because this "tissue" isn't alive yet.


My position was that comparing any of this to Hitler is irrational. He responded to me and didn't discuss anything I said. I responded to him. If you truly want to advance that discussion, don't decide what you want to say to me until after you've read all the relevant posts.


----------



## Shine

Off topic, I know, but real quick, if someone has been sentenced to death, why are they not anesthetized the same as major surgery before the lethal injection? Is there some morbid need to see them suffer I wonder?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> Off topic, I know, but real quick, if someone has been sentenced to death, why are they not anesthetized the same as major surgery before the lethal injection? Is there some morbid need to see them suffer I wonder?


I've wondered the same thing.


----------



## wiscto

Sometimes I submit posts, and later it sounds a lot harsher than I felt it did; I guess I just have a...brisk dialect. I just want to say again, I don't see the need to compare abortion to the holocaust. I think that actually dehumanizes what is not an easy decision for most people, even in late stages, and many think they are doing the right thing. But I will add this... I think abortion as a form of birth control is pretty disturbing. So I guess I do understand the emotion behind all of this, and I don't mean to lash out at people for having feelings. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that I'm also emotionally invested in the issue. So... My apologies to Jolly and MonkeyGuns. I just think everyone should be careful, it isn't that we don't value life, or that we don't want everyone to have a chance. And I just don't believe there is real evil behind abortion, at least not in the majority of cases. So when you hear the sometimes violent rhetoric out there (or deal with it in person when your gf is there for a consultation due to health risks), or Mike Huckabee talking about bringing in the national guard, I get a little heated when the conversation comes up.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Well wistco, I still think you and I are miles apart in agreement on many things.

But, I'd like to say this is my favorite post I've ever read by you, cause I think it says at least that you're feeling like it's important for the discussion to be able to continue and us all to hopefully make our posts on a way that isn't just trying to shut others out of having a voice.

thank you, sir.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> My position was that comparing any of this to Hitler is irrational. He responded to me and didn't discuss anything I said. I responded to him. If you truly want to advance that discussion, don't decide what you want to say to me until after you've read all the relevant posts.


Oh, but comparing this to Hitler is entirely rational.

Sanger and Hitler believed in the same concept - that we need to breed people like cattle or maybe show dogs. You ever raise show dogs? More than one breeder I know will determine the best puppies to keep and if the market isn't there for pet quality dogs, will kill the rest of the litter.

It's not hard, just a Pop! with a hammer to the head, and no more puppy. After all, no use in letting the undesirables breed.

Yes, Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, just as Hitler was. Maybe their methods were a bit different, but both had the same goal. Hitler wanted to create a "master race". In Sanger's words, she wanted to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".

Sanger called them "unfit". Hitler called them "untermensch". They both meant the same thing. You can't honestly tell the story of Sanger or Hitler without considering eugenics, and the value that either placed on human life.

It comes down to whether you value life. If you don't, man can do some pretty barbaric things to his fellow man.

Like gassing Jews. 

Or killing babies.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> Sometimes I submit posts, and later it sounds a lot harsher than I felt it did; I guess I just have a...brisk dialect. I just want to say again, I don't see the need to compare abortion to the holocaust. I think that actually dehumanizes what is not an easy decision for most people, even in late stages, and many think they are doing the right thing. But I will add this... I think abortion as a form of birth control is pretty disturbing. So I guess I do understand the emotion behind all of this, and I don't mean to lash out at people for having feelings. I think it's pretty obvious at this point that I'm also emotionally invested in the issue. So... My apologies to Jolly and MonkeyGuns. I just think everyone should be careful, it isn't that we don't value life, or that we don't want everyone to have a chance. And I just don't believe there is real evil behind abortion, at least not in the majority of cases. So when you hear the sometimes violent rhetoric out there (or deal with it in person when your gf is there for a consultation due to health risks), or Mike Huckabee talking about bringing in the national guard, I get a little heated when the conversation comes up.


This may be the best post you've made. Not because of the apology (accepted, of course), but because it was genuine and heartfelt.

I may not agree about the subject matter, but I understand your position.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> It comes down to whether you value life. If you don't, man can do some pretty barbaric things to his fellow man.
> 
> Like gassing Jews.
> 
> Or killing babies.


Or forcing a woman to bring yet another child into the world addicted to drugs, knowing that it will most likely be neglected and abused, generally unloved by anyone and end up spending their adult lives in prison.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Just my thoughts on comparing things to Nazis and holocausts by myself and how it see it frequently from others.

Many times I don't necessarily see something as an absolute equivalent to mass genocide or holocaust. But, as a kid, I had a lot of neighbors that were nazi camp survivors. They taught me a lot about their lives and experiences. But, one thing none o f them could tell me was exactly how it could have been stopped.

The closest they came was to just making sure I knew it was important to always try as look ahead to where my own decisions, those around me and my govts decisions may be headed. Because some of them actually got out of Europe before the war, but most of them didn't because a lot of people were living in denial for years and years in Europe about where their choices were steering them towards until it was too late to stop it or safely escape.

So, I and I think many other people, don't tend to bring up a nazi comparison because the holocaust was an absolute equivalent to what we're discussing. I think many times it's relevant because I want to make comparisons to look at which way a path is headed.

I do the same thing when I think about comparing govt actions now to whether I think it was in keeping with what th founders in intended.

Mentioning the Nazis is purely because that is the mostly widely recognized holocaust perpetrator to most Americans. But, its not at all the only one or even the worst or least bad one. It just seems like the simplest choice of example to keep the comments more focused on the comparison question or thought, because mentioning a different genocide might lead to a thread drift where the genocide reference needs further explanation because other readers aren',t as familiar with it.

Unfortunately, it seems to lead to thread drifts a lot anyway, IMO. Because some people seem to want to immediately shoot down the nazi reference as godwins law, or as a signal the poster has gone off the rails, etc. I can't speak for others, but that's how I see it myself with what I say, and frequently that's how I interpret what others intent is when they mention it.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Off topic, I know, but real quick, if someone has been sentenced to death, why are they not anesthetized the same as major surgery before the lethal injection? Is there some morbid need to see them suffer I wonder?


From everything I have read that is how leathal injection works.... The first "round" injected puts them to sleep, then they inject the other goodies that makes the nap more permanent.


----------



## Shine

...sorry - one last observation on the death penalty - if they are fully under, I make no connection to the cruel and unnecessary punishment, they would feel nothing if I am correct in my understanding, heck, if the judgement was true and they were anesthetized, then I would not mind if someone throttled the life out of them.

I am not really OK with the death penalty thing but if they are going to do it, as long as there is no suffering, please, get it over with...


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or forcing a woman to bring yet another child into the world addicted to drugs, knowing that it will most likely be neglected and abused, generally unloved by anyone and end up spending their adult lives in prison.


It is forcing ....no, it natural ...just as sneezing, breathing, and growing old.
It's living.

Not abnormal,nor a punishment....it is life.


Agree..That each day may be the last day, that sorrow and pain will be faced .... As with joy and happiness.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> It is forcing ....no, it natural ...just as sneezing, breathing, and growing old.
> It's living.
> 
> Not abnormal,nor a punishment....it is life.
> 
> 
> Agree..That each day may be the last day, that sorrow and pain will be faced .... As with joy and happiness.


Ok, I can usually sort out the gist of most posts here... but ya got me on this one! What pray tell are you trying to get across?


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or forcing a woman to bring yet another child into the world addicted to drugs, knowing that it will most likely be neglected and abused, generally unloved by anyone and end up spending their adult lives in prison.


Possibly.

Or that baby could have been the researcher that discovers the cure for a dreaded disease.

Or grown up to be POTUS.

Some pretty wonderful people have come from some pretty bad circumstances.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Possibly.
> 
> Or that baby could have been the researcher that discovers the cure for a dreaded disease.
> 
> Or grown up to be POTUS.
> 
> Some pretty wonderful people have come from some pretty bad circumstances.


I can think of more than one potus that our country would have been much better off had they been victims of abortion.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, my son was going to be dog food..... I agreed to raise him.. he's my been my rock now. His birth mom has been involed a bit which is really all she could be..
She came to his high school graduation ...it meant a lot to the boy.

Force... birthing is a natural result... remember the birds and the bees...

It's not like a person can put a gun to a head of a virgin and scare her into pregnancy...sex has to happen. That is a rape. Which is a crime.. and though that happens .03 percent... per some charts posted here let's deal with the majority of the time it is consensual.

Force... sounded like being punished with a baby. It really ticked me off to see the use of the word... Force... 

Sex ed is taught in school prior to the common age of reproduction age. Many partner teach about sex ...As the should. Now, even in rural Alaska birth control is free.

Jersey sub shop by the high school... candy dish full of condoms right next to the napkins. One side has instructions one side has the ad for Jersey subs.
Local college also has them in a candy dish at the front desk by the public phone.
Doctors offices ...same. hospital same...

Now, let's move on to Obama care... it's free too. I have them in the house if my son every wanted them. He's chooses to wait ..which I am truly proud of and grateful for. He's an adult so that's his accomplishment, not mine.

http://www.nwlc.org/about-national-womens-law-center


Reality.... everyone is forced to take responsibility....


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> Oh, but comparing this to Hitler is entirely rational.
> 
> Sanger and Hitler believed in the same concept - that we need to breed people like cattle or maybe show dogs. You ever raise show dogs? More than one breeder I know will determine the best puppies to keep and if the market isn't there for pet quality dogs, will kill the rest of the litter.
> 
> It's not hard, just a Pop! with a hammer to the head, and no more puppy. After all, no use in letting the undesirables breed.
> 
> Yes, Sanger was a proponent of eugenics, just as Hitler was. Maybe their methods were a bit different, but both had the same goal. Hitler wanted to create a "master race". In Sanger's words, she wanted to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit".
> 
> Sanger called them "unfit". Hitler called them "untermensch". They both meant the same thing. You can't honestly tell the story of Sanger or Hitler without considering eugenics, and the value that either placed on human life.
> 
> It comes down to whether you value life. If you don't, man can do some pretty barbaric things to his fellow man.
> 
> Like gassing Jews.
> 
> Or killing babies.


I don't even see the comparison to eugenics unless you're specifically talking about Sanger, and only talking about Sanger. But I just find it hard to believe that the organization has continued under those principles with so many liberal women from the era of civil rights now working in the organization.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Off topic, I know, but real quick, if someone has been sentenced to death, why are they not *anesthetized* the same as major surgery before the lethal injection? Is there some morbid need to see them suffer I wonder?


The drugs that kill them do exactly that


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Possibly.
> 
> Or that baby *could have been* the researcher that discovers the cure for a dreaded disease.
> 
> Or grown up to be POTUS.
> 
> Some pretty wonderful people have come from some pretty bad circumstances.


Or it could be the next Hitler, making this whole line of discussion pointless


----------



## kasilofhome

What ever it might be it can not be the woman who claims it is her body her choice.


----------



## wiscto

kasilofhome said:


> What ever it might be it can not be the woman who claims it is her body her choice.


But it is... Because it's complicated, it's divisive, opinions are all over the place, and when that happens you solve the problem by putting the power in the hands of the individual. Anything else is too great a risk to freedom and democracy.


----------



## kasilofhome

It is a one sided decision, where the one making the decision is forcing another to comply.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I can think of more than one potus that our country would have been much better off had they been victims of abortion.


Fair enough, but I can also think of many people whose births were wanted, many not just wanted bit planned.

And, for whatever reason, they are deadbeats, pretty lousy people, gave wasted their lives (in some people's opinions), some have even been to jail.

Their parents love them, and have tried to raise them right and provide well for them. Some have still ended up in prison. Others have hurt lots of people EV n if they haven"'t served time.

So, I do n' really see that abortions vs keeping a child is such a hard and fast rule for determining whether people turn out great or not. I don't even see that whethe their childhood, upbringing is great or not as being a determining factor in who they are.

Life is easy and hard and in-between for many people. And, none are a great indica or of who a person will become, IMO.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> It is a one sided decision, where the one making the decision is forcing another to comply.


That seems to be what you want by saying abortions should be illegal.
Why not just accept the reality that it's not your choice to make?


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> That seems to be what you want by saying abortions should be illegal.
> Why not just accept the reality that it's not your chice to make?


I agree. She has the freedom to choose for her. Not for me.


----------



## oneraddad

The pro abortion crowd almost sounds happy they get a choice instead of sad a choice has to be made.


----------



## painterswife

oneraddad said:


> The pro abortion crowd almost sounds happy they get a choice instead of sad a choice has to be made.


As a man you have no real concept of what that choice entails and I have never met or talked to a women that thought it was a happy choice.


----------



## oneraddad

painterswife said:


> As a man you have no real concept of what that choice entails and I have never met or talked to a women that thought it was a happy choice.


You seem to celebrate having a choice here on HT and rub it in the face of the religious crowd though. And BS I have no concept, you aren't special because you carry the baby, Dad's love and have feeling just as strong as the Mom's.


----------



## painterswife

oneraddad said:


> You seem to celebrate having a choice here on HT and rub it in the face of the religious crowd though. And BS I have no concept, you aren't special because you carry the baby, Dad's love and have feeling just as strong as the Mom's.


I don't celebrate the choice one bit. I understand what the choice does to the mental state of a women. You can't understand that because you can not carry a pregnancy. This is not just about love. You can love what could be your baby and still have to have an abortion.


----------



## Woolieface

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I can think of more than one potus that our country would have been much better off had they been victims of abortion.


I did notice the word "victim" there


----------



## gapeach

painterswife said:


> I don't celebrate the choice one bit. I understand what the choice does to the mental state of a women. You can't understand that because you can not carry a pregnancy. This is not just about love. You can love what could be your baby and still have to have an abortion.


Unless you have done that yourself, you don't really know that. 

I have carried a child and can say that even though my pregnancy was unexpected and we had two children already, they had been adopted by us., 3 and 7 yrs before, the instinct to protect that unborn child was strong and overwhelming. When I thought that I had lost him, I felt like a death had happened and it was hard to even imagine life without that new life, whatever happened.


----------



## kasilofhome

It's two bodies...one is just helpless and voiceless.


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> Unless you have done that yourself, you don't really know that.
> 
> I have carried a child and can say that even though my pregnancy was unexpected and we had two children already, they had been adopted by us., 3 and 7 yrs before, the instinct to protect that unborn child was strong and overwhelming. When I thought that I had lost him, I felt like a death had happened and it was hard to even imagine life without that new life.


How would you know what I have or have not done? Thank-you though for backing up my point.


----------



## gapeach

oneraddad, if he is a father, he feels the emotion just like you or I would. My husband did.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

oneraddad said:


> You seem to celebrate having a choice here on HT and rub it in the face of the religious crowd though. And BS I have no concept, you aren't special because you carry the baby, Dad's love and have feeling just as strong as the Mom's.


You can only say that about yourself, since there are plenty of "dead beat dads" that prove it's not universal.

Sometimes one has to just accept reality and stop pretending the world is a Disney movie


----------



## painterswife

gapeach said:


> oneraddad, if he is a father, he feels the emotion just like you or I would. My husband did.


There is a very different emotion involved with having to decide to carry or not carry a pregnancy to term. A decision that no one else can make for pregnant person. They can offer support and viewpoints but they can't really feel what it is like to terminate their own pregnancy.


----------



## kasilofhome

Clue.... some females are sexist just as men can be.... just a sexist males are politically correct to be scolded and schooled on the evils of being a sexist.


----------



## oneraddad

If I can't understand the carrying of a baby, a women can't understand my anger they have control of my child.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> There is a very different emotion involved with having to decide to carry or not carry a pregnancy to term. A decision that no one else can make for pregnant person. They can offer support and viewpoints but they can't really feel what it is like to terminate their own pregnancy.




But that is simply an option of choice.. that an aborting mother volunteers herself for.


----------



## painterswife

oneraddad said:


> If I can't understand the carrying of a baby, a women can't understand my anger they have control of my child.


I can imagine but you are right I can't know unless I am in that situation.


----------



## gapeach

What about the fathers who have no choice but the fact that his baby is gone forever? He may not have even known that she was pregnant.
It happens.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Clue.... some females are sexist just as men can be.... just a sexist males are politically correct to be scolded and schooled on the evils of being a sexist.


Another post that makes no sense at all.


----------



## oneraddad

Just so you know, I've never had to consider abortion and have four children. I was a single parent for 3 children, 2 boys and a Daughter. The other son lived with his Mom, my second wife.


----------



## painterswife

oneraddad said:


> Just so you know, I've never had to consider abortion and have four children. I was a single parent for 3 children, 2 boys and a Daughter. The other son lived with his Mom, my second wife.


I am not trying to diminish the emotional element that you would feel if you were part of the decision. I do think that you can understand though that if you and a spouse or girlfriend were in the situation, in the end she ultimately has to be the one who says yes or no. You have no final say even though that is another emotional and moral tidal wave.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> What about the fathers who have no choice but the fact that his baby is gone forever? He may not have even known that she was pregnant.
> It happens.


I'm not aware of a lawsuit to challenge it, but Roe v Wade was pretty specific about that. Roe v Wade left the decision during the first trimester to the mother & doctor, while the father wasn't mentioned.


----------



## Oxankle

Roe vs Wade will one day be overturned just as was Dred Scott v Sandford. It will not take a civil war to do that, either. As for the feelings the potential father has for the child, they vary from "thank goodness" to eternal regret. As for the feelings the man has for the woman involved, only "Thank goodness I'm rid of her" fits the situation. Being paired with a woman who would kill her own child would not be pleasant.


----------



## oneraddad

painterswife said:


> I am not trying to diminish the emotional element that you would feel if you were part of the decision. I do think that you can understand though that if you and a spouse or girlfriend were in the situation, in the end she ultimately has to be the one who says yes or no. You have no final say even though that is another emotional and moral tidal wave.



I've never really gave abortion much thought because it hasn't been a part of my life. I know it's not my choice, so that's another reason I never gave it much thought. But this resent discussion and the mention of the baby having it's own DNA made me think about it. 


My Son and Daughter in-law bought a new house and invited everyone over for a house warming party. After dinner my step Granddaughter came out wearing this shirt.


----------



## painterswife

oneraddad Spoken from a man's point of view. It is something that women should be considering every time they have sex and don't have their tubes tied or their man snipped.


----------



## Nevada

Oxankle said:


> Roe vs Wade will one day be overturned just as was Dred Scott v Sandford.


Yeah, except Dred Scott wasn't overturned. It was rendered moot by constitutional amendment.


----------



## Shine

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/planned-parenthood-videos-david-daleiden-interview/

This is one view offered for people to think about this situation...


----------



## wr

gapeach said:


> What about the fathers who have no choice but the fact that his baby is gone forever? He may not have even known that she was pregnant.
> It happens.


That may not work as well as you hope. Quite a few fathers that are given the choice of getting a job and paying child support for 18+ years instead of going to college may very well support abortion. 

Would you support any law requiring the father be informed of a pregnancy and having equal right in decisions if he could legally force his desire to have an abortion?


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> That may not work as well as you hope. Quite a few fathers that are given the choice of getting a job and paying child support for 18+ years instead of going to college may very well support abortion.
> 
> Would you support any law requiring the father be informed of a pregnancy and having equal right in decisions if he could legally force his desire to have an abortion?


I would not. But, I also don't support the idea that the state should be able to force a father to support any of his children. After all the state says the father has no say legally on whether the child can be born.


----------



## gapeach

wr said:


> That may not work as well as you hope. Quite a few fathers that are given the choice of getting a job and paying child support for 18+ years instead of going to college may very well support abortion.
> 
> Would you support any law requiring the father be informed of a pregnancy and having equal right in decisions if he could legally force his desire to have an abortion?


wr, I don't think there could ever be a law passed where a father could force his wife or girlfriend to have an abortion. It is just not ever going to happen.
Abortion is not a natural result of a pregnancy.

This is how I feel:

*Should (biological) fathers have a legal say in whether or not an abortion can be performed on their child?*
Yes ....in most cases. In a world where we define the unborn child as a fetus without rights and at the same time deny the biological father any rights to his unborn child, it is no wonder much of the world looks on this situation as fascist style legalized mass murder of the unborn. 
Imagine if we defined Life as starting at conception? Many religions and societies do so. There have been many people charged with double murder for killing a pregnant woman they knew was pregnant. Times have changed, but to say that they have done so for the better is not my belief. 
It is my belief that Life should be defined as starting at conception and that the unborn child should have a Right to Life and Protection somewhat equal to that to any other human. The ONLY exception would be to protect the life of the mother, but these cases are rare indeed on a purely medical basis. I am not talking about protecting the mother from "inconvenience" which is really the basis of most abortions. 
If our society started with defining human life starting at conception, then both the Father's rights and the unborn Child's rights would logically follow. To my mind this is the moral high ground and the one our society should pursue.
http://www.debate.org/opinions/shou...t-an-abortion-can-be-performed-on-their-child


----------



## kasilofhome

wr said:


> That may not work as well as you hope. Quite a few fathers that are given the choice of getting a job and paying child support for 18+ years instead of going to college may very well support abortion.
> 
> Would you support any law requiring the father be informed of a pregnancy and having equal right in decisions if he could legally force his desire to have an abortion?


No, because I am against abortions.. so it doesn't matter male or female wants it.
Also please do not neglect fathers who do step and provide and raise their children with or with out the mother.


----------



## WildernesFamily

Bearfootfarm said:


> That seems to be what you want by saying abortions should be illegal.
> Why not just accept the reality that it's not your choice to make?


Choosing to end a child's life should not be a choice for anyone to make.

The mother still has many choices.

She chose (in the majority of abortion cases) to have sex. She may even have chosen not to use any protection.

She can choose to give the child up for adoption once it's born, or she can choose to keep the child and raise it herself.

She can even choose to keep the child for a short while and then safely surrender it to the authorities in many states.


----------



## kasilofhome

gibbsgirl said:


> I would not. But, I also don't support the idea that the state should be able to force a father to support any of his children. After all the state says the father has no say legally on whether the child can be born.


I am in this camp... kick the dad out because of anything short of violence, or abuse then it's the females choice and she supports them

Now, if he bales on her for any reason noted above.. he should take the kids 

Thus a single parent due to abuse. Should receive support from the other parent even if it is forced.

A whim single parent is on their own and should be darn grateful for financial help from the other parent AND not ever interfere with the other parents involvement with the child. (I would expect that a parent who steps up and demands a relationship with the child would step up and provide for the child esp if it was not handled by the parent that whimsical left)

How, separated parent pay directly for like a portion of the housing, a portion of the child care, a portion of the medical. As it is for the support of the child not the support for the other parent.

If custody split even no support for a child needed


----------



## oneraddad

kasilofhome said:


> kick the dad out because of anything short of violence, or abuse then it's the females choice and she supports them



Huh ? Child support has nothing to do with the parents, it's about supporting kids. Children need food, shelter and entertainment from their parents no matter how the parents feel about each other. Both parents need to support their kids !


----------



## gibbsgirl

oneraddad said:


> Huh ? Child support has nothing to do with the parents, it's about supporting kids. Children need food, shelter and entertainment from their parents no matter how the parents feel about each other. Both parents need to support their kids !


I agree that it's in a child's best interest in the vast majority of cases to be raised by and supported by both parents, even if that it in two households. I just don't agree with the govt forcing their will on the parents about what that actually looks like. Parents should have to work it out between themselves, IMO. And, yes that will mean sometimes it will end up being a very single parent situation, but that happens now with govt intervention, so its not like the govt being involved has eliminated that.


----------



## Oxankle

"Yeah, except Dred Scott wasn't overturned. It was rendered moot by constitutional amendment."

In point of fact, the decision was rendered moot, overturned, by a civil war. All the rest happened after the war.


----------



## wr

gapeach said:


> wr, I don't think there could ever be a law passed where a father could force his wife or girlfriend to have an abortion. It is just not ever going to happen.
> Abortion is not a natural result of a pregnancy.
> 
> This is how I feel:
> 
> *Should (biological) fathers have a legal say in whether or not an abortion can be performed on their child?*
> Yes ....in most cases. In a world where we define the unborn child as a fetus without rights and at the same time deny the biological father any rights to his unborn child, it is no wonder much of the world looks on this situation as fascist style legalized mass murder of the unborn.
> Imagine if we defined Life as starting at conception? Many religions and societies do so. There have been many people charged with double murder for killing a pregnant woman they knew was pregnant. Times have changed, but to say that they have done so for the better is not my belief.
> It is my belief that Life should be defined as starting at conception and that the unborn child should have a Right to Life and Protection somewhat equal to that to any other human. The ONLY exception would be to protect the life of the mother, but these cases are rare indeed on a purely medical basis. I am not talking about protecting the mother from "inconvenience" which is really the basis of most abortions.
> If our society started with defining human life starting at conception, then both the Father's rights and the unborn Child's rights would logically follow. To my mind this is the moral high ground and the one our society should pursue.
> http://www.debate.org/opinions/shou...t-an-abortion-can-be-performed-on-their-child


So, technically, you only want input from father's who are against abortion. Do you feel the mother should also be required to pay child support as well?


----------



## Shine

oneraddad said:


> Huh ? Child support has nothing to do with the parents, it's about supporting kids. Children need food, shelter and entertainment from their parents no matter how the parents feel about each other. Both parents need to support their kids !


Then you haven't met my ex...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WildernesFamily said:


> Choosing to end a child's life *should not be* a choice for anyone to make.
> 
> The mother still has many choices.
> 
> She chose (in the majority of abortion cases) to have sex. She may even have chosen not to use any protection.
> 
> She can choose to give the child up for adoption once it's born, or she can choose to keep the child and raise it herself.
> 
> She can even choose to keep the child for a short while and then safely surrender it to the authorities in many states.


It's easy to talk about what "should be".
It's not realistic at all though.

No matter why the pregnancy occurred, it's still her choice, not yours.


----------



## Guest

wr said:


> So, technically, you only want input from father's who are against abortion. *Do you feel the mother should also be required to pay child support as well?*


Never mind, brain freeze here, thoughts were there then vanished,,lol


----------



## gapeach

wr said:


> So, technically, you only want input from father's who are against abortion. Do you feel the mother should also be required to pay child support as well?


I think if the father has custody, yes then, the mother should pay child support as adjusted to her income.

I know of several divorced mothers whose children went to live with the ex. The wife made more money than the ex, so she was required to pay child support.


----------



## wr

gapeach said:


> I think if the father has custody, yes then, the mother should pay child support as adjusted to her income.
> 
> I know of several divorced mothers whose children went to live with the ex. The wife made more money than the ex, so she was required to pay child support.



So, you feel that the father can determine if a woman has a child then dictate that she raises it as well?


----------



## wiscto

oneraddad said:


> The pro abortion crowd almost sounds happy they get a choice instead of sad a choice has to be made.





oneraddad said:


> You seem to celebrate having a choice here on HT and rub it in the face of the religious crowd though. And BS I have no concept, you aren't special because you carry the baby, Dad's love and have feeling just as strong as the Mom's.


Sounds to me like you're just putting words and feelings in peoples mouths because you don't agree with them and the easy thing to do is vilify them. :thumb:


----------



## gapeach

wr said:


> So, you feel that the father can determine if a woman has a child then dictate that she raises it as well?


They did what it takes to make a baby unprotected. They have equal responsibility toward him/her.


----------



## wr

gapeach said:


> They did what it takes to make a baby unprotected. They have equal responsibility toward him/her.



So, dad can make those choices, even if he chooses not to pay child support or involve in the child's life? I would be more inclined to believe that if dad wants to raise the child, it should be handled like a private adoption. 

Moms expenses are covered and no child support required from her.


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> Imagine if we defined Life as starting at conception? Many religions and societies do so.


I know that you aren't going to want to hear this, but what religions and societies think dosn't matter to the law, at least not in this case. Another provision of Roe v Wade addresses the personhood question.

_The majority opinion allowed states to protect "fetal life after viability" even though *a fetus is not "a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment*"._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

So there is life, and the court admits that states have interest in protecting fetus life during the third trimester, but the fetus is not a person with Fourteenth Amendment rights. That legal principle is not up for discussion. Every court in the USA is bound by that principle.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's a stillbirth, not an abortion, since they *didn't see them to do a procedure*
> 
> Why should that have to be explained?


This post really bothers me. 

I still would like to hear how you determine that the baby has been born dead, that it's a stillbirth. 

If someone delivers before they're seen for the procedure, how do you know the infant wasn't born alive?


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> I know that you aren't going to want to hear this, but what religions and societies think dosn't matter to the law, at least not in this case. Another provision of Roe v Wade addresses the personhood question.
> 
> _The majority opinion allowed states to protect "fetal life after viability" even though *a fetus is not "a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment*"._
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
> 
> So there is life, and the court admits that states have interest in protecting fetus life during the third trimester, but the fetus is not a person with Fourteenth Amendment rights. That legal principle is not up for discussion. Every court in the USA is bound by that principle.


All that means there are liberal judges on the bench that made these decisions. Even though they are law, they are not morally right for millions of people. I think it might have made a difference in the opinions of a lot of people before they could actually see what this baby looks like at 11-12 wks of gestation. They are babies. You look at a 3D ultrasound today of a baby anywhere from 11wks on in the pregnancy and he or she looks like a baby. Now in the 7th month you even see facial features what look amazingly like the newborn baby.


----------



## Txsteader

oneraddad said:


> I've never really gave abortion much thought because it hasn't been a part of my life. I know it's not my choice, so that's another reason I never gave it much thought. *But this resent discussion and the mention of the baby having it's own DNA made me think about it. *



If all these pages of discussion, bickering, snark, ridicule etc. opened the eyes of just one person, made just one person reconsider, it was all worth it. :thumb:

And your granddaughter is so cute. Love the shirt. Congratulations!!!


----------



## Nevada

gapeach said:


> All that means there are liberal judges on the bench that made these decisions. Even though they are law, they are not morally right for millions of people. I think it might have made a difference in the opinions of a lot of people before they could actually see what this baby looks like at 11-12 wks of gestation. They are babies. You look at a 3D ultrasound today of a baby anywhere from 11wks on in the pregnancy and he or she looks like a baby. Now in the 7th month you even see facial features what look amazingly like the newborn baby.


We knew. We had the "Drama of Life Before Birth" photo essay in Life Magazine back in 1965.


----------



## oneraddad

wiscto said:


> Sounds to me like you're just putting words and feelings in peoples mouths because you don't agree with them and the easy thing to do is vilify them. :thumb:



Wrong, I don't disagree with them. But since it don't matter to me, I'm not going to stress about it either way.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or forcing a woman to bring yet another child into the world addicted to drugs, knowing that it will most likely be neglected and abused, generally unloved by anyone and end up spending their adult lives in prison.


No one is forcing anyone to do anything. However you're speaking of some pretty low life there, a woman who values her own bod and her own pleasures in life at the expense of another human life.

That's the only case I can think of where someone threatens to harm another being if we won't help them out.
Disgusting.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Not what I said. Don't twist my words.
> 
> I take the time to honestly answer and you post that. I see your agenda and that is why Prolife is not making any headway with Prochoice. You can't have a civil conversation. Well at least some of the Prolife.


I quoted what you said: that you could not see continuing...far easier to carry to term & give up than abort at that late stage.

I asked you what difference does it make? 
And since you say you wrote a thoughtful post I don't get to ask a question? I have an agenda?
And I don't know what "Profile" is.
So now I'm not civil?
How have I twisted your words, I quoted your post.
Up to about now, how's anyone to know who is for abortion on demand at any gestational age or they're for abortion up to...12 wks? 20 wks?

My question is simple: how is it ok for 17 wks (or whatever age)then not ok?


----------



## gapeach

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScE-085yM1c[/ame]





24wk 3D ultrasound


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> This post really bothers me.
> 
> I still would like to hear how you determine that the baby has been born dead, that it's a stillbirth.
> 
> If someone delivers before they're seen for the procedure, how do you know the infant wasn't born alive?


Because they aren't viable at the stage which was being discussed, and can't normally survive outside the womb.



> For most of the 20th Century, official definitions of a live birth and infant death in the Soviet Union and Russia differed from common international standards, such as those established by the World Health Organization in the latter part of the century.[10]
> 
> Babies who were *less than 28 weeks* of gestational age, or weighed less than 1000 grams, or less than 35 cm in length â even if they showed some sign of life (breathing, heartbeat, voluntary muscle movement) â were *classified as "live fetuses" rather than "live births.*"
> 
> Only if such newborns survived seven days (168 hours) were they then classified as live births.
> 
> *If, however, they died within that interval, they were classified as stillbirths.*
> 
> If they survived that interval but died within the first 365 days they were classified as infant deaths.
> 
> More recently, thresholds for "fetal death" continue to vary widely internationally, sometimes incorporating weight as well as gestational age. The gestational age for fetal viability ranges from 16 weeks in Norway, to *20 weeks in the US and Australia*, 24 weeks in the UK, and 26 weeks in Italy and Spain.[11][12][13]


Facts may "bother" you, but they are still facts


----------



## gapeach

Nevada said:


> We knew. We had the "Drama of Life Before Birth" photo essay in Life Magazine back in 1965.


But there was no ultrasound. obviously, doctors knew what an unborn baby looked like. They had seen them from miscarriages. Maybe if we had ultrasound before Roe vs Wade, this law never would have passed. I do think every pregnant woman should see an ultrasound of her baby before abortion can be performed.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Oxankle said:


> Roe vs Wade will one day be overturned just as was Dred Scott v Sandford. It will not take a civil war to do that, either. As for the feelings the potential father has for the child, they vary from "thank goodness" to eternal regret. As for the feelings the man has for the woman involved, only "Thank goodness I'm rid of her" fits the situation. Being paired with a woman who would kill her own child would not be pleasant.


I think now that science has said unborn babies feel pain at AT LEAST 20 wks, there will be some suits brought to court. 
It's just too early-from everything I've read-for science, ethicists, to pinpoint a gestational age when 'life' is there. But it would be a huge gain if abortion was unlawful after 18-20 wks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My question is simple: how is it ok for 17 wks (or whatever age)then not ok?


That depends on the laws in the jurisdiction involved.

Most don't allow late "term abortions" and even if they do they comprise less than 10% of the total, which makes the continued posting of 24 week old fetus pictures pointless


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> But there was no ultrasound. obviously, doctors knew what an unborn baby looked like. They had seen them from miscarriages. Maybe if we had ultrasound before Roe vs Wade, this law never would have passed. I do think every pregnant woman should see an ultrasound of her baby before abortion can be performed.


You don't get to choose which medical procedures someone else has


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because they aren't viable at the stage which was being discussed, and can't normally survive outside the womb.
> 
> can't*normally*
> 
> Seems your word choice covers that factual you accept and clearly acknowledge that yes, the can survive.
> 
> 
> Facts may "bother" you, but they are still facts


Since your words show that you accept that some have survived..... what is your view as to what should be done to or for those that survive...are you a Kermit mind set .....or just don't care


----------



## Tricky Grama

WildernesFamily said:


> Choosing to end a child's life should not be a choice for anyone to make.
> 
> The mother still has many choices.
> 
> She chose (in the majority of abortion cases) to have sex. She may even have chosen not to use any protection.
> 
> She can choose to give the child up for adoption once it's born, or she can choose to keep the child and raise it herself.
> 
> She can even choose to keep the child for a short while and then safely surrender it to the authorities in many states.


Wilder, you know a woman can't be bothered for all those months of discomfort. As well as having people see she's pregnant...what's the easy way? Just a blob, after all & it's her body carrying this. And it's women's health.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Since your words show that you accept that some have survived..... what is your view as to *what should be done* to or for those that survive...are you a Kermit mind set .....or just don't care


It's not my decision to make since it won't be my child


----------



## Jolly

Nevada said:


> We knew. We had the "Drama of Life Before Birth" photo essay in Life Magazine back in 1965.


No, not really.

A lot of that was based on dissection, which while pretty good for anatomy, doesn't give you the same picture as the actual, living thing.

In 1965, we were still doing hand chemistries, everything was written on paper, the formulary wasn't half as large as it is now, there was no such thing as CAT scans, MRI, Flow Cytometry, mono-clonal mouse antibody tests, heart-lung machines...I could go on and on and on.

The world of medicine has really, really changed.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because they aren't viable at the stage which was being discussed, and can't normally survive outside the womb.
> 
> 
> 
> Facts may "bother" you, but they are still facts


Yeah, facts bother you too. I don't care if it is legal to kill it or not but upon conception that blob of cells is an unborn child. You cannot get around that FACT.

Spin it however you want but this is the FACT that you want to turn away from so that the women who have sex without responsibility can escape the natural result of having sex.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> That depends on the laws in the jurisdiction involved.
> 
> Most don't allow late "term abortions" and even if they do they comprise less than 10% of the total, which makes the continued posting of 24 week old fetus pictures pointless


I don't subscribe to that logic because it sounds as irrational to me as saying, "since less than 10% of the deaths nationwide each year are murders, continued posting of them being an issue is pointless". That's my thoughts anyway.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Jolly said:


> No, not really.
> 
> A lot of that was based on dissection, which while pretty good for anatomy, doesn't give you the same picture as the actual, living thing.
> 
> In 1965, we were still doing hand chemistries, everything was written on paper, the formulary wasn't half as large as it is now, there was no such thing as CAT scans, MRI, Flow Cytometry, mono-clonal mouse antibody tests, heart-lung machines...I could go on and on and on.
> 
> The world of medicine has really, really changed.


Careful boys, this line of thought about medical advancements is going to upset people if we continue it too far. It'll lead to nazi links, and showing that the leaps and bounds of medical advancements that gave us our understanding of sciences during the 60s and 70s (the time of roe v Wade being decided) included the contributions of Nazis brought over by operation paperclip, lol.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Yeah, facts bother you too. I don't care if it is legal to kill it or not but upon conception that blob of cells is an unborn child. You cannot get around that FACT.
> 
> Spin it however you want but this is the FACT that you want to turn away from so that the women who have sex without responsibility can escape the natural result of having sex.


You're entitled to your opinions.

You just can't force them on anyone else, and the majority want abortions to be legal

You don't get to control their sex lives, nor their medical decisions

You're mistaken if you think any of those facts "bother" me


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't subscribe to that logic because it sounds as irrational to me as saying, "since less than 10% of the deaths nationwide each year are murders, *continued posting* of them being an issue is pointless". That's my thoughts anyway.


They add nothing new, and they aren't going to change anyone's mind.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinions.
> You just can't force them on anyone else, and the majority want abortions to be legal


Sorry but the facts bother you.... when a woman is pregnant when asked what she is having.... no on expect her to say a car, horse, monkey beaches it is a human.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to your opinions.
> You just can't force them on anyone else, and the majority want abortions to be legal


Majority??? Can you back that up? I think we were seeing the first of the activist judges deciding Roe v Wade. 

While it is my opinion, can I ask you if an ova and a sperm that has joined will, for the most part, become a child without any intervention?

I am pretty sure that is a proven and indisputable fact.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry but the facts bother you.... when a woman is pregnant when asked what she is having.... no on expect her to say a car, horse, monkey beaches it is a human.


No one ever said it wasn't, so I don't know why you think you're making some big point here.

It's still not your business if she decides to terminate the pregnancy


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Majority??? *Can you back that up?* I think we were seeing the first of the activist judges deciding Roe v Wade.
> 
> While it is my opinion, can I ask you if an ova and a sperm that has joined will, for the most part, become a child without any intervention?
> 
> I am pretty sure that is a proven and indisputable fact.


Links to data have been posted on more than one thread.

Your second question makes no difference when the topic is abortion


----------



## Shine

Nevermind, I see that the majority, with a very slight lead does condone the killing of unborn children... Well, we wonder why our nation is declining... this is but one symptom and before someone wastes a post: This is my opinion.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your second question makes no difference when the topic is abortion


I think it is a crucial question with regards to the operating parameters of abortion and I was certain that you could not bring yourself to answer it even though you know deep down in your soul that it has EVERY difference with regards to abortion. It is the CRUX of the whole issue. You cannot get around it. Abortions are killing unborn children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I think it is a crucial question with regards to the operating parameters of abortion and I was certain that you could not bring yourself to answer it even though you know deep down in your soul that it has EVERY difference with regards to abortion. It is the CRUX of the whole issue. You cannot get around it. Abortions are killing unborn children.


The "parameters" have already been defined, and what I think or what you think will not change anything at all, and is therefore meaningless.

You just keep repeating yourself, which serves no purpose

There is no need for me to answer the same questions over and over, since you will merely repeat yourself again.

I feel no desire to control anyone else, so what they do is their business, and not mine.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one ever said it wasn't, so I don't know why you think you're making some big point here.
> 
> It's still not your business if she decides to terminate the pregnancy


She has that right due to social policy .. societies do change over time.
Slavery
No federal bank
No income tax
No welfare
Local school total control
Abortion illegal
Immigration regulated
Booze banned


Changes do happen. What is today never means that forever it will be.
Society facing the reality of plan parenthood..spare parts program just might be the lynch pin to change.

White house will not see the tapes... yet with out facts he will veto... talk about an uninformed voter.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The "parameters" have already been defined, and what I think or what you think will not change anything at all, and is therefore meaningless.
> 
> You just keep repeating yourself, which serves no purpose
> 
> There is no need for me to answer the same questions over and over, since you will merely repeat yourself again.
> 
> I feel no desire to control anyone else, so what they do is their business, and not mine.


You misunderstand. If my arguments are well structured, if my arguments are sound in reason, if my arguments strike to the heart of the matter, then this effort does matter. Then the Lord has soundly blessed me in this matter.

ETA - you cannot answer my question with a "Yes" or a "No" without destroying your entire argument. I understand why you refuse the answer of "Yes" or "No".

If one of those people that answered the poll that - "Yeah, I guess it's OK" reconsiders the presumption that Abortion is, in actuality, the killing an unborn child then it is a win for the Lord God Almighty and He engineered me to assist.

ETA - you have never, to my knowledge, had this particular question put to you so your claim that it has been addressed is not only moot but disingenuous also.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

Shine said:


> I think it is a crucial question with regards to the operating parameters of abortion and I was certain that you could not bring yourself to answer it even though you know deep down in your soul that it has EVERY difference with regards to abortion. It is the CRUX of the whole issue. You cannot get around it. Abortions are killing unborn children.


Got to toss my two cents in :stirpot: Knowing the ways of the world could these baby's some anyway be totally born then killed for experimenting ? 

Now i'm bowing out I might say something I shouldn't ,sometimes I know my limits . :thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Abortions are killing unborn children.


This is true, but so is any other form of birth control..... Including abstinence. Why is one method of preventing a life from happening so much different than another?


----------



## kasilofhome

Explain how abstinence is killing... 

Females menstrual cycles simply provide an opportunity for fertilization to happen.

Look at a chicken ... with out a rooster those when are living a life of abstinence.
Collect one of those when hens... pass it off to the man ...fire-man ...an experienced egg Hatcher.. even with all of his talent and knowledge the eggs from those hens with no rooster is not going to procure a chick.

Yet the egg will have living cells no chick...Will form or die. 
What you are comparing is similar to a taking a live cell say blood sample and claim that that equal death of a human.. no just some cells of blood die..

Nature produces excess eggs.. multiple eggs can and do mature sometimes at the same times... if both are fertilized then you get fraternal twins if one get fertilized then you can get one baby or identical twins.. the other egg unfertilized would simply pass and discharge with other fluids and dead cells produce in the female reproductive system...

No human life is lost thru abstinence. No unnatural act to deprive life.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No human life is lost thru abstinence. No unnatural act to deprive life.


failure to allow that very much alive egg and sperm to get together and continue their natural process denies that potential child the right to ever grow, be born, laugh and cry....... Live..... The exact same fate an abortion provides them.


----------



## kasilofhome

No as a new life would have its own unique DNA.

For your logic one would have it be an act of killing then the normal male wet dream ejaculation or ejaculation via wet dream and unsuccessful sperm would be a mass murder.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No as a new life would have its own unique DNA.
> 
> For your logic one would have to be an act of killing then the normal male wet dream ejaculation or ejaculation via wet dream and unsuccessful sperm would be a mass murder.


Exactly.... And as I recall God frowns heavily upon that too! 
As to the unique Dna thing.... What possible difference does that make?


----------



## kasilofhome

Wet dreams are nocturnal ejaculation for which males have no control of. 
During sex men do not nor can the limit the number of sperm thus even if a female get impregnated... then with all those sperm with no egg the man once again has killed in your logic... hundreds. Yet the DNA would show only your DNA so would you claim suicide? No... just a loss of excess cells.



Basic sex ed and biology will agree that yes cell life will die but with out a combination of the DNA from a male and a female ... you have no new life just excess cells of people. 

I have had lots of living cells removed for cancer treatment... just my cells were killed not a human..


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Wet dreams are nocturnal ejaculation for which males have no control of.
> During sex men do not nor can the limit the number of sperm thus even if a female get impregnated... then with all those sperm with no egg the man once again has killed in your logic... hundreds. Yet the DNA would show only your DNA so would you claim suicide? No... just a loss of excess cells.
> 
> 
> 
> Basic sex ed and biology will agree that yes cell life will die but with out a combination of the DNA from a male and a female ... you have no new life just excess cells of people.
> 
> I have had lots of living cells removed for cancer treatment... just my cells were killed not a human..


you are missing my point entirely. It's not about a cell or a group of cells. I am referring to the human being not being allowed their life. Any form of contraception accomplishes that goal. Abortion, the pills, condoms, as well as abstinence are all the same. That child ain't going to school anytime soon.


----------



## kasilofhome

What human?... till fertilization..you just have cells.. one from a female and or sperm.


A egg 
A ton of sperm cell.

Separate no life

Are you going to suggest that ever male from infancy be sexually active and ever female past puberty be sexually active.. and that males have other sex partners when their mate is pregnant so as to prevent death?

Also would your view go so far as to conclude that homosexual sex is murder as that sexual act prevent life.

Yh...


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Are you going to suggest that ever male from infancy be sexually active and ever female past puberty be sexually active.. and that males have other sex partners when their mate is pregnant so as to prevent death.


Now yer getting the idea.

Infant males would be excepted as they do not produce viable sperm until puberty, kinda like young girls aren't ready to fulfill their role in propagation of the species until puberty. After that point any effort made to prevent that "new life" is pretty much the same. Life began in the beginning... There is never "new life", just the continuation of the original life that God created. 

Attempts to control another's choice as to when to fulfill theiir role of propagation is simply wrong at best. Most likely it is worse, and very often is based in the human desire to be holier than thou. I have yet to meet anyone that wasn't pro choice, as long as they were the one making the choice.


----------



## Txsteader

Shine said:


> Abortions are killing unborn children.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is true, but so is any other form of birth control..... Including abstinence. Why is one method of preventing a life from happening so much different than another?


That's twisted logic. 

There's a difference between killing unborn babies and preventing a life.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> failure to allow that very much alive egg and sperm to get together and continue their natural process denies that potential child the right to ever grow, be born, laugh and cry....... Live..... The exact same fate an abortion provides them.


 
Once fertilization occurs, the child is no longer "potential" and is, rather, fact. An unfertilized egg, or a sperm cell is part of another human being, just like a blood or skin cell. Once sperm from one human meets and fertilizes an egg from another human, a new and unique human comes into being.


----------



## gapeach

*The Planned Parenthood Carnage*
*Canada Free Press, by Obie Usategui
*
*August 2, 2015 
*







Just in case you may have missed it, one of the most gruesome and poignantly repulsive stories as of lately has to be Planned Parenthood&#8217;s federally subsidized marketing of aborted fetuses&#8212;our tax dollars being used at their best, right? What is America coming to?
As reported by LifeNews, the first in a series of undercover video footage, shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America&#8217;s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.
n yet a second video, Planned Parenthood&#8217;s doctor Maru Gatter discusses the pricing of aborted baby body parts. Dr. Gatter tells us that baby parts such as livers, heads, or hearts are negotiable. She also tells potential buyers of the possibility she may talk to Planned Parenthood abortion specialists to discuss with them, the likelihood of altering their techniques to kill the baby in ways that could best preserve the body parts after the unborn child is killed. A fourth video released captures a Planned Parenthood vice-president discussing how to break or get around the law(s) to sell aborted babies.
more......
http://canadafreepress.com/article/74211


PP must be defunded and the doctors, facilitators, and buyers of human organs vigorously prosecuted. This is the only morally acceptable result. We either stand for what is right or we should forever be silent regarding the Nazi atrocities because the moral equivalency canÂ´t be denied.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> That's twisted logic.
> 
> There's a difference between killing unborn babies and preventing a life.


not from the unborns point of view. The results are exactly the same in both cases. That child to be isnt going to be going to any baseball games...... not in 4 years, not ever.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Once fertilization occurs, the child is no longer "potential" and is, rather, fact. An unfertilized egg, or a sperm cell is part of another human being, just like a blood or skin cell. Once sperm from one human meets and fertilizes an egg from another human, a new and unique human comes into being.


And the world must bow to YOUR explanation because? Oh I see, thats where you choose to put the origin of life. my how things get different when someone else starts making your choices for you.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And the world must bow to YOUR explanation because? Oh I see, thats where you choose to put the origin of life. my how things get different when someone else starts making your choices for you.


A good starting point would be how soon the zygote develops it's own DNA


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And the world must bow to YOUR explanation because? Oh I see, thats where you choose to put the origin of life. my how things get different when someone else starts making your choices for you.


 My explanation is biologically sound.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> My explanation is biologically sound.


So that means any birth control that prevents implantation of the fertilized egg in your scenario is murder.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> A good starting point would be how soon the zygote develops it's own DNA


That could be a fair starting point... if life didnt begin in the beginning. There are no zygotes without life. They are one more tiny step in the continuous process of perpetuating life.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> My explanation is biologically sound.


To you perhaps. But then so is mine.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> So that means any birth control that prevents implantation of the fertilized egg in your scenario is murder.


Murder is a whole nother subject. the prevention of a life, according to some here is supposedly different.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So that means any birth control that prevents implantation of the fertilized egg in your scenario is murder.


 Quite bluntly, yes. I am against all forms of post-conception birth control. I practice, and have always practiced, federalization control, with excellent results.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> To you perhaps. But then so is mine.


 No, I can think of no biological theory that would call gametes anything other than parts of the parent organism.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Quite bluntly, yes. I am against all forms of post-conception birth control. I practice, and have always practiced, federalization control, with excellent results.


Fer what its werth. I hope whatever birth control method you use works better than your federalization control, coz our government is about under control as a runaway train!


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> No, I can think of no biological theory that would call gametes anything other than parts of the parent organism.


An integral part of the life continuum system however. All part of keeping life going. Again though, why must the world bow to your particular thought patterns? Others have entirely different outlooks on this point. Some put lifes origins at conception, others at the beginning of the third trimester, still others at the moment of the first breath taken.... me? I think life started a very long time ago and simply perpetuates itself using biological functions.... not just one, but a whole series of them.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Fer what its werth. I hope whatever birth control method you use works better than your federalization control, coz our government is about under control as a runaway train!


 My autocorrect had a Freudian slip. :ashamed:


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> My autocorrect had a Freudian slip. :ashamed:


Those things are aggravating for sure.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An integral part of the life continuum system however. All part of keeping life going. Again though, why must the world bow to your particular thought patterns? Others have entirely different outlooks on this point. Some put lifes origins at conception, others at the beginning of the third trimester, still others at the moment of the first breath taken.... me? I think life started a very long time ago and simply perpetuates itself using biological functions.... not just one, but a whole series of them.


Since this is all 'not our choice' do you have any limits to when to stop killing infants? When they are born alive, when abortion fails? It does happen. PP never sends a mom out with a bundle of joy. PP's GOAL is a dead baby. 

Are you open to Peter Singers philosophy that a child is not a person either, so it's fine...even up to 2yrs if that's for the good of the family. This has been hashed around for quite a few yrs & there's a following...if it became law, we'd all just have to merrily accept it as the progressives newest progress.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An integral part of the life continuum system however. All part of keeping life going. Again though, why must the world bow to your particular thought patterns? Others have entirely different outlooks on this point. Some put lifes origins at conception, others at the beginning of the third trimester, still others at the moment of the first breath taken.... me? I think life started a very long time ago and simply perpetuates itself using biological functions.... not just one, but a whole series of them.


Would not a look at life from a biological POV be the logical way to determine when life begins? I am not my father we are separate life forms. My life began in late 1974 when his sperm met my mother's egg. That is when my unique DNA came into existence. It is different from everyone who has ever lived before and will be different than anyone who comes after. To purposely snuff out such a unique human life, without just cause such as defending another life, is nothing less than a crime, IMO.


----------



## Evons hubby

Ok, perhaps a visual aid is in order. Below are three pictures of children. One is a child whose parents practiced the "rythm" method of birth control, one is of a child whose mother opted for an abortion, and one is the child of a very young lady who saved herself for her husband. Can you tell me which is which?

Photo A:




Photo B:




Photo C:





They all look the same to me!


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Would not a look at life from a biological POV be the logical way to determine when life begins? I am not my father we are separate life forms. My life began in late 1974 when his sperm met my mother's egg. That is when my unique DNA came into existence. It is different from everyone who has ever lived before and will be different than anyone who comes after. To purposely snuff out such a unique human life, without just cause such as defending another life, is nothing less than a crime, IMO.


Life or biological activity? Is something without a functioning brain life? Would you fight to keep alive a fetus that develops with no brain?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Would not a look at life from a biological POV be the logical way to determine when life begins? I am not my father we are separate life forms. My life began in late 1974 when his sperm met my mother's egg. That is when my unique DNA came into existence. It is different from everyone who has ever lived before and will be different than anyone who comes after. To purposely snuff out such a unique human life, without just cause such as defending another life, is nothing less than a crime, IMO.


That is one way to look at it, but its not the only way. As you say, its your opinion. Mine is a bit different and others may have different opinions as well. Which brings us to a cross road. How do we determine whose opinion can override the next fellers? Its a matter of choice, and no one else should be able to deny the next fellers choice, or to make that choice for her.


----------



## gapeach

*Little Miracle Baby Survives Abortion at 26 Weeks*

National Live Action News Washington,DC
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/02/05/little-miracle-baby-survives-abortion-at-26-weeks/
A baby boy who survived a botched late-term abortion procedure is now being dubbed a âlittle miracleâ by the judge who handed him over to the custody of his fatherâs family. Baby âAâ was born on August, 2013, at 26 weeks following an abortion attempt after the mother suffered seizures.

I was reading this morning on the Washington DC Planned Parenthood website that they perform abortions as late as 26 weeks.
Now their whole PP website is down.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Murder is a whole nother subject. the prevention of a life, according to some here is supposedly different.


Well, yeah......if you consider the definition of the term 'murder'. If there is no human, there is no murder. Ergo, preventing conception is not murder; i.e. there is nothing to be killed.

But if you want to keep putting forth that argument, feel free. :spinsmiley:


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Life or biological activity? Is something without a functioning brain life? Would you fight to keep alive a fetus that develops with no brain?


 It is a human life, no matter its level of development. Infants cannot provide for themselves. Does that mean that we can leave them in the cold to die? 

As a human cannot live without a brain, the fetus would not be viable, so, no, I would not. For the vast majorities of abortions, this is not an issue. 

On a side note, I am fully in support of the concept of assisted suicide. (I would not make that choice, but, hey?) Why? Because the choice to die lies with the one who is dying and it is, truly, their body, their choice.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That is one way to look at it, but its not the only way. As you say, its your opinion. Mine is a bit different and others may have different opinions as well. Which brings us to a cross road. How do we determine whose opinion can override the next fellers? Its a matter of choice, and no one else should be able to deny the next fellers choice, or to make that choice for her.


 The same can, and was said about property rights in the 19th century. We are not simply speaking of the rights of a single person, but, rather the rights of multiple people.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> It is a human life, no matter its level of development. Infants cannot provide for themselves. Does that mean that we can leave them in the cold to die?
> 
> * As a human cannot live without a brain, the fetus would not be viable, so, no, I would not. For the vast majorities of abortions, this is not an issue. *
> 
> On a side note, I am fully in support of the concept of assisted suicide. (I would not make that choice, but, hey?) Why? Because the choice to die lies with the one who is dying and it is, truly, their body, their choice.


Then you should have no problem with abortion up to the point where the higher cortical functioning kicks in?


----------



## kasilofhome

Uh, you are entitled to your view .. 
Now, as a male.... how do you limit ejaculation to one sperm shots. To prevent being a murderer?

Now, another thing... if that is your view.. then the removal of a fetus from the womb and dissecting it is premeditated murder with malicious intent.

If not explain


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Well, yeah......if you consider the definition of the term 'murder'. If there is no human, there is no murder. Ergo, preventing conception is not murder; i.e. *there is nothing to be killed.*
> 
> But if you want to keep putting forth that argument, feel free. :spinsmiley:


nope, nothing to be killed, cept that lil ol egg and that lil ol sperm (both of which are very much alive separately) and would be very much alive if allowed to take their natural course instead of having them both die. Neglecting to provide a natural habitat for them to grow and prosper is going to leave them just as "dead" as an abortion.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Uh, you are entitled to your view ..
> Now, as a male.... how do you limit ejaculation to one sperm shots. *very very short strokes *
> 
> To prevent being a murderer?
> 
> Now, another thing... if that is your view.. then the removal of a fetus from the womb and dissecting it is premeditated murder with malicious intent.
> 
> If not explain


Ok, the fly in this ointment seems to be that you think that I believe any of the various forms of birth control is murder. That would be incorrect. I have never said any birth control is murder, that is what others say, not I. I merely put all forms of birth control in the same bucket... they prevent a child from ever climbing on a school bus, chasing butterflys and pulling on a cats tail. From abstinence to late term abortion..... its all the same deal for the child that was not to be.


----------



## kasilofhome

No, as a child is a life form with its own DNA.
Having the the ingredients to make bread but not combining them
Is not bread.

Spilled milk is not wasted cheese.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Then you should have no problem with abortion up to the point where the higher cortical functioning kicks in?


Because a normal embryo, left to develop, will get to the point of higher brain functions. Your example was not normal development. That is like saying that I should have no problem leaving an infant in the cold to die, simply because it has not developed enough to save itself.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, the fly in this ointment seems to be that you think that I believe any of the various forms of birth control is murder. That would be incorrect. I have never said any birth control is murder, that is what others say, not I. I merely put all forms of birth control in the same bucket... they prevent a child from ever climbing on a school bus, chasing butterflys and pulling on a cats tail. From abstinence to late term abortion..... its all the same deal for the child that was not to be.


 
The difference is that, in abortion, we are not talking about a child what was not to be. We are speaking of a child that was and is no more.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No, as a child is a life form with its own DNA.
> Having the the ingredients to make bread but not combining them
> Is not bread.
> 
> Spilled milk is not wasted cheese.


Ok, a couple things here. 

what pray tell does having individual dna have to do with anything? All life has its own dna.... even that egg and sperm. Its handed off from one generation to the next as it has been for countless generations. Ever since life began. There is no "individual" life, we are all part of that original life that began many years ago. 

Now to that loaf of bread.... if you do not combine the ingredients you sure nuff wont have bread. Just the same as you would have if you combined them and let them burn up in the oven.... at the end of the day you will be just as hungry.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> The difference is that, in abortion, we are not talking about a child what was not to be. We are speaking of a child that was and is no more.


We are also talking about a legal medical procedure, and you don't get to choose who does it.

All the talk about "murder" doesn't really apply as a valid argument, since it's not considered "murder" under the law.

No one is forced to have an abortion, and no one can force another NOT to have one if that is what they want.

Your moral or religious objections don't apply to anyone but yourselves

Why keep beating the dead horse?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Because a normal embryo, left to develop, will get to the point of higher brain functions. Your example was not normal development. That is like saying that I should have no problem leaving an infant in the cold to die, simply because it has not developed enough to save itself.


But a salient point. The majority of abortions take place before there is any higher brain functions. Therefore why is abortion at this time a problem? There is no brain.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> The difference is that, in abortion, we are not talking about a child what was not to be. We are speaking of a child that was and is no more.


Same thing if you are looking at it from the childs point of view. I am using the term child here simply to make it easier for you to comprehend. A sperm and egg is not a child, neither is an 8 month old fetus. To become a child it still needs a bit more time to draw that first breath. The point I am trying to make here is that the life is there all along, it has been there for ages. It makes little difference if someone terminates it while its in separate homes or if its progressing in the mothers womb it is still life that wont be a child if someone deliberately alters natures course.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, a couple things here.
> 
> what pray tell does having individual dna have to do with anything? All life has its own dna.... even that egg and sperm. Its handed off from one generation to the next as it has been for countless generations. Ever since life began. There is no "individual" life, we are all part of that original life that began many years ago.
> 
> Now to that loaf of bread.... if you do not combine the ingredients you sure nuff wont have bread. Just the same as you would have if you combined them and let them burn up in the oven.... at the end of the day you will be just as hungry.


It's just an egg and just a sperm
Those are the ingredients

Having ingredients but not mixing equals just ingredients
The DNA of the egg is different than the dna of the sperm
The DNA of a zagote is different from the egg and the sperm as well as different from the mother and fathers DNA. It is DNA of a new life form.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> But a salient point. The majority of abortions take place before there is any higher brain functions. Therefore why is abortion at this time a problem? There is no brain.


 To say there is no brain is false, in most cases. Most abortions occur after week 8. Brain function begins at week 5 or 6. But, that is irrelevant. Again, and I don't know how I can make this any clearer, I see no justification for abortion dependent on level of normal development. Just like I don't believe I have the right to leave my child in the cold to die, simply because she hasn't developed the ability to fend for herself. 
I am confident that she will get there and my legal duty is to protect her until she does.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Same thing if you are looking at it from the childs point of view. I am using the term child here simply to make it easier for you to comprehend. A sperm and egg is not a child, neither is an 8 month old fetus. To become a child it still needs a bit more time to draw that first breath. The point I am trying to make here is that the life is there all along, it has been there for ages. It makes little difference if someone terminates it while its in separate homes or if its progressing in the mothers womb it is still life that wont be a child if someone deliberately alters natures course.


What child. A human live has a certain DNA requirements.
And egg and sperm individually lack the qualities to be anything but an egg or sperm till the meet successfully.... fertilization.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> We are also talking about a legal medical procedure, and you don't get to choose who does it.
> 
> All the talk about "murder" doesn't really apply as a valid argument, since it's not considered "murder" under the law.
> 
> No one is forced to have an abortion, and no one can force another NOT to have one if that is what they want.
> 
> Your moral or religious objections don't apply to anyone but yourselves
> 
> Why keep beating the dead horse?


um... there is that question that you refuse to answer... It is not the proverbial "dead horse" axiom that you wish to use to escape it...


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Same thing if you are looking at it from the childs point of view. I am using the term child here simply to make it easier for you to comprehend. A sperm and egg is not a child, neither is an 8 month old fetus. To become a child it still needs a bit more time to draw that first breath. The point I am trying to make here is that the life is there all along, it has been there for ages. It makes little difference if someone terminates it while its in separate homes or if its progressing in the mothers womb it is still life that wont be a child if someone deliberately alters natures course.


 So, by your reasoning, a premature baby, that is born at 6 months gestation, but takes that, all important, first breath, is a child, but, a healthy fetus, at 8 months gestation, is not?


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Same thing if you are looking at it from the childs point of view. I am using the term child here simply to make it easier for you to comprehend. A sperm and egg is not a child, neither is an 8 month old fetus. To become a child it still needs a bit more time to draw that first breath. The point I am trying to make here is that the life is there all along, it has been there for ages. It makes little difference if someone terminates it while its in separate homes or if its progressing in the mothers womb it is still life that wont be a child if someone deliberately alters natures course.


Here is where we disagree, it is my contention that it is an Unborn child as a zygote, once it has it's own DNA that makes it unique from the mother. At that point her rights stop where the child begins.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> To say there is no brain is false, in most cases. *Most abortions occur after week 8.* Brain function begins at week 5 or 6. But, that is irrelevant. Again, and I don't know how I can make this any clearer, I see no justification for abortion dependent on level of normal development. Just like I don't believe I have the right to leave my child in the cold to die, simply because she hasn't developed the ability to fend for herself.
> I am confident that she will get there and my legal duty is to protect her until she does.


63 percent of abortions take place 8 at weeks or less. 

There is only reflexes, no cortical activity until much, much later.


----------



## fireweed farm

All those millions of unwanted babies carried to term, most born into single parent welfare recipient families??

Many here endlessly complain about welfare bums and who will forget Obama phones? Who's going to pay the bills? Not just unpaid hospital, what about food, housing, schooling, roads/infrastructure for all of them? Many are going to be crack babies and medical cases. 

This is a huge chunk of who is having abortions. Call it murder or whatever you want, but are you ready for millions more of what you already complain about all day long?


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> It's just an egg and just a sperm
> Those are the ingredients
> 
> Having ingredients but not mixing equals just ingredients
> The DNA of the egg is different than the dna of the sperm
> The DNA of a zagote is different from the egg and the sperm as well as different from the mother and fathers DNA. It is DNA of a new life form.


Yes, I am familiar with high school biology, and I have baked numerous loaves of bread, pies and cakes too. I have always had to mix the ingredients and bake them for the full amount of time to get a finished product. Failure to mix the ingredients, or complete the baking properly always left me in the same condition I started... hungry! I am pretty sure that by deliberately not mixing the ingredients or remove it from the oven too soon will leave you with the very same result in your biology experiment... no baby!
There is little point in arguing over which link the chain of life is broken, the life that was meant to be is no more.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> um... there is that question that *you refuse to answer*... It is not the proverbial "dead horse" axiom that you wish to use to escape it...


I haven't refused to answer any reasonable questions
The one you asked makes no difference to the reality of the topic


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I haven't refused to answer any reasonable questions
> The one you asked makes no difference to the reality of the topic


lol. Knew it.


Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner...

So no one has to go looking for the question - here it is again:

Post #560
While it is my opinion, can I ask you if an ova and a sperm that has joined will, for the most part, become a child without any intervention?


----------



## Farmerga

fireweed farm said:


> All those millions of unwanted babies carried to term, most born into single parent welfare recipient families??
> 
> Many here endlessly complain about welfare bums and who will forget Obama phones? Who's going to pay the bills? Not just unpaid hospital, what about food, housing, schooling, roads/infrastructure for all of them? Many are going to be crack babies and medical cases.
> 
> This is a huge chunk of who is having abortions. Call it murder or whatever you want, but are you ready for millions more of what you already complain about all day long?


 Why stop at abortions? Why not just euthanize these burdens on society??


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Farmerga View Post
> To say there is no brain is false, in most cases. Most abortions occur after week 8. Brain function begins at week 5 or 6. But, that is irrelevant. Again, and I don't know how I can make this any clearer, *I see no justification for abortion *dependent on level of normal development. Just like I don't believe I have the right to leave my child in the cold to die, simply because she hasn't developed the ability to fend for herself.
> I am confident that she will get there and my legal duty is to protect her until she does.


You don't have to see any justification.
You just have to accept it's not your decision to make for anyone other than yourself.

Nothing new has been added to this discussion in the last 300 posts


----------



## kasilofhome

As a member of society we do bare the obligation to speak out.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't have to see any justification.
> You just have to accept it's not your decision to make for anyone other than yourself.
> 
> Nothing new has been added to this discussion in the last 300 posts


Are you taking credit for this? You play your cards REALLY close to your chest.

ETA - maybe for you - some here are discussing where it is most proper to identify the child as unique from the mother but you have not contributed didly.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> What child. A human live has a certain DNA requirements.
> And egg and sperm individually lack the qualities to be anything but an egg or sperm till the meet successfully.... fertilization.


This is quite true..... but denying them the opportunity to meet successfully completing that small portion of the life process is exactly the same as any other willful breaking of the chain of reproduction.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> 63 percent of abortions take place 8 at weeks or less.
> 
> There is only reflexes, no cortical activity until much, much later.


I have seen the same number for 12 weeks, but, that is still irrelevant. The right to live should not depend on level of development.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I have seen the same number for 12 weeks, but, that is still irrelevant. The right to live should not depend on level of development.


So every egg and every sperm has the right to life because they are part of that life. All birth control must be outlawed. We will also have o stop eating because all life has the right to live.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't have to see any justification.
> You just have to accept it's not your decision to make for anyone other than yourself.
> 
> Nothing new has been added to this discussion in the last 300 posts


 If I see injustice, is it not my right, AND responsibility to speak out about it? To try to stop the injustice? To defend the defenseless?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Why stop at abortions? Why not just euthanize these burdens on society??


I am pretty sure after they are born and breathing on their own they have the same protections under the law that everyone else has.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, I am familiar with high school biology, and I have baked numerous loaves of bread, pies and cakes too. I have always had to mix the ingredients and bake them for the full amount of time to get a finished product. Failure to mix the ingredients, or complete the baking properly always left me in the same condition I started... hungry! I am pretty sure that by deliberately not mixing the ingredients or remove it from the oven too soon will leave you with the very same result in your biology experiment... no baby!
> There is little point in arguing over which link the chain of life is broken, the life that was meant to be is no more.


Then you were taught that new life starts at fertilization.
That something that is alive AND not separate organism with it's own DNA is just a part of another...


----------



## fireweed farm

Farmerga said:


> Why stop at abortions? Why not just euthanize these burdens on society??


I thought Obama had this in the works?


----------



## Shine

Question: Was it the Slave Owners that decided to no longer hold slaves or did someone else make that decision for them? Is not that something that was legal but was changed into being illegal?

This is the value of this discussion here, not "Oh - it's the law - suck it up and obey."

Slavery was wrong, killing the unborn is wrong and we're here explaining our side, it is your posts that have not changed in the last 300 posts - get it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Are you taking credit for this? You play your cards REALLY close to your chest.
> 
> ETA - maybe for you - some here are discussing where it is most proper to identify the child as unique from the mother but you have not contributed didly.


I'm not "taking credit" for anything. I'm pointing out a reality that anyone who can read can easily confirm.

Most are just repeating the same lines as always, and ignoring the fact the law has made those decisions already.

It's clear some are against all abortions and will accept nothing less than a total ban, so all other discussion is wasted effort.



> Slavery was wrong, killing the unborn is wrong and were here explaining our side, it is your posts that have not changed in the last 300 posts - get it?


See? You repeated it yet again


----------



## Woolieface

fireweed farm said:


> All those millions of unwanted babies carried to term, most born into single parent welfare recipient families??
> 
> Many here endlessly complain about welfare bums and who will forget Obama phones? Who's going to pay the bills? Not just unpaid hospital, what about food, housing, schooling, roads/infrastructure for all of them? Many are going to be crack babies and medical cases.
> 
> This is a huge chunk of who is having abortions. Call it murder or whatever you want, but are you ready for millions more of what you already complain about all day long?


There sure are a lot of people out there who can not support themselves financially. Shall we go ahead and shoot them all?

That, by the way, is coming in the future....


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> So every egg and every sperm has the right to life because they are part of that life. All birth control must be outlawed. We will also have o stop eating because all life has the right to live.


out lawing all birth control is ridiculous.... giving everyone the choice as to which method they prefer is far more sensible. As to eating.... its all part of the life cycle known as the food chain. Perfectly natural and for the most part healthy.


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Same thing if you are looking at it from the childs point of view. I am using the term child here simply to make it easier for you to comprehend. A sperm and egg is not a child, neither is an 8 month old fetus. To become a child it still needs a bit more time to draw that first breath. The point I am trying to make here is that the life is there all along, it has been there for ages. It makes little difference if someone terminates it while its in separate homes or if its progressing in the mothers womb it is still life that wont be a child if someone deliberately alters natures course.


I have had 3 premature grandbabies, one set of twins and one single. They were all less than 8 months. Does that mean that they were fetuses?
All 3 breathed room air til they went on ventilators. They just could not suck so had to stay in neonatal for a while.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure after they are born and breathing on their own they have the same protections under the law that everyone else has.


 They didn't always, but, we, eventually, became more civilized. The march goes on.


----------



## kasilofhome

How about we just outlaw abortion as birth control and deal with contraception with is intended to block fertilization.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> How about we just outlaw abortion as birth control and deal with contraception with is intended to block fertilization.


How about we don't.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So every egg and every sperm has the right to life because they are part of that life. All birth control must be outlawed. We will also have o stop eating because all life has the right to live.


 
We are speaking of unique human life. A embryo, zygote, fetus is unique human life. Sperm is not. Eggs are not, they are part of a unique human life, but, they, themselves, are not. Chickens, cows, pigs, apples, etc, are not human life.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Then you were taught that new life starts at fertilization.
> That something that is alive AND not separate organism with it's own DNA is just a part of another...


That nonsense was indeed presented in my high school biology class. I even believed it for a while. Since that time I have learned better. There is NO NEW LIFE on this planet.... just the same life that began in the beginning that continues regenerating and feeding off of itself.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> We are speaking of unique human life. A embryo, zygote, fetus is unique human life. Sperm is not. Eggs are not, they are part of a unique human life, but, they, themselves, are not. Chickens, cows, pigs, apples, etc, are not human life.


Why do you get to decide what is a unique life or that has more right to live?


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> I have had 3 premature grandbabies, one set of twins and one single. They were all less than 8 months. Does that mean that they were fetuses?
> All 3 breathed room air til they went on ventilators. They just could not suck so had to stay in neonatal for a while.


Once the fetus is born and breathes its first breath they are children... or babies, whichever term you prefer.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That nonsense was indeed presented in my high school biology class. I even believed it for a while. Since that time I have learned better. There is NO NEW LIFE on this planet.... just the same life that began in the beginning that continues regenerating and feeding off of itself.


You have the right to think that.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> We are also talking about a legal medical procedure, and you don't get to choose who does it.
> 
> All the talk about "murder" doesn't really apply as a valid argument, since it's not considered "murder" under the law.
> 
> No one is forced to have an abortion, and no one can force another NOT to have one if that is what they want.
> 
> Your moral or religious objections don't apply to anyone but yourselves
> 
> *Why keep beating the dead horse?*


Because, thankfully, you don't get to silence the debate, you don't get to choose what people discuss.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> How about we just outlaw abortion as birth control and deal with contraception with is intended to block fertilization.


You are perfectly free to practice whatever method of birth control you desire. Isnt having that choice nice? everyone else kinda likes to have their choices respected too.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> You have the right to think that.


Thank you for allowing me that freedom. Do you think you could find it within yourself to allow others to make their own choices when it comes to the brand of birth control they wish to use?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That nonsense was indeed presented in my high school biology class. I even believed it for a while. Since that time I have learned better. There is NO NEW LIFE on this planet.... just the same life that began in the beginning that continues regenerating and feeding off of itself.


I understand what you are saying. Would that line of thinking lead one to believe that no life is worth more than any other? A rat, is a pig, is a boy, as it were?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Because, thankfully, you don't get to silence the debate, *you don't get to choose* what people discuss.


There is no "debate" going on anymore. It's just endless repetition now

You don't get to choose what medical procedures others have done.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "debate" going on anymore. It's just endless repetition now
> 
> You don't get to choose what medical procedures others have done.


With regards to your posts - you are correct, there is no debate going on, what was that Ron White clip about how he won his first debate?

Ah, but we do. PP has given us the edge now with the appearance of impropriety... The pendulum is on the swing again. Let's see where it ends up...


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Ah, but we do. PP has given us the edge now with the *appearance of impropriety*... The pendulum is on the swing again. Let's see where it ends up...


It gives you talking points. It does not move the pendulum. You have to change people's minds to do that. Lies won't to that.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> can I ask ou if an ova and a sperm that has joined will, for the most part, become a child without any intervention?


I would say sometimes.... but theres many a slip twixt the cup and lip.  I am actually surprised that mankind has actually been able to keep itself going at all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Ah, but we do. PP has given us the edge now with the appearance of impropriety... The pendulum is on the swing again. Let's see where it ends up...


There's no "appearance of impropriety" to anyone who read the transcripts without the hype. There's no real evidence there to see.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> I understand what you are saying. Would that line of thinking lead one to believe that no life is worth more than any other? A rat, is a pig, is a boy, as it were?


That would depend on how you assess value. We are all part of that delicate balance. Mankind, plants, and all the lil woods critters have their place in that balance.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Why do you get to decide what is a unique life or that has more right to live?


DNA... same way the identity all live forms


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Thank you for allowing me that freedom. Do you think you could find it within yourself to allow others to make their own choices when it comes to the brand of birth control they wish to use?


No not allowing but recognizing it.

No, as killing is off the plate.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are perfectly free to practice whatever method of birth control you desire. Isnt having that choice nice? everyone else kinda likes to have their choices respected too.


No, the DNA of the life killed has no choice.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> DNA... same way the identity all live forms


I think the question was why do you get to decide.... not why you decided the way you do.


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "appearance of impropriety" to anyone who read the transcripts without the hype. There's no real evidence there to see.


No, that is not a fact... it's been read and support that pp has been battering over human parts.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think the question was why do you get to decide.... not why you decided the way you do.


Answered prior

As this is a societal issue.. I have every right to state my view a work to change things.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> It gives you talking points. It does not move the pendulum. You have to change people's minds to do that. Lies won't to that.


Actually, even outside this forum, there is a debate, and it is entirely possible for that pendulum to be moved, still. 

I went home for lunch and was watching Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC. She had the president of PP on. They were collaboratively discussing what a mistake it would be for the government to cut PP off from federal funding. Obviously, we all know what direction their discussion took, but the fact that they're bringing out the big guns means that they're a least at little scared about where this all can go. 

McConnel has promised to floor a bill to defund PP before the summer recess. 

Of course, this is no guarantee that our lawmakers will do the right thing, but there is a very real chance that PP could be defunded, meaning women will have less ready access to tax-paid fetal hitmen. As more of this disgusting evidence comes out, and more of these discussions happen, more policitcal debates will take place, and the more chances we have to restrict this not-termed-as-such murder. For every ten Kermit Gosselings out there, we're going to find one, and we're going to make sure everyone looks at it. 

The debate is far from over, and I hope the other side is as ready to accept "what is legal is right" when it's activist judges of another bent who are defining right.


----------



## kasilofhome

You wish to silence the helpless..


----------



## fireweed farm

fireweed farm said:


> All those millions of unwanted babies carried to term, most born into single parent welfare recipient families??
> 
> Many here endlessly complain about welfare bums and who will forget Obama phones? Who's going to pay the bills? Not just unpaid hospital, what about food, housing, schooling, roads/infrastructure for all of them? Many are going to be crack babies and medical cases.
> 
> This is a huge chunk of who is having abortions. Call it murder or whatever you want, but are you ready for millions more of what you already complain about all day long?




I'm hoping for an intelligent answer to this.

Are we as a society prepared, ready and willing to take care of millions more babies that the parents don't want or are incapable of providing for themselves without being crybabies about it? 
As it's mainly a religious issue, are churches willing to step up to the challenge?
Are you expecting the government to bear all costs?

I don't think there is a compromise here. So what are you all going to do with all these babies?


----------



## painterswife

fireweed farm said:


> I'm hoping for an intelligent answer to this.
> 
> Are we as a society prepared, ready and willing to take care of millions more babies that the parents don't want or are incapable of providing for themselves without being crybabies about it?
> As it's mainly a religious issue, are churches willing to step up to the challenge?
> Are you expecting the government to bear all costs?
> 
> I don't think there is a compromise here. So what are you all going to do with all these babies?


I imagine that would be another welfare nightmare. Just get pregnant and the government will have to support you. Have the baby hand it off to government and get pregnant again. You could milk that until you are at least 45.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Laws are meant to serve people. People are not meant to serve laws.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No not allowing but recognizing it.
> 
> No, as killing is off the plate.


Ok, who decided that? Last time I looked several forms of birth control along with abortion are still very legal along with numerous other ways to prevent that six year old from tossing rocks through my window.


----------



## kasilofhome

fireweed farm said:


> I'm hoping for an intelligent answer to this.
> 
> Are we as a society prepared, ready and willing to take care of millions more babies that the parents don't want or are incapable of providing for themselves without being crybabies about it?
> As it's mainly a religious issue, are churches willing to step up to the challenge?
> Are you expecting the government to bear all costs?
> 
> I don't think there is a compromise here. So what are you all going to do with all these babies?



I would have gotten two more... I tried.

Adoption is the option of the babies.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Answered prior
> 
> As this is a societal issue.. I have every right to state my view a work to change things.


We all have the right to voice our opinions, I do not deny it and will defend that right with my life if need be.... but that was not the point.... I was wondering myself why you think you get to decide for others? I did not see where you answered it, thats why I asked again.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I would have gotten two more... I tried.
> 
> Adoption is the option of the babies.


You did not meet the requirements for what ever reason so that means you could not take any and can not be counted on to take any.

Have you offered to providing monetary support to a woman so that she would not have an abortion?


----------



## gapeach

fireweed farm said:


> I'm hoping for an intelligent answer to this.
> 
> Are we as a society prepared, ready and willing to take care of millions more babies that the parents don't want or are incapable of providing for themselves without being crybabies about it?
> As it's mainly a religious issue, are churches willing to step up to the challenge?
> Are you expecting the government to bear all costs?
> 
> I don't think there is a compromise here. So what are you all going to do with all these babies?


What is wrong with birth control? People used it before abortions became so popular because of planned parenthood and their "sliding scale". 

Women don't have to get pregnant. There are many kinds of birth control. Depending on abortions like just like being on the welfare dole instead of working. It is a lifestyle.


----------



## kasilofhome

As others before me decided in 1973.. that abortions were legal for me and every female.... but the aborted females


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No, the DNA of the life killed has no choice.


Nor does the life that was lost to abstinence or other birth control methods. Nary a chance any of them have.


----------



## kasilofhome

Been there done that.. you prove to me that an egg is a person and then I will look into it.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Been there done that.. you prove to me that an egg is a person and then I will look into it.


You will have to prove that a fertilized egg is a person.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> You wish to silence the helpless..


The helpless you refer to will be no quieter than those who fell victim to other methods of silencing them... such as IUDs, Rythm, and yes even abstinence. Their DNA will be forever lost to the gene pool as well.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The helpless you refer to will be no quieter than those who fell victim to other methods of silencing them... such as IUDs, Rythm, and yes even abstinence. Their DNA will be forever lost to the gene pool as well.



The DNA it possess is not completed as 50 percent is missing.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> The DNA it possess is not completed as 50 percent is missing.


Having DNA does not make anything a person. Plants have DNA. Chickens have DNA.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Been there done that.. you prove to me that an egg is a person and then I will look into it.


I am sure you know that egg, all other things being in proper order, will become a person if allowed to follow natures intended course for it just the exact same way a fetus will if left to its own devises. Women dont lay those things just to have something to whine about, they are there for one purpose and that is to become a person.


----------



## kasilofhome

And the natural course is simply to be available for a chance to be fertilized.

In as we are allowed to persuade happiness there is no mandated right to happiness.

And so it is for the egg a sperm... just a chance...


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> The DNA it possess is not completed as 50 percent is missing.


All the more reason to assume the position and let the other 50 percent be delivered!


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> And the natural course is simply to be available for a chance to be fertilized.
> 
> In as we are allowed to persuade happiness there is no mandated right to happiness.
> 
> And so it is for the egg a sperm... just a chance...


Just a chance to not be aborted. The owner of the body that the egg needs get to decide when and if it gets that chance.


----------



## kasilofhome

Abortion is a planned event to kill.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Abortion is a planned event to kill.


So is hunting for food.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> And the natural course is simply to be available for a chance to be fertilized.


I think your getting it now. The natural course should no more be interfered with when its ready than to be interfered with after the conception. Either one disposes of a 5 year old child a bit later down the road.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> Have you offered to providing monetary support to a woman so that she would not have an abortion?


Yep. I can show you a line that says FICA on everyone of my pay stubs. 

I know that my money goes to pay for children who's parents can't or won't work, and I accept that I will never see any of the benefit I am supposedly paying into for my own future. 

So, yeah, there is a financial safety net, that comes directly out of my pocket, that women who chose not to murder their children can draft off of.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Abortion is a planned event to kill.


Abstinence is a planned event to prevent a child from ever breathing too. Sorry, but facts is facts and you do not have the right to decide what method of prevention is acceptable to others.


----------



## kasilofhome

It allows an egg to pass as it is an egg. Nothing more no life destroyed as the seed of potential life fell on barren ground.... never to any thing but and egg


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "appearance of impropriety" to anyone who read the transcripts without the hype. There's no real evidence there to see.


Again, that's not what people are saying in discussions around the country. Even some liberals are repulsed by some of the comments in the videos/transcripts and are questioning what's going on @ PP.

But go ahead & keep telling yourself that there's nothing wrong, if that helps you cope. :thumb:


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> It allows an egg to pass as it is an egg. Nothing more no life destroyed as the seed of potential life fell on barren ground.... never to any thing but and egg


Exactly, never to live out its life, never to see a sunset, or roll in the grass with a puppy, nary a chance to be an adult and pass its dna on to the next generation.... just a rotted egg on the ground. At least it wont take up as much room as the aborted fetus who will never see the light of day either. but hey, its mother is much holier than those who would snuff out that same egg a couple weeks later.


----------



## kasilofhome

That is a natural life cycle of an egg just to potential be there at the magic moment. Not a promise.. look at all the sperm... yet only one can fertilize an egg... the rest die and pass as discharge.


----------



## fireweed farm

gapeach said:


> What is wrong with birth control? People used it before abortions became so popular because of planned parenthood and their "sliding scale".
> 
> Women don't have to get pregnant. There are many kinds of birth control. Depending on abortions like just like being on the welfare dole instead of working. It is a lifestyle.



Turns out that isn't going to happen- you aren't being realistic- whether it's our education system, lack of sexual education, lack of access to birth control... or just plain old dumb people being rabbits... 

So... since they keep getting pregnant who's gonna pay for the babies?


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> Having DNA does not make anything a person. Plants have DNA. Chickens have DNA.


But a fetus/baby has it's own DNA, *unique* of it's mother or father.

It is a unique human being.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> But a fetus/baby has it's own DNA, *unique* of it's mother or father.


How does having unique DNA make it a person? Chickens have unique DNA, puppies have unique DNA.


----------



## fireweed farm

So the only plan for millions of unwanted babies is- they shouldn't get pregnant in the first place?
Intelligent people need plans based in reality.

Come on guys what's the plan?


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Abstinence is a planned event to prevent a child from ever breathing too.


Nope.

Abstinence is a planned event to prevent a child from ever being conceived.

But you already knew that.


----------



## kasilofhome

fireweed farm said:


> Turns out that isn't going to happen- you aren't being realistic- whether it's our education system, lack of sexual education, lack of access to birth control... or just plain old dumb people being rabbits...
> 
> So... since they keep getting pregnant who's gonna pay for the babies?


Show me where there is a lack of birth control available...
It a lack of effort, planning, responsible, ...

Wants and demanding is not planning..... fifty percent of ppl name is where the failure is.


PLANNING


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> That is a natural life cycle of an egg just to potential be there at the magic moment. Not a promise.. look at all the sperm... yet only one can fertilize an egg... the rest die and pass as discharge.


An interesting way to look at it to say the least. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me to be quite a waste of intricately designed plumbing for the eggs "natural" life cycle to be being passed out and dumped with the trash. I could a sworn its whole purpose of being was for reproduction and the carrying on of life. :shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome

Yes, done to allow for ten year old not to have to find child care 

Yes, it is done because the monthly need to find a male a female wants is hard.


----------



## fireweed farm

kasilofhome said:


> Show me where there is a lack of birth control available...
> It a lack of effort, planning, responsible, ...
> 
> Wants and demanding is not planning..... fifty percent of ppl name is where the failure is.
> 
> 
> PLANNING


Well PLANNING isn't working is it. So what about the millions of UNWANTED babies?


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> Nope.
> 
> Abstinence is a planned event to prevent a child from ever being conceived.
> 
> But you already knew that.


yep I already knew that. This does raise a question though.... if that child is never conceived, will it ever breath? or watch a sunset? or play with puppies? I think those parts of life might have been fun for the lil tyke had momma not opted to let it rot.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> An interesting way to look at it to say the least. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me to be quite a waste of intricately designed plumbing for the eggs "natural" life cycle to be being passed out and dumped with the trash. I could a sworn its whole purpose of being was for reproduction and the carrying on of life. :shrug:


Look at how nature goes overboard on excess sperm when one one can make it and fertilize.


----------



## Txsteader

Txsteader said:


> But a fetus/baby has it's own DNA, *unique* of it's mother or father.
> 
> It is a unique human being.





painterswife said:


> How does having unique DNA make it a person? Chickens have unique DNA, puppies have unique DNA.


Read it again.....unless you're being intentionally obtuse.


----------



## kasilofhome

fireweed farm said:


> Well PLANNING isn't working is it. So what about the millions of UNWANTED babies?


Why are persons so unwilling to plan... there's no shortage of birth control.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Read it again.....unless you're being intentionally obtuse.


That was not there when I quoted you.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Why are persons so unwilling to plan... there's no shortage of birth control.


Birth control fails.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> No, that is not a fact... it's been read and support that pp has been battering over human parts.


That's the hype, not the reality


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Laws are meant *to serve people*. People are not meant to serve laws.


That's why the laws were changed in the 70's to allow abortions


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Look at how nature goes overboard on excess sperm when one one can make it and fertilize.


With the sperm there needs to be lots and lots of them.... first off its a very long arduous swim for the little guys, and being male most will get lost because they wont stop and ask directions!


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> With the sperm there needs to be lots and lots of them.... first off its a very long arduous swim for the little guys, and being male most will get lost because they wont stop and ask directions!


Seems your logic each is a baby. It is equal in the fertilization...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> What is wrong with birth control? People used it before abortions became so popular because of planned parenthood and their "sliding scale".
> 
> *Women don't have to get pregnant*. There are many kinds of birth control. Depending on abortions like just like being on the welfare dole instead of working. It is a lifestyle.


That's a totally unrealistic view.

They don't "have to" but history has shown they will, regardless of how many kinds of birth control are available.

If birth control alone really worked, abortions would never have been made legal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Again, that's not what people are saying in discussions around the country. Even some liberals are repulsed by some of the comments in the videos/transcripts and are questioning what's going on @ PP.
> 
> But go ahead & keep telling yourself that there's nothing wrong, if that helps you cope. :thumb:


That just proves many don't comprehend what they read, or they never bothered to read it to begin with.

Most barely make it past a headline before going off on a rant


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Birth control fails.


Adoptions happen


----------



## kasilofhome

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's why the laws were changed in the 70's to allow abortions


And will it change in 2015 I hope.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Adoptions happen


Yet we have children begging to be adopted. Solve that problem first and people might take your stance more seriously.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Seems your logic each is a baby. It is equal in the fertilization...


Thats never been my logic, others keep trying to make it mine, but I cant help that. folks do believe what they want to believe.  

In another thread there were several who were totally convinced that I thought slavery was a good thing too.:hammer:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Adoptions happen


Not as many as there are children waiting
Why add millions more?



> And will it change in 2015 I hope.


No, it's not going to change.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's why the laws were changed in the 70's to allow abortions


Really? I thought the laws were changed to improve women's health, physical and mental. I thought the idea was to allow them adequate care in an appropriate setting since abortions had been happening for centuries, and women were pursuing them under dangerous conditions to avoid finishing th pregnancy and/or going to jail.

Outpatient clinics are not the best equipped to handle complications or have other medical professionals on hand if the patient or doctor needs assistance.

And, I still believe based on sharing experiences with folks in real life and reading over the years that the system we're using now is really failing plenty of women in the information department for not just other options besides abortion, but for what the consequences short and long term could be to the woman. Also, consequences that could affect future pregnancies and children she may want later.

I don't want to force women to not make the choice for themselves. But, regardless of whether anyone is prochoice or prolife, women need better info and services offered for before, during, and after care.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> That just proves many don't comprehend what they read, or they never bothered to read it to begin with.
> 
> Most barely make it past a headline before going off on a rant


Well, you're talking about some fairly prominent liberals/Democrats.

And I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Really? I thought the laws were changed to improve women's health, physical and mental. I thought the idea was to allow them adequate care in an appropriate setting since abortions had been happening for centuries, and women were pursuing them under dangerous conditions to avoid finishing th pregnancy and/or going to jail.


All those fall under the "serve the people" catagory



> And, I still believe based on sharing experiences with folks in real life and reading over the years that the system we're using now is really failing plenty of women in the information department for not just other options besides abortion, but for what the consequences short and long term could be to the woman. Also, consequences that could affect future pregnancies and children she may want later.


Your "belief" doesn't mean it's true.

Women are more informed now than at any time in history, due to all those "medical advances" you so often mention.



> Outpatient clinics are not the best equipped to handle complications or have other medical professionals on hand if the patient or doctor needs assistance.


That has nothing to do with the right to choose to have an abortion.
The Drs in the clinics are the same as the Drs at the hospital


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Well, you're talking about some fairly prominent liberals/Democrats.
> 
> And I'll leave it at that.


Ignorance knows no boundaries, and there's plenty on both sides of the issue
It makes no difference to me how you choose to label people


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Ignorance knows no boundaries, and there's plenty on both sides of the issue


Indeed and apparently anybody who disagrees w/ you falls into that category.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Indeed and apparently anybody who disagrees w/ you falls into that category.


You assume facts not in evidence.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Yet we have children begging to be adopted. Solve that problem first and people might take your stance more seriously.


And we have few babies to place in the homes truly wanted.
Thus people wanting babies head to other countries.
Children that are having issues be adopted are older because the majority of those children are the products of parents who have sex with out PLANNING, they are ill prepared to support the child did not PLAN for raising the child. Many females want the child to have the child provide for the mother live and acceptance. In short too selfish to give the baby up and when the living baby doll is no longer meeting their needs the parents fail to provide for the child, the government steps in and dangle the youngster as a toy to get the parent to become responsible... often this phase takes years before the the courts sever parental rights.

During such time the child gets screwed around messed worse.

PARENTs NOT PLANNING equals justification for PLAN PARENTHOOD.

So, lets look at solutions.
Minors.. if you can plan birth control you can't keep the newborn.
Non adults single parents at birth..one year of child protection visits and parenting classes including planning skills.
That would reduce older children destroyed by selfish irresponsible parents.
Speed up the adoption lower the cost.
My son's adoption cost a bit over 27 k.... That amount was worth it but many can not afford it.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> And we have few babies to place in the homes truly wanted.
> Thus people wanting babies head to other countries.
> Children that are having issues be adopted are older because the majority of those children are the products of parents who have sex with out PLANNING, they are ill prepared to support the child did not PLAN for raising the child. Many females want the child to have the child provide for the mother live and acceptance. In short too selfish to give the baby up and when the living baby doll is no longer meeting their needs the parents fail to provide for the child, the government steps in and dangle the youngster as a toy to get the parent to become responsible... often this phase takes years before the the courts sever parental rights.
> 
> During such time the child gets screwed around messed worse.
> 
> PARENTs NOT PLANNING equals justification for PLAN PARENTHOOD.
> 
> So, lets look at solutions.
> Minors.. if you can plan birth control you can't keep the newborn.
> Non adults single parents at birth..one year of child protection visits and parenting classes including planning skills.
> That would reduce older children destroyed by selfish irresponsible parents.


Sorry if you are only willing to take babies then you don't deserve to adopt. This was meant as the general you and not a particular you.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> All those fall under the "serve the people" catagory
> 
> 
> Your "belief" doesn't mean it's true.
> 
> Women are more informed now than at any time in history, due to all those "medical advances" you so often mention.
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the right to choose to have an abortion.
> The Drs in the clinics are the same as the Drs at the hospital


Your unbelief is based on what exactly? I've never claimed all women are uninformed. Just that there seems to be enough to make efforts to improve worthwhile.

The drs may be the same, but the equipment and resources are different in out patient care vs a hospital. That's why an obgyn delivers their patient at the hospital instead of his office or clinic.


----------



## kasilofhome

Really.. ... cause I had two other older children.... That when it was noted I was white after six months they were removed..I wanted to adopt them as well and was working on it.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Really.. ... cause I had two other older children.... That when it was noted I was white after six months they were removed..I wanted to adopt them as well and was working on it.


I can only assume that has to do with Tribal laws. That really has nothing to do with the children still waiting to be adopted that you could adopt.


----------



## wr

kasilofhome said:


> And we have few babies to place in the homes truly wanted.
> Thus people wanting babies head to other countries.
> Children that are having issues be adopted are older because the majority of those children are the products of parents who have sex with out PLANNING, they are ill prepared to support the child did not PLAN for raising the child. Many females want the child to have the child provide for the mother live and acceptance. In short too selfish to give the baby up and when the living baby doll is no longer meeting their needs the parents fail to provide for the child, the government steps in and dangle the youngster as a toy to get the parent to become responsible... often this phase takes years before the the courts sever parental rights.
> 
> During such time the child gets screwed around messed worse.
> 
> PARENTs NOT PLANNING equals justification for PLAN PARENTHOOD.
> 
> So, lets look at solutions.
> Minors.. if you can plan birth control you can't keep the newborn.
> Non adults single parents at birth..one year of child protection visits and parenting classes including planning skills.
> That would reduce older children destroyed by selfish irresponsible parents.



If those folks truly wanted a child and met the criteria for adopting, they could most assuredly bring home a child with birth defects, FAS, Down's Syndrome or perhaps a baby born crack addicted. What they truly want is a healthy, perfectly developed child with no flaws. 

Quite often the reason for adopting outside the country is because they don't meet the requirements to adopt or their adoption expectations are unrealistic, which has often played out quite publicly, in a couple of cases, adoptive parents wanted to return those children right back to the country they came from.


----------



## kasilofhome

Wr, please support you position.

Links, research....something more that your opinion.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> And we have few babies to place in the homes truly wanted.
> Thus people wanting babies head to other countries.
> Children that are having issues be adopted are older because the majority of those children are the products of parents who have sex with out PLANNING, they are ill prepared to support the child did not PLAN for raising the child. Many females want the child to have the child provide for the mother live and acceptance. In short too selfish to give the baby up and when the living baby doll is no longer meeting their needs the parents fail to provide for the child, the government steps in and dangle the youngster as a toy to get the parent to become responsible... often this phase takes years before the the courts sever parental rights.
> 
> During such time the child gets screwed around messed worse.
> 
> PARENTs NOT PLANNING equals justification for PLAN PARENTHOOD.
> 
> So, lets look at solutions.
> Minors.. if you can plan birth control you can't keep the newborn.
> Non adults single parents at birth..one year of child protection visits and parenting classes including planning skills.
> That would reduce older children destroyed by selfish irresponsible parents.
> Speed up the adoption lower the cost.
> My son's adoption cost a bit over 27 k.... That amount was worth it but many can not afford it.


The more I read this the crazier it becomes.

Older children up for adoption because parents did not plan. Guess how many more older children would be out their begging to be adopted because there was no abortion and the parents did not really wanted them and tried to race them and failed.

There would be more unwanted to adopt but no one to adopt them because of the glut of BABIES that are wanted. No one would have to resort to taking those older children.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well, how about your ideals for a solution that does not include killing


----------



## Jolly

Txsteader said:


> Indeed and apparently anybody who disagrees w/ you falls into that category.


I've gone to a bear-free zone. No sense in banging one's head against the wall, arguing with some folks, unless one just likes to do that sort of thing...


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> I can only assume that has to do with Tribal laws. That really has nothing to do with the children still waiting to be adopted that you could adopt.


Um..... locally there are like a lot of natives.
Took five years to adopt
Because of the cost I learned first hand I could not afford it
Because I am kinda busy know

So, besides supporting killing babies... what have you done, and have you any ideas to resolve the issues.

Also what if any first hand knowledge do you have of the system and situation of adoption.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Well, how about your ideals for a solution that does not include killing


As I have said before I have no problem with abortion up to about 16 weeks. I don't believe it is what you call killing. Therefore I don't need to find a solution.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, Bear, is it safe to assume that you're already typing up your repeated-ad-nauseum "just because you believe it doesn't make it true" for Mrs. Painter here?
> 
> I mean, 'cause she's, you know, imposing her beliefs on others' decisions and passing judgment, and stuff.
> 
> Here I am standing here, holding my last earthly dollar, ready to bet it that you have at least a shred of integrity.
> 
> You're not gonna leave me hanging are you?


Expressing my opinion is imposing my beliefs on who?


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Um..... locally there are like a lot of natives.
> Took five years to adopt
> Because of the cost I learned first hand I could not afford it
> Because I am kinda busy know
> 
> *So, besides supporting killing babies... what have you done, and have you any ideas to resolve the issues.
> 
> Also what if any first hand knowledge do you have of the system and situation of adoption.*


What does that have to do with this thread? I don't have the same issues you do.


----------



## Woolieface

16 weeks









_

" Your baby is around 5 to 6.5 in (13 to 17 cm) in length and weighs around 3.5 to 5 oz (100 to 140 g) in pregnancy 16 weeks.
Your baby has grown strong enough to hold his or her head straighter.
During this time, his or her eyes and ears are moving into their final position.
By now, your baby's nails are well formed and some babies are even in the need to trim their nails at birth.
Within pregnancy week 16, your baby starts growing fine hair on top of his or her head. The color of the hair and even the eyes may change shortly after birth.
Your baby is now more focusing much of the energy on circulation system, which his or her heart is pumping around 25 quarts (~24 liter) of blood every day!
Also, the limb movements of your baby are becoming more coordinated by this week 16 pregnancy."_

http://www.yourpregnancy-weekbyweek.com/pregnancy-16-weeks.html

"..don't believe it is what you call killing..."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Indeed and apparently anybody who disagrees w/ you falls into that category.


No, just the ones who show ignorance.
You make too many assumptions and use too many labels


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> Your unbelief is based on what exactly? I've never claimed all women are uninformed. Just that there seems to be enough to make efforts to improve worthwhile.
> 
> The drs may be the same, but the equipment and resources are different in out patient care vs a hospital. That's why an obgyn delivers their patient at the hospital instead of his office or clinic.


They deliver at hospitals because they are open 24/7 and have their own nursing staffs and facilities. It's more for convenience than from necessity.

Most abortions are handled quite well in an out-patient setting, so it's a straw man argument anyway


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Your unbelief is based on what exactly?


Largely from having a wife who works in medicine, and worked many years for an OB-GYN.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Largely from having a wife who works in medicine, and worked many years for an OB-GYN.


I see. So, your belief about the experience of patients is taken from the view of a provider.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> I see. So, your belief about the experience of patients is taken from the view of a provider.


And yours is taken from what? Anecdotes? Maybe you should go undercover to clinics and see how much info is given. I am curious though. Are you of the school of thought that women should be forced to have an ultrasound before aborting?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> I see. So, your belief about the experience of patients is taken from the view of a provider.


I know patients too.

I've also been a patient, and I know how I was informed of all procedures, so your complaints don't match my experience


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "appearance of impropriety" to anyone who read the transcripts without the hype. There's no real evidence there to see.


This is one of those "sez you" moments... could not resist.


----------



## Lisa in WA

personally, I think Gibbsgirl is of the opinion that no one could possibly want to terminate a pregnancy if they were "fully informed". Thus, if she could only fully inform them, they wouldn't abort. So she wants as many roadblocks and hoops to jump through as possible till they are "fully informed" by her standards.

I think it is unspeakably arrogant to presume that she can manage to inform and educate herself, but other women can't and need her to intercede.

She clearly has a very high opinion of her own intelligence in comparison with other women.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> I know patients too.
> 
> I've also been a patient, and I know how I was informed of all procedures, so your complaints don't match my experience


And, I can look at your experience and mine and others and believe they are mostly all true (obviously not everyone on the world is 100% honest, so I do think things should be taken with a grain of salt).

My impression from your posts on this, is that if someone says your experience may have been en different than others, yours is true and theirs is false.


----------



## painterswife

basketti said:


> personally, I think Gibbsgirl is of the opinion that no one could possibly want to terminate a pregnancy if they were "fully informed". Thus, if she could only fully inform them, they wouldn't abort. So she wants as many roadblocks and hoops to jump through as possible till they are "fully informed" by her standards.
> 
> I think it is unspeakably arrogant to presume that she can manage to inform and educate herself, but other women can't and need her to intercede.
> 
> She clearly has a very high opinion of her own intelligence in comparison with other women.



I wonder what she is doing to make sure these people are informed? Has she started a website? I know that when I want info about my medical procedures I start googling.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Don't believe I insulted bear, WR. 
Just suggested that if he didn't try to shoot someone else down, for their opinion not making something true like he somehow feels is his duty to tell every single person I the other side, that that was a lack of integrity. 

Not an insult, kind of a definition, really. 

But, since you've already taken a side in this debate, should I see the reasoning as self-evident?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> And, I can look at your experience and mine and others and believe they are mostly all true (obviously not everyone on the world is 100% honest, so I do think things should be taken with a grain of salt).
> 
> My impression from your posts on this, is that if someone says your experience may have been en different than others, *yours is true and theirs is false.*


You assume with your posts that you kmow that most women seeking abortions are uninformed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> This is one of those "sez you" moments... could not resist.


What was actually stated in the transcripts doesn't match what is implied in the headlines. 

It has nothing to do with anything I said, but what the Drs truly said as opposed to the allegations made.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> personally, I think Gibbsgirl is of the opinion that no one could possibly want to terminate a pregnancy if they were "fully informed". Thus, if she could only fully inform them, they wouldn't abort. So she wants as many roadblocks and hoops to jump through as possible till they are "fully informed" by her standards.
> 
> I think it is unspeakably arrogant to presume that she can manage to inform and educate herself, but other women can't and need her to intercede.
> 
> She clearly has a very high opinion of her own intelligence in comparison with other women.


No, I get the feeling the Gibbs Girl is looking through the reality glass at some apathetic, unaware, sloths of the human race who desire the easy way out, PP is there to save the day and badda bing - badda boom - no more inconvenience. However, if'n they were shown things, it just might wake them up to their actions. Calls 'em how I sees 'em...


----------



## Lisa in WA

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Don't believe I insulted bear, WR.
> Just suggested that if he didn't try to shoot someone else down, for their opinion not making something true like he somehow feels is his duty to tell every single person I the other side, that that was a lack of integrity.
> 
> Not an insult, kind of a definition, really.
> 
> But, since you've already taken a side in this debate, should I see the reasoning as self-evident?


It was a dead on, ad hominem attack. You made the remark, so stop blaming the mods for removing it and shifting responsibility.


----------



## kasilofhome

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...as-medicaid-contract-with-planned-parenthood/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My impression from your posts on this, is that if someone says your experience may have been en different than others, *yours is true and theirs is false*.


And just how is that different from most others, including yourself?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> No, I get the feeling the Gibbs Girl is looking through the reality glass at some apathetic, unaware, sloths of the human race who desire the easy way out, PP is there to save the day and badda bing - badda boom - no more inconvenience. However, if'n they were shown things, it just might wake them up to their actions. Calls 'em how I sees 'em...


Do they not have the right to be apathetic and unaware and slothful? What can you do to make them different? Make the decision for them?


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> You assume facts not in evidence.


Why do you keep insisting that people are basing their opinions on the edited videos? You honestly don't think they're reading the transcript or watching the full videos?

Or do you think all those who are expressing concern/outrage are unable to comprehend the spoken/written word?


----------



## Txsteader

There are a lot more people on the web criticizing the videos than are defending them; a couple of the most liberal sites are trying to defend, as would be expected. 

One thing is certain, it's being talked about all over the media......radio, TV, internet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Why do you keep insisting that people are basing their opinions on the edited videos? You *honestly don't think they're reading the transcript* or watching the full videos?
> 
> Or do you think all those who are expressing concern/outrage are unable to comprehend the spoken/written word?


Mainly because they keep parroting the misconceptions from the video when the transcript shows the discrepancies


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> There are a lot *more people on the web criticizing the videos* than are defending them; a couple of the most liberal sites are trying to defend, as would be expected.
> 
> One thing is certain, it's being talked about all over the media......radio, TV, internet.


That makes no difference at all.
People are easily lead, and like to rant even when they aren't really informed


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Indeed and apparently anybody who disagrees w/ you falls into that category.





painterswife said:


> You assume facts not in evidence.





Txsteader said:


> Why do you keep insisting that people are basing their opinions on the edited videos? You honestly don't think they're reading the transcript or watching the full videos?
> 
> Or do you think all those who are expressing concern/outrage are unable to comprehend the spoken/written word?


Look at what my post was about. Not the video but your assumptions about another poster.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> Sorry if you are only willing to take babies then you don't deserve to adopt. This was meant as the general you and not a particular you.





basketti said:


> It was a dead on, ad hominem attack. You made the remark, so stop blaming the mods for removing it and shifting responsibility.


Just because you see it that way doesn't make it true. Besides, you said "attack" which is a blatant attempt on your part to dramatize your view and hyperbolize the reality of the incident, so your views and opinions on this are longer valid. Thanks for playing. 

Why does that sound familiar? creepy 

Anyway, PW stated a judgmental view that was counter to current law, which, if the 1001 other posts on the subject is any indicator, begets a "just because you say it doesn't make it true" from Bear. Failing to call her on it shows a lack of integrity. That's not an insult, it's a statement of fact in spirit of the definition of the word.


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> personally, I think Gibbsgirl is of the opinion that no one could possibly want to terminate a pregnancy if they were "fully informed". Thus, if she could only fully inform them, they wouldn't abort. So she wants as many roadblocks and hoops to jump through as possible till they are "fully informed" by her standards.
> 
> I think it is unspeakably arrogant to presume that she can manage to inform and educate herself, but other women can't and need her to intercede.
> 
> She clearly has a very high opinion of her own intelligence in comparison with other women.


Why don't you let me speak for myself, huh? And, you can tell people your thoughts instead of what you think mine are.

IMO, chances are some women would choose not to have an abortion if they had more info, and some women would choose to have an abortion if they had more info. I'm not sure which would increase or decrease, but at least they would be more prepared for the first experience nce and results if either having a kid or having an abortion. Hopefully, they wouldn't have regrets and would feel more at ease an confident about whatever they chose. Hopefully they would feel that there were resources out there they could easily access for any short or long term questions or possible physical or mental consequences. Some don't have that experience, so I think there's room for improvement.

Why on earth do you think I personally think I need to intercede. I'm. Talking about improving services, info and access for women within the healthcare and community systems.

What n did I ever say I was more capable of being informed than other women? There's a lot of people who learn stuff in hindsight that would have maybe spared them problems had they known something before hand.

Yes, I personally find abortion a really hard thing to support. But, I'm still prochoice and don't think I need to decide for anyone else. Can you really not wrap your head around the idea that I can separate my feelings about the death of an aborted child from seeing that I've met and read about plenty of women who gave had short and long-term problems after abortion/s and were frustrated because they didn't understand it was related to the abortion until it was a major problem or at least they had lived with it for quite awhile?

Good grief, I'm not villifying women who choose them. I don't like it, but I can't stand how "private" society acts like these women should be. I've known a few women who didn't even want drs or spouses to know they had abortions in their past for fear of j dgment and/or denial and grief, and their drs actually really needed to know that because it was relevant to what was going on with them.

But, you go ahead and keep trying to convince people I'm arrogant or write posts that are too long or rambling. Whatever you need to do. I'll still keep saying I think mothers need more support than they're getting before, during, and after abortion and I think it could be improved.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Why don't you let me speak for myself, huh? And, you can tell people your thoughts instead of what you think mine are.
> 
> IMO, chances are some women would choose not to have an abortion if they had more info, and some women would choose to have an abortion if they had more info. I'm not sure which would increase or decrease, but at least they would be more prepared for the first experience nce and results if either having a kid or having an abortion. Hopefully, they wouldn't have regrets and would feel more at ease an confident about whatever they chose. Hopefully they would feel that there were resources out there they could easily access for any short or long term questions or possible physical or mental consequences. Some don't have that experience, so I think there's room for improvement.
> 
> Why on earth do you think I personally think I need to intercede. I'm. Talking about improving services, info and access for women within the healthcare and community systems.
> 
> What n did I ever say I was more capable of being informed than other women? There's a lot of people who learn stuff in hindsight that would have maybe spared them problems had they known something before hand.
> 
> Yes, I personally find abortion a really hard thing to support. But, I'm still prochoice and don't think I need to decide for anyone else. Can you really not wrap your head around the idea that I can separate my feelings about the death of an aborted child from seeing that I've met and read about plenty of women who gave had short and long-term problems after abortion/s and were frustrated because they didn't understand it was related to the abortion until it was a major problem or at least they had lived with it for quite awhile?
> 
> Good grief, I'm not villifying women who choose them. I don't like it, but I can't stand how "private" society acts like these women should be. I've known a few women who didn't even want drs or spouses to know they had abortions in their past for fear of j dgment and/or denial and grief, and their drs actually really needed to know that because it was relevant to what was going on with them.
> 
> But, you go ahead and keep trying to convince people I'm arrogant or write posts that are too long or rambling. Whatever you need to do. I'll still keep saying I think mothers need more support than they're getting before, during, and after abortion and I think it could be improved.


So now it's just "support" you want for them, before during or after. In all of your other posts it was all about more "information" prior to abortion. 

Sorry, I think it's all a lot of double speak for you wanting to thrown up roadblocks.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Just because you see it that way doesn't make it true. Besides, you said "attack" which is a blatant attempt on your part to dramatize your view and hyperbolize the reality of the incident, so your views and opinions on this are longer valid. Thanks for playing.
> 
> Why does that sound familiar? creepy
> 
> Anyway, PW stated a judgmental view that was counter to current law, which, if the 1001 other posts on the subject is any indicator, begets a "just because you say it doesn't make it true" from Bear. Failing to call her on it shows a lack of integrity. That's not an insult, it's a statement of fact in spirit of the definition of the word.


*YES*, it was *my opinion*. Never said it was a law,


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> You assume with your posts that you kmow that most women seeking abortions are uninformed.


I haven't assumed how many women are less informed. Only that I've seen enough in my lifetime to come to the conclusion that it could absolutely be improved. Plus, I've read about many others.

So, while I have my own feelings, I'm still not interested in spending my time, money, etc fighting to personally overturn rie v Wade. I think it obviously should be revisited periodically so the current citizens can decide if it's right/wrong or otherwise. But, honestly I think that about many laws and rulings.

What I am interested in doing is supporting women's health improving. We're very good at acute care in this country. But, not so great at health education, chronic, care, nutrition, palliative care, mental care, rehab, etc. And with abortion there's more that goes on before and after than just the abortion procedure.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> I haven't assumed how many women are less informed. Only that I've seen enough in my lifetime to come to the conclusion that it could absolutely be improved. Plus, I've read about many others.
> 
> So, while I have my own feelings, I'm still not interested in spending my time, money, etc fighting to personally overturn rie v Wade. I think it obviously should be revisited periodically so the current citizens can decide if it's right/wrong or otherwise. But, honestly I think that about many laws and rulings.
> 
> What I am interested in doing is supporting women's health improving. We're very good at acute care in this country. But, not so great at health education, chronic, care, nutrition, palliative care, mental care, rehab, etc. And with abortion there's more that goes on before and after than just the abortion procedure.




Do you believe that all women should have an ultrasound prior to termination of pregnancy?


----------



## fireweed farm

Still nobody wants to give a reality based answer as to what will be done with the millions of unwanted babies.

Look, nobody likes abortion, not more than a root canal or putting your dog to sleep. But it's for when doors close and there are no other options. Perhaps raped, a defect that will give the child a life of misery, perhaps an abusive spouse and a horrible future, perhaps poor unwed, maybe crackheads, maybe a highschool kids that made a mistake that don't want to wind up on welfare. Who knows!

So give us some REAL options. Or get off your high horse!


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> So now it's just "support" you want for them, before during or after. In all of your other posts it was all about more "information" prior to abortion.
> 
> Sorry, I think it's all a lot of double speak for you wanting to thrown up roadblocks.


Good grief. Information is support. Information is also part of what helps patients know what services are available and how to make use of them. Information is also supportive because it helps people decipher when they are experiences something beyond just the typical issues so they can recognize more easily of they are OK or should get themselves some medical help.


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> Good grief. Information is support. Information is also part of what helps patients know what services are available and how to make use of them. Information is also supportive because it helps people decipher when they are experiences something beyond just the typical issues so they can recognize more easily of they are OK or should get themselves some medical help.


If they made it to Planned Parenthood they are getting the information they need.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gibbsgirl said:


> Good grief. Information is support. Information is also part of what helps patients know what services are available and how to make use of them. Information is also supportive because it helps people decipher when they are experiences something beyond just the typical issues so they can recognize more easily of they are OK or should get themselves some medical help.


Then you should support the heck out of planned parenthood because this is what they do.

What about the ultrasounds?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

painterswife said:


> *YES*, it was *my opinion*. Never said it was a law,


And no one here has claimed that murdering children is against the law - that's kind of the whole reason we're having this discussion- but that hasn't stopped certain people from stating that that makes our opinions invalid, an imposition against others, or "not true despite out having said it". If you are saying that couples who prefer to adopt a baby, over an older child, don't deserve one, you are judging them, and imposing on their choice by implication that they don't "deserve" one. 

In a reasonable, rational debate, I wouldn't take issue with you on that. I would see it as your opinion, and either point off of it or move on. But, we're no longer having a reasonable, rational debate. Bear and Pixie saw to that some time ago with their hypocritical judgment, condescension, and playground argument tactics. 

Sorry, I just thought I was playing by the new rules. 
Forgive me for looking for a little integrity in my adversaries.


----------



## Lisa in WA

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And no one here has claimed that murdering children is against the law - that's kind of the whole reason we're having this discussion.....



Yeah, actually you have. "Murder" by definition is illegal.


----------



## Sawmill Jim

painterswife said:


> Life or biological activity? Is something without a functioning brain life? Would you fight to keep alive a fetus that develops with no brain?[/QUOTE
> 
> If someone hadn't in the past these boards would be lonely :sing:


----------



## gibbsgirl

basketti said:


> Do you believe that all women should have an ultrasound prior to termination of pregnancy?


I don't have a problem with it being offered. But, I think it's important for wmoen to be offered info about how developed the baby is. It might make them decide either way to know. It would at least allow a woman to be free to set her own timeframe for when she felt she personally was comfortable with as her own deadline to decide. The number could be different, I'm just using these for the sake of an example.



I can see that having value for a woman who let's say is 4-6 weeks pregnant and for her let's say she's given info about her baby's gestational development that she wasn't 100% sure of. Then let's say she decides that she's comfortable with having an abortion as long as its before 16 weeks. 

Some women may be very decided and not need that info. But, plenty aren't and giving them that info would allow them to decide for themselves what's OK.

I think there are benefits to women deciding for themselves when they're comfortable or no longer comfortable keeping abortion as an option. Not rushing isn't always a tactic to delay and force someone to change their mind. It can be a help to some women to feel they have some flexibility to plan when the abortion would happen on their own timeline, so the rest of their life isn't completely thrown into a tailspin with work, school, childcare, etc obligations.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> And no one here has claimed that murdering children is against the law - that's kind of the whole reason we're having this discussion- but that hasn't stopped certain people from stating that that makes our opinions invalid, an imposition against others, or "not true despite out having said it". If you are saying that couples who prefer to adopt a baby, over an older child, don't deserve one, you are judging them, and imposing on their choice by implication that they don't "deserve" one.
> 
> In a reasonable, rational debate, I wouldn't take issue with you on that. I would see it as your opinion, and either point off of it or move on. But, we're no longer having a reasonable, rational debate. Bear and Pixie saw to that some time ago with their hypocritical judgment, condescension, and playground argument tactics.
> 
> Sorry, I just thought I was playing by the new rules.
> Forgive me for looking for a little integrity in my adversaries.


I am stating my opinion. I am imposing nothing on them. You are stating your opinion that we are not having a fair and reasonable debate because of certain posters.

How are they stopping you from a fair debate? They are stating their opinions . You are stating yours. You have not been stopped from doing anything but attacking the person not the post. You just don't like how or what they are stating.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> But, you go ahead and keep trying to convince people I'm arrogant or write posts that are too long or rambling.


She doesn't need to do that at all


----------



## Woolieface

fireweed farm said:


> Still nobody wants to give a reality based answer as to what will be done with the millions of unwanted babies.
> 
> Look, nobody likes abortion, not more than a root canal or putting your dog to sleep. But it's for when doors close and there are no other options. Perhaps raped, a defect that will give the child a life of misery, perhaps an abusive spouse and a horrible future, perhaps poor unwed, maybe crackheads, maybe a highschool kids that made a mistake that don't want to wind up on welfare. Who knows!
> 
> So give us some REAL options. Or get off your high horse!


Yeah...I hate shooting homeless people, but what's there to do?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't have a problem with it being offered. But, I think it's important for wmoen to be offered info about how developed the baby is. It might make them decide either way to know. It would at least allow a woman to be free to set her own timeframe for when she felt she personally was comfortable with as her own deadline to decide. The number could be different, I'm just using these for the sake of an example.
> 
> 
> 
> I can see that having value for a woman who let's say is 4-6 weeks pregnant and for her let's say she's given info about her baby's gestational development that she wasn't 100% sure of. Then let's say she decides that she's comfortable with having an abortion as long as its before 16 weeks.
> 
> Some women may be very decided and not need that info. *But, plenty aren't and giving them that info would allow them to decide for themselves what's OK.*
> 
> I think there are benefits to women deciding for themselves when they're comfortable or no longer comfortable keeping abortion as an option. Not rushing isn't always a tactic to delay and force someone to change their mind. It can be a help to some women to feel they have some flexibility to plan when the abortion would happen on their own timeline, so the rest of their life isn't completely thrown into a tailspin with work, school, childcare, etc obligations.


Sorry, I just don't have that low of opinion of most women. The info is everywhere. The gestational age of the fetus is told to the women before they consent to the abortion. They only have to ask for more information but in all the cases I know they are offered it as part of the consent appointment.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> She doesn't need to do that at all


Post of the millennium. :thumb:


----------



## arabian knight

Even my horse turned to me and asked if he should watch that junk that PP is pushing. Look close at the TV they were advertising PP. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm

So your horse talks to you?


----------



## Txsteader

fireweed farm said:


> Still nobody wants to give a reality based answer as to what will be done with the millions of unwanted babies.
> 
> Look, nobody likes abortion, not more than a root canal or putting your dog to sleep. But it's for when doors close and there are no other options. Perhaps raped, a defect that will give the child a life of misery, perhaps an abusive spouse and a horrible future, perhaps poor unwed, maybe crackheads, maybe a highschool kids that made a mistake that don't want to wind up on welfare. Who knows!
> 
> So give us some REAL options. Or get off your high horse!


Already have, many times, but y'all keep ignoring it or disputing it. But here it is, one more time. 

Birth control.

No, it won't prevent unwanted pregnancies 100% but it would greatly reduce the number. 

It's been argued here and in discussions about Obamacare that women can't afford birth control. But the fact is, Medicaid pays for birth control; it's *free* for low-income women. And the majority of women having abortions are low-income.


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> Do they not have the right to be apathetic and unaware and slothful? What can you do to make them different? Make the decision for them?


Educate them.

I tire of the tit for tat. 

Everyone is aware of my opinion. My work is done here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Educate them.
> 
> I tire of the tit for tat.
> 
> Everyone is aware of my opinion. My work is done here.


Everyone has access to education in this country so that's not the problem.
It's just a variation of the "uninformed" excuse


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Already have, many times, but y'all keep ignoring it or disputing it. But here it is, one more time.
> 
> *Birth control.*
> 
> No, it won't prevent unwanted pregnancies 100% but it would greatly reduce the number.
> 
> It's been argued here and in discussions about Obamacare that women can't afford birth control. But the fact is, Medicaid pays for birth control; it's *free* for low-income women. And the majority of women having abortions are low-income.


You're answering a different question from what was asked.

There are plenty of birth control methods to go around now

There won't magically be more birth control available if abortions were outlawed, so it's unrealistic to think the number of unwanted pregnancies would change at all.

There would still be millions each year, and that number will continue to grow along with the population (which is still increasing)


----------



## Jolly

basketti said:


> Do you believe that all women should have an ultrasound prior to termination of pregnancy?


I do.

Couple of reasons:

1. Ultrasound is a huge aid, perhaps the definitive factor in estimating gestational age.

2. I think it adds another layer of "realness" (for lack of a better term) to the abortion experience. If you're going to kill something, you might as well know what it looks like.


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> I do.
> 
> Couple of reasons:
> 
> 1. Ultrasound is a huge aid, perhaps the definitive factor in estimating gestational age.
> 
> 2. I think it adds another layer of "realness" (for lack of a better term) to the abortion experience. If you're going to kill something, you might as well know what it looks like.


Then you will be happy to know that Planned Parenthood requires that you have one before getting an abortion.


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> Then you will be happy to know that Planned Parenthood requires that you have one before getting an abortion.


I should think so. 

You go in and kill a 22 week-er, when the law of your state puts the cut-off at 20 weeks and you would be in deep kimchee.

CYA medicine.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're answering a different question from what was asked.
> 
> There are plenty of birth control methods to go around now
> 
> There won't magically be more birth control available if abortions were outlawed, so it's unrealistic to think the number of unwanted pregnancies would change at all.
> 
> There would still be millions each year, and that number will continue to grow along with the population (which is still increasing)


OK, here's a starting point: take the $500+ billion that PP is currently getting in federal funding and use it toward the care of those children.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

fireweed farm said:


> Still nobody wants to give a reality based answer as to what will be done with the millions of unwanted babies.
> 
> Look, nobody likes abortion, not more than a root canal or putting your dog to sleep. But it's for when doors close and there are no other options. Perhaps raped, a defect that will give the child a life of misery, perhaps an abusive spouse and a horrible future, perhaps poor unwed, maybe crackheads, maybe a highschool kids that made a mistake that don't want to wind up on welfare. Who knows!
> 
> So give us some REAL options. Or get off your high horse!


So, back to the real me.

Here you go, Mr. Weed. You don't have to like my answers, but that wasn't part of the contract of your question, and I understand, going into this, that anything I suggest could be picked apart as fantasy, unworkable, full of holes, or downright stupid, but that, I suppose, is the nature of hypothetical solutions. It's a valid question, and deserving of an answer.

So, to start with, the implication I see in your question is mostly an economical challenge. I don't take issue with that implication, if it was what you intended it to be, as it is likely to be the biggest challenge. The reality as we describe it today is that there are already plenty of "unwanted" in society, and their typical station is as the child of a financially-unsound single-parent in an urban setting, with a future that is not likely to contribute positively to our society. Cynical, maybe, but progress requires honesty, and I don't think anyone will flag this play for the assumption that this at least represents a significant portion of the challenge as it is currently framed.

Since the preponderance of the murdered-innocent are the unborn children of poor women in urban settings, banning abortion would greatly compound the situation as-described. What are we to do in the event that we have a couple million more disadvantaged young people on this undesirable track? 

A real answer to this situation requires a holistic approach, dealing with the real source of the problem - money. These millions of children, stayed the executioner's "cruncher", are not the subject of our discussion because they are inherently bad, or worth less than other people. Rather, we are discussing the "problem" they represent because they are the victims of an unfavorable economic position. 

The effects of all/most of this new, poor blood being injected into our society could be offset by sound economic policy; reduced corporate and individual tax rates, more favorable trade tarrifing, elimination of frivolous spending on pet, pipe-dream projects and foreign aid, and unshackling American business by silly regulation. Putting America's books right would make room around the economic table for them to sit. And, if I lived in a country that did this- its very best to make the strongest economy it could- while maintaining the sacredness of life, I would also be willing to pay more in taxes for programs that actually made sense and moved us in the right direction (state orphan housing and education programs etc.).

To mitigate the flow from the source, if you will, disincentivizing people without the financial means from having children would reduce the numbers we're talking about, while further improving the amount of treasure left on the table in the improved economy for the ones that do end up here. And, they're alive. 

Of course, the problem with my solution is that what I'm proposing no longer just targets the absurdly canonical "right" to chose to kill unborn babies, but that I'm now also messing with their wallets. Disincentivizing economically unsound behaviors would cut many off from their "draw"- what they feel is due them by the rest of us - taking away the power and liquidity of the ruling-class that they put in office, ending their reign as elites among the "less equal", forcing them to get out of the way and get real jobs.

That simply won't do. Will it?

So, since we can't oblige ourselves to do it the right way, for fear of hurting someone's feelings, and we are talking about eliminating millions of MURDERS, zanier solutions are not entirely out of order.

So, in that thread, I've got another solution for you: the military.

The day after we ban abortion, we begin building massive orphanages; well appointed orphanages with state-of-the-art education facilities, staffed by the best teachers we can buy, in a setting with lower than average teacher-to-student ratios. We have money presses, after all.

Approximately 13 years after that, we stop accepting enlistments to the military. Any student in the orphanages not adopted by age 17 is conscripted. Military benefits for the conscripted end when their service ends, including the GI bill, and we can stop printing money. At the end of a four year conscription, the conscriptees are fee to leave the military and seek employment, a life of crime, or whatever their pursuit of happiness leads them to. During the term of their conscription, and throughout the careers of those who wish to stay, the "least" of us are the best of us.

Your turn.


----------



## painterswife

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, back to the real me.
> 
> Here you go, Mr. Weed. You don't have to like my answers, but that wasn't part of the contract of your question, and I understand, going into this, that anything I suggest could be picked apart as fantasy, unworkable, full of holes, or downright stupid, but that, I suppose, is the nature of hypothetical solutions. It's a valid question, and deserving of an answer.
> 
> So, to start with, the implication I see in your question is mostly an economical challenge. I don't take issue with that implication, if it was what you intended it to be, as it is likely to be the biggest challenge. The reality as we describe it today is that there are already plenty of "unwanted" in society, and their typical station is as the child of a financially-unsound single-parent in an urban setting, with a future that is not likely to contribute positively to our society. Cynical, maybe, but progress requires honesty, and I don't think anyone will flag this play for the assumption that this at least represents a significant portion of the challenge as it is currently framed.
> 
> Since the preponderance of the murdered-innocent are the unborn children of poor women in urban settings, banning abortion would greatly compound the situation as-described. What are we to do in the event that we have a couple million more disadvantaged young people on this undesirable track?
> 
> A real answer to this situation requires a holistic approach, dealing with the real source of the problem - money. These millions of children, stayed the executioner's "cruncher", are not the subject of our discussion because they are inherently bad, or worth less than other people. Rather, we are discussing the "problem" they represent because they are the victims of an unfavorable economic position.
> 
> The effects of all/most of this new, poor blood being injected into our society could be offset by sound economic policy; reduced corporate and individual tax rates, more favorable trade tarrifing, elimination of frivolous spending on pet, pipe-dream projects and foreign aid, and unshackling American business by silly regulation. Putting America's books right would make room around the economic table for them to sit. And, if I lived in a country that did this- its very best to make the strongest economy it could- while maintaining the sacredness of life, I would also be willing to pay more in taxes for programs that actually made sense and moved us in the right direction (state orphan housing and education programs etc.).
> 
> To mitigate the flow from the source, if you will, disincentivizing people without the financial means from having children would reduce the numbers we're talking about, while further improving the amount of treasure left on the table in the improved economy for the ones that do end up here. And, they're alive.
> 
> Of course, the problem with my solution is that what I'm proposing no longer just targets the absurdly canonical "right" to chose to kill unborn babies, but that I'm now also messing with their wallets. Disincentivizing economically unsound behaviors would cut many off from their "draw"- what they feel is due them by the rest of us - taking away the power and liquidity of the ruling-class that they put in office, ending their reign as elites among the "less equal", forcing them to get out of the way and get real jobs.
> 
> That simply won't do. Will it?
> 
> So, since we can't oblige ourselves to do it the right way, for fear of hurting someone's feelings, and we are talking about eliminating millions of MURDERS, zanier solutions are not entirely out of order.
> 
> So, in that thread, I've got another solution for you: the military.
> 
> The day after we ban abortion, we begin building massive orphanages; well appointed orphanages with state-of-the-art education facilities, staffed by the best teachers we can buy, in a setting with lower than average teacher-to-student ratios. We have money presses, after all.
> 
> Approximately 13 years after that, we stop accepting enlistments to the military. Any student in the orphanages not adopted by age 17 is conscripted. Military benefits for the conscripted end when their service ends, including the GI bill, and we can stop printing money. At the end of a four year conscription, the conscriptees are fee to leave the military and seek employment, a life of crime, or whatever their pursuit of happiness leads them to. During the term of their conscription, and throughout the careers of those who wish to stay, the "least" of us are the best of us.
> 
> Your turn.


I think I would want to add this if we went with your scenario.

Adoptions are first in first out. You get the kid they assign you and the oldest get adopted before the babies. You don't get to pick. Color, sex, age etc don't get to be part of the criteria.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

basketti said:


> Yeah, actually you have. "Murder" by definition is illegal.


Check the dictionary. One definition is to "kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously". Just because you chose the definition that depicts an unlawful act does not mean you can limit our use of the word.

Thanks for playing.:facepalm::cute::banana:



Man, I'm not sure I want to go back to debating like an adult. Your side's tactics are so much more fun!!!!!


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> I should think so.
> 
> You go in and kill a 22 week-er, when the law of your state puts the cut-off at 20 weeks and you would be in deep kimchee.
> 
> CYA medicine.


But the woman doesn't have to watch the ultrasound.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

gibbsgirl said:


> But, you go ahead and keep trying to convince people I'm arrogant or write posts that are too long or rambling. Whatever you need to do.





Bearfootfarm said:


> She doesn't need to do that at all


So, WR, was _this_ an attack?

Or did you just discover that your biased hypocrisy actually _does_ have bounds?


----------



## Jolly

basketti said:


> But the woman doesn't have to watch the ultrasound.


I'd put her head in clamps, if she wouldn't.

I don't recall ever asking somebody to come over and kill my beef for me. You look it in the eye and do it yourself. It's my beef, it's my responsibility.

Well sugar, that's your baby, this is what you want to do. Be woman enough to look at it, before you kill it.


----------



## Lisa in WA

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Check the dictionary. One definition is to "kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously". Just because you chose the definition that depicts an unlawful act does not mean you can limit our use of the word.
> 
> Thanks for playing.:facepalm::cute::banana:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I'm not sure I want to go back to debating like an adult. Your side's tactics are so much more fun!!!!!


Still illegal. Think harder.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

oh oh oh I know.
Get really long, curved handled crunchers and make them crunch it themselves.


Man, being mature is sooooooooooo overrated.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

basketti said:


> Still illegal. Think harder.


Check it out:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder


You lose!!!
na na na na hey hey hey.....


----------



## Lisa in WA

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Check it out:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder
> 
> 
> You lose!!!
> na na na na hey hey hey.....


You do understand that unlawful means illegal?


----------



## wr

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, WR, was _this_ an attack?
> 
> Or did you just discover that your biased hypocrisy actually _does_ have bounds?


I'm standing in a pasture with the girl next door, trying to deal with a colic issue right now and will review your concerns when I get back to the house unless one of the other mod reviews it before me.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Roger that.


----------



## Marshloft

fireweed farm said:


> I'm hoping for an intelligent answer to this.
> 
> Are we as a society prepared, ready and willing to take care of millions more babies that the parents don't want or are incapable of providing for themselves without being crybabies about it?
> As it's mainly a religious issue, are churches willing to step up to the challenge?
> Are you expecting the government to bear all costs?
> 
> I don't think there is a compromise here. *So what are you all going to do with all these babies?*


 Is this what its all about? What to do with all the babies not being aborted?
Since when was that the issue? If thats all you got, you got nothin.
Who's to say ALL the non-aborted go on welfare? This is actually for another thread . But I'll start out.
Why don't we teach these kids in HS how to prepare for life after school?
we used to have vo-tech when I was in HS. We had a mechanics class, we had metals class, and woodworking classes. 
Not everyone is college material, thats why they had these types of classes. I think some country schools still do have these avavailable. But maybe inner city not so much.
The other thing is repeal alot of these stupid laws that require a permit to sell lemonade on the street corner. How many millions and millions of dollars taxes has Bill Gates and co. paid over the years. He started in his garage didn't he.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

basketti said:


> You do understand that unlawful means illegal?


You do understand that the numbers on the various separated lines in a dictionary denote various definitions, right?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> I'd put her head in clamps, if she wouldn't.
> 
> I don't recall ever asking somebody to come over and kill my beef for me. You look it in the eye and do it yourself. It's my beef, it's my responsibility.
> 
> Well sugar, that's your baby, this is what you want to do. Be woman enough to look at it, before you kill it.


And go to jail for assault. Not your choice. Not your body.


----------



## Lisa in WA

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> You do understand that the numbers on the various separated lines in a dictionary denote various definitions, right?


Lol, okay Sparky...you meant the non illegal kind of murder in your post.:hysterical:


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

basketti said:


> Lol, okay Sparky...you meant the non illegal kind of murder in your post.:hysterical:


No, Sparkless, I meant the kind of murder that transceds earthly judgment, being of such heinous nature that it could only be adequately judged by a much higher court than those of man. 

K?
K.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> OK, here's a starting point: take the $500+ *billion* that PP is currently getting in federal funding and use it toward the care of those children.


The 500 *M*ILLION will be about $500 per child, per year

Those are the sort of statements that make me disregard any reference to "how many" are upset over this



> Planned Parenthood receives record amount of taxpayer â¦
> www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/planned-parenthood-receives...
> Jan 08, 2013 Â· Video embedded Â· Planned Parenthood reported receiving a record $542 *million *...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> No, Sparkless, I meant the kind of murder that transceds earthly judgment, being of such heinous nature that it could only be adequately judged by a much higher court than those of man.
> K?
> K.


So you mean the kind that requires you to force your religious views on someone else

We're back to the control thing again


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> The 500 *M*ILLION will be about $500 per child, per year
> 
> Those are the sort of statements that make me disregard any reference to "how many" are upset over this


Thank you, you are correct. I was thinking 'half a _billion_'. Like I said, it's a start.

It was an honest mistake.


----------



## Jolly

basketti said:


> And go to jail for assault. Not your choice. Not your body.


You may just be wrong.

In Louisiana, you take a look at that ultrasound, or you go home without the procedure.

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/ultrasound-requirements/


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> You may just be wrong.
> 
> In Louisiana, you take a look at that ultrasound, or you go home without the procedure.
> 
> http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/ultrasound-requirements/


I think you might be wrong. It says that the law allows the women to look away. Yup, you are wrong.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> I think I would want to add this if we went with your scenario.
> 
> Adoptions are first in first out. You get the kid they assign you and the oldest get adopted before the babies. You don't get to pick. Color, sex, age etc don't get to be part of the criteria.


I'll add to that. The criteria to adopt should be less restrictive as well. As should the number of children that are pulled from homes. Also, parents who wish to select their own adoptive families should be freer to do so. There's a ridiculous processes that kin of children have to go though to legally have custody of their own blood kin.


----------



## kasilofhome

gibbsgirl said:


> I'll add to that. The criteria to adopt should be less restrictive as well. As should the number of children that are pulled from homes. Also, parents who wish to select their own adoptive families should be freer to do so. There's a ridiculous processes that kin of children have to go though to legally have custody of their own blood kin.


 Would have made a difference for us and two other kids.


----------



## painterswife

[QUOwTE=gibbsgirl;7514622]I'll add to that. The criteria to adopt should be less restrictive as well. As should the number of children that are pulled from homes. Also, parents who wish to select their own adoptive families should be freer to do so. There's a ridiculous processes that kin of children have to go though to legally have custody of their own blood kin.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. You take what you get and you prove you are worthy. No making it easier to get kids to abuse.


----------



## gibbsgirl

wr said:


> I'm standing in a pasture with the girl next door, trying to deal with a colic issue right now and will review your concerns when I get back to the house unless one of the other mod reviews it before me.


I really don't care what was said. I have no idea if it breaks the "house rules" here. But, I'd rather have my say and let them have theirs.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> [QUOwTE=gibbsgirl;7514622]I'll add to that. The criteria to adopt should be less restrictive as well. As should the number of children that are pulled from homes. Also, parents who wish to select their own adoptive families should be freer to do so. There's a ridiculous processes that kin of children have to go though to legally have custody of their own blood kin.


I disagree. You take what you get and you prove you are worthy. No making it easier to get kids to abuse.[/QUOTE]

If the excessive restrictions currently in place actually protected all the children from abuse and/or even the mental trauma that many go through from being bounced around with little stability, I'd be inclined to agree. But, since those are still issues, I'm open to trying out what I suggested.

Eta. I also disagree with much of the $$$ payments caregivers get direct access to to spend as they see fit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, WR, was _this_ an attack?
> 
> Or did you just discover that your biased hypocrisy actually _does_ have bounds?


I was agreeing with her


----------



## kasilofhome

Fyi...all three child were special needs... I had training with their issues... God forgive someone uses logic.

The birth family want me
I already had a brother to the siblings..
Multi are hard to place and keep the together
Native gave me thumb up
State did not check it out in six months that both adults were white.. despite paperwork stating it and having taken classes did not clue them in.. birth parents wanted it.

Oh well.... so there can be logical reason to use common sense. 
Come on..

If my brother requested a deaf child Um .... those kids might do good at his house.
All five hearing member do signing ....


----------



## kasilofhome

So, paint what expertise or first hand, as in you dealt with the issues.

Have you adopted, fostered,step up to the plate.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> So, paint what expertise or first hand, as in you dealt with the issues.
> 
> Have you adopted, fostered,step up to the plate.


Does it make a difference? Are you more entitled to your opinion if I have not? I would assume from you stepping up to the plate comment you might think you have done more than I did.


----------



## kasilofhome

Well. If you want children to succeed.... yes, armchair quarterbacks talk and spout rainbows without factual understand and a realistic function set of expectations.

Would you want a first time horse owner to at least know something about caring for a horse.. and if you'd do that for a horse why not a human or do you hold such distant for human lives.

Little lives matter


----------



## kasilofhome

What personal hand on experience do you have.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Well. If you want children to succeed.... yes, armchair quarterbacks talk and spout rainbows without factual understand and a realistic function set of expectations.
> 
> Would you want a first time horse owner to at least know something about caring for a horse.. and if you'd do that for a horse why not a human or do you hold such distant for human lives.
> 
> Little lives matter


Yet children are born everyday to parents with no experience. You need better examples.


----------



## Farmerga

I would be in favor of providing, and incentivizing sterilization procedures for low income, or, any income folks.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I would be in favor of providing, and incentivizing sterilization procedures for low income, or, any income folks.


Planned Parenthood as well as any other medical facility can do that now for anyone wanting the procedure.

It's still an unrealistic solution to a very real problem that isn't going to go away just because you don't like it


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Planned Parenthood as well as any other medical facility can do that now for anyone wanting the procedure.
> 
> It's still an unrealistic solution to a very real problem that isn't going to go away just because you don't like it


 
But wholesale murder is a-ok, correct?? I know, it is legal slaughter, so, not murder by the dictionary definition of the word. 

If we were could just get Congress to pass a law making it legal to line up the poor (and anybody else they see as a burden on society such as the old, sick, orphaned, etc.) and shoot them in the back of their heads, I guess we would be walking in tall cotton. I mean, that certainly wouldn't be murder, would it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> But wholesale murder is a-ok, correct?? I know, it is legal slaughter, so, not murder by the dictionary definition of the word.
> 
> If we were could just get Congress to pass a law making it legal to line up the poor (and anybody else they see as a burden on society such as the old, sick, orphaned, etc.) and shoot them in the back of their heads, I guess we would be walking in tall cotton. I mean, that certainly wouldn't be murder, would it?


Illogical arguments are a sign that you have no logical arguments to make. 

We get that you don't like it, but that doesn't change anything.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Illogical arguments are a sign that you have no logical arguments to make.
> 
> We get that you don't like it, but that doesn't change anything.


 Care to explain why that isn't a logical argument? When a pro-life advocate calls abortion "murder" a pro-abortion advocate points out that it cannot be because it is legal and, therefore, the act is lawful and cannot be murder. If we were to decide, as a society that the poor, sick, orphaned, etc. need to be dealt with, say with some sort of final solution and our elected officials made such a program "lawful" through legislation/constitutional amendment would that , by the abortionists own arguments, not be murder?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *Care to explain why that isn't a logical argument?* When a pro-life advocate calls abortion "murder" a pro-abortion advocate points out that it cannot be because it is legal and, therefore, the act is lawful and cannot be murder. If we were to decide, as a society that the poor, sick, orphaned, etc. need to be dealt with, say with some sort of* final solution* and our elected officials made such a program "lawful" through legislation/constitutional amendment would that , by the abortionists own arguments, not be murder?


Fantasies such as yours require no explanation to prove they are illogical

You're alluding to the Nazis subconsciously

You keep saying I am "pro-abortion" when I am really "pro- mind your own business".

You follow whatever rules you choose, and allow others to do the same


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep saying I am "pro-abortion" when I am really "pro- mind your own business".
> 
> You follow whatever rules you choose, and allow others to do the same


 That doesn't work in society. We have rules that are in place to protect people. My wish is to extend these rules to protect a currently unprotected class of people, the unborn. The comparisons to past struggles cannot overlooked. The struggle is the same, the only difference is the actors. Our ancestors fought for the rights of the black man to not live in bondage. Our fathers and grandfathers fought for the right of the Jew to exist. Today, many of us are fighting for the lives of the unborn.


----------



## FutureFarm

Are you "pro-mind your own business" for those who abuse animals? How about those who rape others? If you don't like animal abuse, don't kick your dog. If you don't like rape, don't rape anyone. As long as no one abuses your dog or rapes you it's ok right? Their crimes against their animals and others didn't affect you so just mind your own business. Or are there certain things in this world that are wrong, whether they are legal or illegal? Killing unborn children is wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> That doesn't work in society. *We have rules that are in place to protect people.* My wish is to extend these rules to protect a currently unprotected class of people, the unborn. The comparisons to past struggles cannot overlooked. The struggle is the same, the only difference is the actors. *Our ancestors *fought for the rights of the black man to not live in bondage. *Our fathers and grandfathers* fought for the right of the Jew to exist. Today, many of us are fighting for the lives of the unborn.


Abortion laws were changed in the 70's to protect the women who were dying from illegal abortions.

You seem to have a lot of unnatural of guilt over the past.


----------



## kasilofhome

FutureFarm said:


> Are you "pro-mind your own business" for those who abuse animals? How about those who rape others? If you don't like animal abuse, don't kick your dog. If you don't like rape, don't rape anyone. As long as no one abuses your dog or rapes you it's ok right? Their crimes against their animals and others didn't affect you so just mind your own business. Or are there certain things in this world that are wrong, whether they are legal or illegal? Killing unborn children is wrong.


Short, clear, logical, blunt, all I can add is to ask is where is PETA.... humans are not in the plant kingdom...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Are you "pro-mind your own business" for those who abuse animals? How about those who rape others? If you don't like animal abuse, don't kick your dog. If you don't like rape, don't rape anyone. As long as no one abuses your dog or rapes you it's ok right? Their crimes against their animals and others didn't affect you so just mind your own business. Or are there certain things in this world that are wrong, whether they are legal or illegal? Killing unborn children is wrong.


More illogical arguments, comparing illegal acts to a legal medical procedure, and attempting to force your opinion on others.

It's becoming boring repetition now


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Abortion laws were changed in the 70's to protect the women who were dying from illegal abortions.
> 
> You seem to have a lot of unnatural of guilt over the past.


 So, where is the logic making it easier/safer for murderers to murder? 

Not guilt, but, an awareness. There is an abundance of people who have failed to learn from history.


----------



## FutureFarm

I'm not trying to force my opinions on others. You calling abortion a legal medical procedure is becoming boring and repetitive. I think the animal abuse is an especially apt comparison. It doesn't affect anyone besides the victim and the aggressor. In both instances the aggressor doesn't view the victim as human, but something disposable. The only differences are that one is a person and the other is an animal, and the animal might survive long enough to fight back, or be removed by a better person.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> I'm not trying to force my opinions on others. You calling abortion a legal medical procedure is becoming boring and repetitive. I think the animal abuse is an especially apt comparison. It doesn't affect anyone besides the victim and the aggressor. In both instances the aggressor doesn't view the victim as human, but something disposable. The only differences are that one is a person and the other is an animal, and the animal might survive long enough to fight back, or be removed by a better person.


Animal abuse happens when the animal has left the womb so no it is not a good comparison.


----------



## Nevada

While many see legalized abortion as a social problem, not having legalized abortion has it's own set of social problems. Roe v Wade went into effect around the time I finished college, so I was well aware of those problems.


----------



## FutureFarm

All unborn migratory birds, regardless of their endangered species status, are protected from destruction before hatching. Why can't we extend the same liberties to the unborn of our own species?
I'm willing to deal with the social problems of outlawing abortion. I cannot support killing someone because they might grow up to be a burden on society.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nevada said:


> While many see legalized abortion as a social problem, not having legalized abortion has it's own set of social problems. Roe v Wade went into effect around the time I finished college, so I was well aware of those problems.


Taking responsibility for ones choice to have sex is now a social problem?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> All unborn migratory birds, regardless of their endangered species status, are protected from destruction before hatching. Why can't we extend the same liberties to the unborn of our own species?


Humans are not endangered. In fact we have to many.


----------



## FutureFarm

We have too many Canada geese here, but their eggs and nests are protected.


----------



## Nevada

nchobbyfarm said:


> Taking responsibility for ones choice to have sex is now a social problem?


Actually, recreational sex and pregnancy shouldn't be related. With the free availability of birth control that's less of a problem than it used to be. In fact abortion rates are falling.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nevada said:


> Actually, recreational sex and pregnancy shouldn't be related. With the free availability of birth control that's less of a problem than it used to be. In fact abortion rates are falling.


Then what we the point of post 843?


----------



## WildernesFamily

They released a new video today.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg[/ame]

Now if you can watch this and still try argue that they are not talking about altering the process for their gain then I just don't know.


----------



## Nevada

nchobbyfarm said:


> Then what we the point of post 843?


We're not there yet. Obamacare's free birth control is a step in the right direction, but the problem still exists.


----------



## painterswife

WildernesFamily said:


> They released a new video today.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg
> 
> Now if you can watch this and still try argue that they are not talking about altering the process for their gain then I just don't know.


Watching an edited video. Cut and spliced to show what they want and not give the whole conversation. Again.


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> All unborn migratory birds, regardless of their endangered species status, are protected from destruction before hatching. Why can't we extend the same liberties to the unborn of our own species?
> *I'm willing to deal with the social problems of outlawing abortion.* I cannot support killing someone because they might grow up to be a burden on society.


Really? What are your solutions to the overcrowded prison systems we have today.... without those millions of unwanted babies that have been aborted? What is your solution to our current welfare programs that cant keep up as thing are now, much less with the added burdens of all those babies who wont be aborted? What are you currently doing to solve these problems? Its easy to say you are willing to deal with the added burdens on our society, but we dont seem to be dealing with them very well today.


----------



## nchobbyfarm

Nevada said:


> We're not there yet. Obamacare's free birth control is a step in the right direction, but the problem still exists.


So a simple yes answer to my question in post 845 would have saved us both valuable time.


----------



## Lisa in WA

FutureFarm said:


> All unborn migratory birds, regardless of their endangered species status, are protected from destruction before hatching. Why can't we extend the same liberties to the unborn of our own species?
> I'm willing to deal with the social problems of outlawing abortion. I cannot support killing someone because they might grow up to be a burden on society.


When humans lay eggs that can be incubated by someone or something else than the biological mother, then yes...abortion will be a thing of the past.

Can you take an embryo or non viable fetus out of a woman and put it so,where else to grow to viability?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> We have too many Canada geese here, but their eggs and nests are protected.


There are also legal hunting seasons to control the populations


----------



## painterswife

WildernesFamily said:


> They released a new video today.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg
> 
> Now if you can watch this and still try argue that they are not talking about altering the process for their gain then I just don't know.


Yes, they are talking about altering the process within the allowed guidelines to get better specimens. They are not talking about altering the process to make more money.


----------



## painterswife

Here is the transcript for the latest video. The unedited version.

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPGCtranscript04092015_final.pdf


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are also legal hunting seasons to control the populations



Yes but even with nuisance animals the gov't doesn't allow the killing of the unborn. Hunting season doesn't open until this year's chicks are old enough to defend themselves. We allow nuisance animals the right to self defense, but strip it from the most vulnerable of our own species. I really hope you don't support a hunting season to control the overpopulation of humans that cause a burden to society.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Yes but even with nuisance animals the gov't doesn't allow the killing of the unborn. I really hope you don't support a hunting season to control the overpopulation of humans that cause a burden to society.


Where would these laws be? Laws to make sure you check to see if they are pregnant? Yah right.


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> Yes but even with nuisance animals the gov't doesn't allow the killing of the unborn. I really hope you don't support a hunting season to control the overpopulation of humans that cause a burden to society.


Really. Many places allow and even advocate oiling or addling goose eggs to limit populations. It's a practice endorsed by many state DNr's and even the Humane Society. http://m.humanesociety.org/animals/geese/tips/canada_geese_egg_addling.html


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> Where would these laws be? Laws to make sure you check to see if they are pregnant? Yah right.



The migratory bird act of 1918
It prohibits destruction of bird eggs or nests. Hunting seasons for all wildlife are planned to protect the most vulnerable animals, the young and unborn. 
If your only argument for abortion is preventing overpopulation and the burdens that come with it, why don't you support the killing of those actually causing the burden, similar to the way the fish and wildlife populations are managed?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> The migratory bird act of 1918
> It prohibits destruction of bird eggs or nests. Hunting seasons for all wildlife are planned to protect the most vulnerable animals, the young and unborn.
> If your only argument for abortion is preventing overpopulation and the burdens that come with it, why don't you support the killing of those actually causing the burden, similar to the way the fish and wildlife populations are managed?


I have never argued abortion for population control. I have always argued that it is the choice of the owner of the womb and I don't get a say in what medical procedures they have.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> I have never argued abortion for population control. I have always argued that it is the choice of the owner of the womb and I don't get a say in what medical procedures they have.



That is very similar to saying, "I have always argued that it is the choice of the owner of the dog and I don't get a say in what they choose to kick". Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I'm pro-animal abuse. Are you ok with that? According to you, unborn children don't have rights and neither do dogs.
There are certain things in life that are wrong whether they are illegal or legal. Unless it is putting you life in danger, kicking a dog or killing an unborn child are wrong.


----------



## wr

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are also legal hunting seasons to control the populations


I hold out great hope that somebody will start issuing permits for Tourist Season.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> That is very similar to saying, "I have always argued that it is the choice of the owner of the dog and I don't get a say in what they choose to kick". Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I'm pro-animal abuse. Are you ok with that? According to you, unborn children don't have rights and neither do dogs.
> There are certain things in life that are wrong whether they are illegal or legal. Unless it is putting you life in danger, kicking a dog or killing an unborn child are wrong.


Speak for yourself and don't assume you can speak for me.


----------



## FutureFarm

I'm not speaking for you. I never claimed to.


----------



## kasilofhome

Is this comfortable

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=E...+child+to+get+organs+for+transplant&FORM=EWRE

Fetal organs harvested for lab rats
Abortion As the Planned Parenthood controversy continues, a disturbing question arises: What happens to aborted baby parts once they reach a lab? | Jamie Dean

Fetal organs harvested for lab rats
Â©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM/ERAXION

Graphic video footage of a Planned Parenthood worker picking through the tiny remains of an aborted child intensified scrutiny on the nation&#8217;s largest abortion provider on Friday, even as new revelations broke about the market for fetal tissue.

David Daleiden is head of the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), the group releasing undercover videos of Planned Parenthood staffers discussing fees for providing aborted fetal tissue to middleman companies supplying biotech researchers.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> I'm not speaking for you. I never claimed to.





FutureFarm said:


> That is very similar to saying, "I have always argued that it is the choice of the owner of the dog and I don't get a say in what they choose to kick". Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I'm pro-animal abuse. Are you ok with that? *According to you,* unborn children don't have rights and neither do dogs.
> There are certain things in life that are wrong whether they are illegal or legal. Unless it is putting you life in danger, kicking a dog or killing an unborn child are wrong.


Well right there you said according to me and then added your own assumptions.


----------



## FutureFarm

What rights, according to you, do they have? Certainly not the right to life. Without the right to life do they have any other rights?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> What rights, according to you, do they have? Certainly not the right to life. Without the right to life do they have any other rights?


Legally they have no rights. I am pretty sure though you are trying to get me to say that I believe they should have no rights.


----------



## FutureFarm

What rights should they have?

If legally neither my dog nor unborn child have rights, why is it a crime to kick my dog but not a crime to kill my child?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> What rights should they have?


I have said this before.

The person carrying the fetus has dominant rights. They decide if they carry the fetus to term. If they have decided they are going to do this then the fetus gets rights. 

I honestly can see in the future as medicine advances that the womb owner will have to declare they will carry the fetus by a certain date in the gestation. There will always be certain situations relating to heath that will may that date mute. All this will be dependant on better forms of birth control and health advancements for women.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> If legally neither my dog nor unborn child have rights, why is it a crime to kick my dog but not a crime to kill my child?


Kicking a dog that feels pain and thinks is not the same.


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> What rights should they have?
> 
> If legally neither my dog nor unborn child have rights, why is it a crime to kick my dog but not a crime to kill my child?


It is a crime to kick your dog or to kill your child! Kicking your dog can bring a fine, killing anyone's child can bring you a death penalty in some states, life in prison in others. Terminating a pregnancy is a whole nuther thing. A fetus lacks the protections granted to a child.... And there is a difference between fetus and child.... One has been borne and breaths.... The other is a parasite still in a womb.


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> The migratory bird act of 1918
> It prohibits destruction of bird eggs or nests. Hunting seasons for all wildlife are planned to protect the most vulnerable animals, the young and unborn.
> If your only argument for abortion is preventing overpopulation and the burdens that come with it, why don't you support the killing of those actually causing the burden, similar to the way the fish and wildlife populations are managed?


Assassinating politicians is frowned upon by some in our society... But you do make a good point!


----------



## FutureFarm

I have dominant rights over my dog. I decide if my dog lives or dies. It is as dependent on me as my unborn child is to my wife. If I decide my dog will live gets rights?
How is animal abuse more heinous than abortion? Neither victim has rights. Both destroy the lives of those dependent on the one destroying their life. So what if the dog feels pain, it doesn't have rights? How did we as a society come to the conclusion that this is ok? I'm a very libertarian politically. I'm not some staunch raving conservative, bent on restoring the country to a time when women were less than equal and silvery was legal. I don't support using the military as a primary means of diplomacy. I support the legalization of many currently illegal drugs, provided that the users still meet their obligations. I don't like the idea of the gov't involved in anyone's marriage, straight, gay, interracial, or polyandrous. 
I will defend the rights of others all across the country. That has to include the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves.


----------



## FutureFarm

Why is animal abuse a crime and abortion is not a crime? Neither the dog nor the unborn child have rights.
Why does an unborn child lack the same rights as a born child? The only reason I can see that there would be a difference is to allow for the unborn to be killed. For what other reason would an unborn child be denied its rights?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> I have dominant rights over my dog. I decide if my dog lives or dies. It is as dependent on me as my unborn child is to my wife. If I decide my dog will live gets rights?
> How is animal abuse more heinous than abortion? Neither victim has rights. Both destroy the lives of those dependent on the one destroying their life. So what if the dog feels pain, it doesn't have rights? How did we as a society come to the conclusion that this is ok? I'm a very libertarian politically. I'm not some staunch raving conservative, bent on restoring the country to a time when women were less than equal and silvery was legal. I don't support using the military as a primary means of diplomacy. I support the legalization of many currently illegal drugs, provided that the users still meet their obligations. I don't like the idea of the gov't involved in anyone's marriage, straight, gay, interracial, or polyandrous.
> I will defend the rights of others all across the country. That has to include the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves.


ABUSE! Kicking a dog is different then putting your dog to sleep. You can put your dog to sleep but you can't be cruel to it. Get it now.


----------



## FutureFarm

Having your limbs ripped off doesn't sound cruel?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Having your limbs ripped off doesn't sound cruel?


If you can't feel it or have the brain function to process it, how can it be cruel?


----------



## kasilofhome

So, can we like sedated those on death row and do it?


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> If you can't feel it or have the brain function to process it, how can it be cruel?



Is it rape if the victim can't feel it or have the brain function to process it?
In both situations, the act is cruel whether or not the victim knows it.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Is it rape if the victim can't feel it or have the brain function to process it?
> In both situations, the act is cruel whether or not the victim knows it.


Actually that would not be the definition of cruel.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> If you can't feel it or have the brain function to process it, how can it be cruel?


Isn't the ability to move directly tied to the ability to feel? If you can't feel a limb, you can't move it.


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> Isn't the ability to move directly tied to the ability to feel? If you can't feel a limb, you can't move it.


No. Reflexes are independent of the neural activity that is required to feel pain.


----------



## kasilofhome

Guess that if a female blacks out in a drugged induced stupper... she can't have been raped.... so, Cosby is just being harassed.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Guess that if a female blacks out in a drugged induced stupper... she can't have been raped.... so, Cosby is just being harassed.


Will you be interjecting a comment on another of your pet peeves such as others being allowed to get married because they are gay and you don't like that?


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Guess that if a female blacks out in a drugged induced stupper... she can't have been raped.... so, Cosby is just being harassed.


Stupor


----------



## kasilofhome

Thank you.


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Will you be interjecting a comment on another of your pet peeves such as others being allowed to get married because they are gay and you don't like that?


Is that a no comment?


----------



## FutureFarm

kasilofhome said:


> Is that a no comment?



Is that a no response on why, other than a loophole for abortion, a 9 month fetus has no rights and a one minute old baby does?


----------



## WildernesFamily

painterswife said:


> Yes, they are talking about altering the process within the allowed guidelines to get better specimens. They are not talking about altering the process to make more money.


Nope.


*42 U.S. Code Â§ 289g&#8211;1 - Research on transplantation of fetal tissue:*

*Additional statement * In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring that&#8212; 
(A) in the case of tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortion&#8212; (i) the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in such research; 
(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue; and 
(iii) the abortion was performed in accordance with applicable State law;


----------



## painterswife

WildernesFamily said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> *42 U.S. Code Â§ 289gâ1 - Research on transplantation of fetal tissue:*
> 
> *Additional statement * In research carried out under subsection (a) of this section, human fetal tissue may be used only if the attending physician with respect to obtaining the tissue from the woman involved makes a statement, made in writing and signed by the physician, declaring thatâ
> (A) in the case of tissue obtained pursuant to an induced abortionâ (i) the consent of the woman for the abortion was obtained prior to requesting or obtaining consent for a donation of the tissue for use in such research;
> (ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue; and
> (iii) the abortion was performed in accordance with applicable State law;


What are you saying nope to?


----------



## WildernesFamily

painterswife said:


> What are you saying nope to?


They are not "altering the process within the allowed guidelines to get better specimens". What they are talking about doing in the video is illegal.


----------



## painterswife

WildernesFamily said:


> They are not "altering the process within the allowed guidelines to get better specimens". What they are talking about doing in the video is illegal.


How do you know?


----------



## kasilofhome

One of the first videos .... with nutty.... while she was munching on her crunchy salad... she stated that that was not legal... but well there were ways.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> One of the first videos .... with nutty.... while she was munching on her crunchy salad... she stated that that was not legal... but well there were ways.


If you watch the entire video you will see that she would have to speak to the doctor and her superiors to see if there is a way they can do that with out be in violation of the law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WildernesFamily said:


> They released a new video today.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egGUEvY7CEg
> 
> Now if you can watch this and still try argue that they are not talking about *altering the process *for their gain then I just don't know.


If you read the transcripts you'll find the "buyer" is the ones using those terms first in their leading questions, and the PP rep keeps telling them they can do it as long as it doesn't really alter the normal procedure, or cause any risk to the patient.

The "buyer" is also the one who talks most about money, since we all know PP gets paid for their costs, and not for the specimens themselves.

It's more of the same smoke and mirrors, with no real substance


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Yes but even with *nuisance animals* the gov't doesn't allow the killing of the unborn. Hunting season doesn't open until this year's chicks are old enough to defend themselves. We allow nuisance animals the right to self defense, but strip it from the most vulnerable of our own species. I really hope you don't support a hunting season to control the overpopulation of humans that cause a burden to society.


"Nuisance animals" such as feral hogs generally have no seasons and can be killed any time at all.

You're confusing reality with a Disney movie

All I'm "supporting" is people not telling other people how to live their lives


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Why is animal abuse a crime and abortion is not a crime? Neither the dog nor the unborn child have rights.
> Why does an unborn child lack the same rights as a born child? The only reason I can see that there would be a difference is to allow for the unborn to be killed. For what other reason would an unborn child be denied its rights?


Why keep repeating questions that have been answered?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WildernesFamily said:


> They are not "altering the process within the allowed guidelines to get better specimens". What they are talking about doing in the video is illegal.


It's not "altering the process" to simply be careful as to how specimens are removed. 

The "buyer" is the one who used the term "altering", and the PP rep said they would have to check with the Dr, and that they couldn't alter it in any way that didn't follow the legal restrictions.

It's all in the transcripts:
http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PPGCtranscript04092015_final.pdf


----------



## FutureFarm

Raccoon, possum, skunk, squirrel, deer, crow, and fox all have seasons. 
I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. All I want is for everyone to have an opportunity to live their life. 
No one deserves to die because they are inconvenient.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why keep repeating questions that have been answered?



Because the questions don't get answered? Why don't the unborn have rights? They are clearly human and clearly alive.


----------



## no really

Is there some info available on whether the women are informed of the use of the fetal material?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Raccoon, possum, skunk, squirrel, deer, crow, and fox all have seasons.
> I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. *All I want* is for everyone to have an opportunity to live their life.
> No one deserves to die because they are inconvenient.


They aren't "nuisance animals". 

With the exception of Crows, they are all considered "game animals" or "fur bearers"

Crows are classified "non-game", but have hunting seasons due to being accidentally included in a Migratory Bird treaty

You should just stick to abortion laws since you don't really seem to know much about hunting regulations

It's fine to want what you want but you need to accept the fact that you can't force those "wants" on others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Because the questions don't get answered? Why don't the unborn have rights? They are clearly human and clearly alive.


The questions were answered before you ever asked
You need to read the applicable laws


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> Is there some info available on *whether the women are informed* of the use of the fetal material?


They have to sign consent forms stating they want to donate the specimens for research. 

That's another thing well discussed in all the transcripts but not in the short edited videos


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Is there some info available on whether the women are informed of the use of the fetal material?


This is in the latest transcript. Women want to donate.

"PP: Right, and we would definitely have to work that out in terms of budgeting. Especially because of the current situation with the regulations, theyâre extremely busy up there. And theyâre excited about it. And we have patients that come in all the time asking if they can donate the fetal tissue. A, because they hear about it in the media or whatever. And B because weâve done these projects in the past. And I donât know how it got out there, because people donât talk about their abortions, so how they got, how they talk about the fact they donated fetal tissueâ

Buyer: Iâm glad thatâs happening though, because the fact that people can talk about it, the stigma can just be-

PP: Yeah, and gosh, I wish we were further along there. Because they, most of the time when folks come in and theyâve made that decision already, theyâre there, thereâs no boohoo, and grief, and things that are often portrayed. But to see some benefit to the situation, a lot of women ask to be able to donate the fetal tissue somehow."


----------



## FutureFarm

Believe me all the animals I listed are overpopulated where I live and routinely harass pets and livestock, destroy crops, and spread disease. They are nuisances. 
Why were the laws established that way? Why, other than a loophole to kill it, would an unborn child not have the same rights as an infant? What benefit does the general populace gain by denying rights to the unborn?


----------



## Lisa in WA

FutureFarm said:


> Raccoon, possum, skunk, squirrel, deer, crow, and fox all have seasons.
> I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. All I want is for everyone to have an opportunity to live their life.
> No one deserves to die because they are inconvenient.


Depends on where you live.
Unfortunately for you, whether or not a woman terminates her pregnancy is not your decision unless you are the woman and its your pregnancy. I understand what your opinion is, but that is all it is. Your opinion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Believe me all the animals I listed are overpopulated where I live and routinely harass pets and livestock, destroy crops, and spread disease. *They are nuisances.*
> 
> Why were the laws established that way? Why, other than a loophole to kill it, would an unborn child not have the same rights as an infant? What benefit does the general populace gain by denying rights to the unborn?


It makes no difference what you personally consider them to be

You're just repeating the same questions endlessly now

It's not about "the general populace"

It's about an individuals right to make their own decisions


----------



## FutureFarm

Does the unborn child have a right to make its own decisions? Did anyone ask it if it wanted to be donated?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Does the unborn child have a right to make its own decisions? Did anyone ask it if it wanted to be donated?


Well that is a really crazy question. Does it have the right to decide if it wants to eat as well. Maybe it wants to decide who carries it to term. Let me know when you can ask it these questions. Maybe it wants to order in pizza.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> This is in the latest transcript. Women want to donate.
> 
> "PP: Right, and we would definitely have to work that out in terms of budgeting. Especially because of the current situation with the regulations, theyâre extremely busy up there. And theyâre excited about it. And we have patients that come in all the time asking if they can donate the fetal tissue. A, because they hear about it in the media or whatever. And B because weâve done these projects in the past. And I donât know how it got out there, because people donât talk about their abortions, so how they got, how they talk about the fact they donated fetal tissueâ
> 
> Buyer: Iâm glad thatâs happening though, because the fact that people can talk about it, the stigma can just be-
> 
> PP: Yeah, and gosh, I wish we were further along there. Because they, most of the time when folks come in and theyâve made that decision already, theyâre there, thereâs no boohoo, and grief, and things that are often portrayed. But to see some benefit to the situation, a lot of women ask to be able to donate the fetal tissue somehow."


Thanks, this is for a friend that I helped out. She had to abort a child she had wanted very badly due to her health problems. 

She called me very upset asking if there was any forms that she signed stating release of the fetal material, obviously she was not really tracking at the time of the abortion. I did not remember any release forms but wasn't paying that much attention.

I will try to calm her down. She has already had a hell of a time


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> Thanks, this is for a friend that I helped out. She had to abort a child she had wanted very badly due to her health problems.
> 
> She called me very upset asking if there was any forms that she signed stating release of the fetal material, obviously she was not really tracking at the time of the abortion. I did not remember any release forms but wasn't paying that much attention.
> 
> I will try to calm her down. She has already had a hell of a time


From all the information I have read, the donation form is not glossed over.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Does the unborn child have a right to make its own decisions? Did anyone ask it if it wanted to be donated?


Now you're just being irrational.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> From all the information I have read, the donation form is not glossed over.


I think she was in such a mental state of shutdown that she just can't or doesn't want to remember. Thanks it will help if I can tell her the donation form would have been brought forward and she declined since it was something I don't think she could have contemplated at all.


----------



## painterswife

no really said:


> I think she was in such a mental state of shutdown that she just can't or doesn't want to remember. Thanks it will help if I can tell her the donation form would have been brought forward and she declined since it was something I don't think she could have contemplated at all.


Let her know that not all offices do tissue donation as well. In the first video the staff said that often when they are busy they often do not even suggest it because of the time it takes to go over everything and get consent.


----------



## no really

painterswife said:


> Let her know that not all offices do tissue donation as well. In the first video the staff said that often when they are busy they often do not even suggest it because of the time it takes to go over everything and get consent.


Thanks that is something I will stress first and foremost. High probability thinking about it they didn't as she was very upset.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Now you're just being irrational.



You're wanting to tell the unborn child how to live its life. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their life, just that everyone deserves to live their life. 
It's not the mother's liver, heart, lungs, and brain being extracted and donated to science.


----------



## gibbsgirl

no really said:


> I think she was in such a mental state of shutdown that she just can't or doesn't want to remember. Thanks it will help if I can tell her the donation form would have been brought forward and she declined since it was something I don't think she could have contemplated at all.


www.centerformedicalprogress.org/human-capital/document-vault/

This link goes to some documents. One is supposed to be a consent form for fetal tissue from a planned parenthood location. It may not be identical to even all planned parenthood or abortion providers. But, thought it might help if y'all were trying to recall what paperwork she did or looking for it through whatever paperwork she was given.

Said a prayer for her and baby and family and you and yours. Glad she has you to help be there for her. Hope she recovers well and soon.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

no really said:


> Thanks that is something I will stress first and foremost. High probability thinking about it they didn't as she was very upset.


One of the transcripts said the PP donor consent form was 8 pages, and took over an hour to do


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> www.center for medical progress.org/human-capital/document-vault/
> 
> This link goes to some documents


The link goes to "Donuts Inc" at : http://www.donuts.domains/

I wouldn't put much faith in any documents from the confirmed liars


----------



## Nevada

FutureFarm said:


> You're wanting to tell the unborn child how to live its life. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their life, just that everyone deserves to live their life.
> It's not the mother's liver, heart, lungs, and brain being extracted and donated to science.


As was already pointed out, your position is absurd. Even if born, a kid has no say in medical decisions. It's not like anyone asked me if I wanted to be circumcised, or if I wanted vaccinations for that matter. Giving a child or infant a say in medical decisions isn't reasonable.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> As was said, your position is absurd. Even if born, a kid has no say in medical decisions. It's not like anyone asked me if I wanted to be circumcised, or if I wanted vaccinations for that matter. Giving a child or infant a say in medical decisions isn't reasonable.


Who gets to decide then? I believe in parents having the right to make medical decisions for their children. But, there are plenty of medical decisions that are taken away from parents. And, plenty that parents are put under duress to agree to, so that's not really reasonable either, IMO.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> You're wanting to tell the unborn child how to live its life. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their life, just that everyone deserves to live their life.
> It's not the mother's liver, heart, lungs, and brain being extracted and donated to science.


You can't tell an unborn child anything, and until the child is born the mother makes the decision



> I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their life,


Yes, you are.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gibbsgirl said:


> *Who gets to decide then?* I believe in parents having the right to make medical decisions for their children. But, there are plenty of medical decisions that are taken away from parents. And, plenty that *parents are put under duress to agree* to, so that's not really reasonable either, IMO.


The mother gets to decide

That was established long ago

You keep insisting people are somehow being forced to have abortions, or are too "misinformed" to decide.

Why do you think everyone but you is capable of making their own decisions in life?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> The mother gets to decide
> 
> That was established long ago
> 
> You keep insisting people are somehow being forced to have abortions, or are too "misinformed" to decide.
> 
> Why do you think everyone but you is capable of making their own decisions in life?


Why do you keep believing I think other people are incapable of deciding for themselves? You seem rather fixated on that idea.

BTW, I was asking Nevada his thoughts.

And, I wasn't even asking about abortions specifically. I was asking him after his post talking about medical decisions for children and infants where he mentioned things like circumcisions and vaccines, which aren't done on children while in the womb.

I'm fine with mothers deciding during pregnancy, and I think parents should absolutely be the shotcallers for medical decisions for there children in almost all circumstances. But, I don't thinks the rules if the game parents have to play within many times.


----------



## Woolieface

painterswife said:


> No. Reflexes are independent of the neural activity that is required to feel pain.


_"By about the twelfth week, the fetus is able to kick and curl its toes, and may grasp its feet or scratch itself with its fingernails.[10] It can also move in response to a touch on its skin."_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_movement#Second_trimester


----------



## painterswife

Woolieface said:


> _"By about the twelfth week, the fetus is able to kick and curl its toes, and may grasp its feet or scratch itself with its fingernails.[10] It can also move in response to a touch on its skin."_
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_movement#Second_trimester


Not being done on purpose, it is all reflex and muscle spasms.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why do you keep believing I think other people are incapable of deciding for themselves? You seem rather fixated on that idea.


Because you *keep saying* they are misinformed or coerced into having procedures they don't understand

It's you who is "fixated"

I just happened to point it out, as have others



> But, I don't thinks the rules if the game parents have to play within many times.


That's just incoherent


----------



## gibbsgirl

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because you *keep saying* they are misinformed or coerced into having procedures they don't understand
> 
> It's you who is "fixated"
> 
> I just happened to point it out, as have others
> 
> 
> That's just incoherent


What I've talked about is improving what women are told or have provided to them by healthcare providers and comminoty servoces before and after. I didn't say efforts aren't being made and I didn't say it's always a failure. I said I think it could be improved. 

You can keep trying to shoot it down however you want by claiming I'm wrong. I've said I've seen it and I've read about it. I have.

Shoot, right here today, no really jumped on this actual thread and made a post about a friend who didn't quite feel like she understood everything that had happened with her abortion. It doesn't mean she was wrong to have it.

I don't even claim that it's intentional by providers or patients, just that it happens sometimes, and I think it could be improved and is worthwhile to attempt to improve.

I don't think ignoring problems makes them go away.

Eta. But, I don't think it's the rules of the game parents have to play within many times.

Excuse my autocorrect for inconveniencing you with a sentence you read as incoherent. Here's what I meant to say in the other post.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

gibbsgirl said:


> www.centerformedicalprogress.org/human-capital/document-vault/
> 
> This link goes to some documents.





Bearfootfarm said:


> The link goes to "Donuts Inc" at : http://www.donuts.domains/
> 
> I wouldn't put much faith in any documents from the confirmed liars


Really? Bear, really??


This little performance actually tells me even more about your character than your fanatical support of the institution of abortion does. 

And, I at least now understand your view on abortion. I understand how you could see the unborn as just a lump of cells, because you wouldn't know something 'human' if you saw it. 

But if you decide you do want a point of reference on that at some point in the future, I point you back to what GibbsGirl was doing. She found a set of the release forms, from the source she was able to find them quickest, to pass along to someone who could pass them along to help a friend rest assured. The point she was making was that the paperwork in use is complex and detailed enough that she could safely assure her friend that there was no chance that her consent was glossed over. Hate the injustice as she may, GG was being 'human'. 

And you come in with your sarcastic, condescending tripe. 

Disgusting. 

You don't care one whit about advancing the discussion or opening people's minds. You only want to be 'right', or 'win', or whatever you think this tack can get for you. It's a stupid internet forum, bro, and still you'd try to squash a moment of humanity if you thought it was counter to the side you staked out. 

I'm sorry for you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Still trolling I see.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

If you can't admit your response to GG was disgusting then there isn't much of anything I can do for you. 

Self-righteousness is a dangerous mistress. 

I'm done with you in everything but my prayers.


----------



## Nevada

gibbsgirl said:


> What I've talked about is improving what women are told


If you're suggesting that women are only agreeing to it because they don't understand it, I think you're mistaken.


----------



## kasilofhome

No really..if the woman request a copy of her personal medical records during the time... or if know the exact date a copy of the release if done would be found in those records....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I'm done with you in everything but my prayers.


I doubt that is true


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> If you're suggesting that women are only agreeing to it because they don't understand it, I think you're mistaken.


She's suggested precisely that many times although she will back pedal if it's pointed out


----------



## Lisa in WA

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Really? Bear, really??
> 
> 
> This little performance actually tells me even more about your character than your fanatical support of the institution of abortion does.
> 
> And, I at least now understand your view on abortion. I understand how you could see the unborn as just a lump of cells, because you wouldn't know something 'human' if you saw it.
> 
> But if you decide you do want a point of reference on that at some point in the future, I point you back to what GibbsGirl was doing. She found a set of the release forms, from the source she was able to find them quickest, to pass along to someone who could pass them along to help a friend rest assured. The point she was making was that the paperwork in use is complex and detailed enough that she could safely assure her friend that there was no chance that her consent was glossed over. Hate the injustice as she may, GG was being 'human'.
> 
> And you come in with your sarcastic, condescending tripe.
> 
> Disgusting.
> 
> You don't care one whit about advancing the discussion or opening people's minds. You only want to be 'right', or 'win', or whatever you think this tack can get for you. It's a stupid internet forum, bro, and still you'd try to squash a moment of humanity if you thought it was counter to the side you staked out.
> 
> I'm sorry for you.


Why don't you cut the melodrama? Good grief. Grow up.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Nevada said:


> If you're suggesting that women are only agreeing to it because they don't understand it, I think you're mistaken.


No, I don't think most women would change their mind if they understood more. Maybe some would.

But, I do think it would help many women who have complications to have a better understanding of them. That might make them decide not to. But, the bigger benefit I think would be for the women to be able to be more prepared to recognize when a problem after is something beyond routine.

Women have such a variety of what's normal with all kinds of reproductive health issues. It's not always easy to determine if what's going on with your body, mind whatever is something to run to the Dr about. They're often told that what's normal from one woman to the next may be miles apart, but both women may still be completely fine.

With an abortion or a miscarriage, there's a lot hormonally, physically, mentally that a mother can go through right after and there can also be long-term risks or complications to her general health and future pregnancies. I've met several who had a lot of trouble deciphering that they really were in need of follow-up care til it was really bad and they finally went and were told "you should have come back immediately".

I've also met some who had problems with later pregnancies that were reasonably attributed by doctors as being related to problems with prior abortions. Those moms didn't realize that the risks were as significant. Some even didn't tell their significant others about the abortions because they had no idea it might put them at risk in later pregnancies, so they were somewhat blindsided because everything else seemed rock solid for a low risk pregnancy.

Some moms I know regretted their abortions, some moms I know did not regret their abortions. But, it's been a fairly consistent opinion, in my experience, that they felt a bit " under informed " about risks and complications when they had them after, and knowing more might have helped them manage their future healthcare a bit more easily. Shoot even if nothing out if the ordinary goes wrong, it can be a little rough to recover from for some.

Hospitals regularly offer all kinds of classes related to healthcare and patient s being informed from lamaze,, breastfeeding, cancer support, elder caregiver support, drug and alcohol, hospice, grief counseling, etc, etc, etc. I haven't seen a lot of hospitals offering info mtgs or classes to the public or patients to discuss abortions or aftercare. I don't fault them, it's a pretty contentious subject. But, its unfortunate, because even small things like that I think could help improve things for the mothers who go through or are considering abortions.


----------



## JeffreyD

basketti said:


> Why don't you cut the melodrama? Good grief. Grow up.


You should follow your own advice!


----------



## kasilofhome

basketti said:


> Why don't you cut the melodrama? Good grief. Grow up.


Personal


I hope you don't delete..


----------



## haley1

I have not read through all the posts so this might be a repeat but I remember a few months ago when there was the big fight here about measles and the fact coming out about some vaccines have fetal tissue in and "how could this be" and not many believing that industry could get aborted fetuses for this...... well maybe this is where they might come from?


----------



## Lisa in WA

haley1 said:


> I have not read through all the posts so this might be a repeat but I remember a few months ago when there was the big fight here about measles and the fact coming out about some vaccines have fetal tissue in and "how could this be" and not many believing that industry could get aborted fetuses for this...... well maybe this is where they might come from?


Oh for pity's sake. There is no fetal tissue in vaccines. Some are derived from cell strains derived from fetal cells.
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The link goes to "Donuts Inc" at : http://www.donuts.domains/
> 
> I wouldn't put much faith in any documents from the confirmed liars


Someone has trouble with cutting and pasting... or simply clicking, I don't know - the link worked fine for me


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> Personal
> 
> 
> I hope you don't delete..


Not personal at all. Buy hey...last time I deleted a post you indulged in name calling. Remember?

Do post deletions bother you like people looking at your profile do?


----------



## Jolly

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If you can't admit your response to GG was disgusting then there isn't much of anything I can do for you.
> 
> Self-righteousness is a dangerous mistress.
> 
> I'm done with you in everything but my prayers.


Bear-free zones are good for your blood pressure.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The mother gets to decide [to kill the unborn child or allow it to grow and be born]
> 
> That was established long ago [10, 50, 100 years ago?]
> 
> You keep insisting people are somehow being forced to have abortions, or are too "misinformed" to decide. [those that decide to have an abortion take away any chance for any decision by the unborn child in what would have been their life]
> 
> Why do you think everyone but you is capable of making their own decisions in life? [somehow - I do not think the meaning of what was typed was what was intended but hey, I could be wrong]


Hey Bear, riddle me this, what if you had have been aborted? Oh wait, you would have never known, the spot where you sit and type this evening would now be empty, you would have no friends, no family, no farm, no you. Everything that you have done in your life would be absent from this world. 

Sound reasonable?


----------



## gibbsgirl

Shine said:


> Someone has trouble with cutting and pasting... or simply clicking, I don't know - the link worked fine for me


I don't know how to cut and paste from my phone, so I had to edit my post because when I typed it in by hand, the autocorrect messed up the link. I didn't realize what i tyoed was altered fir the weblink. It just took me a minute to do it when I saw it. That's one of the reasons I don't put many links up, although i really do enjoy checking many links others provide .

. But, I guess some people are so laser focused on trying to scoop up anything that might be a chance to rip apart something another person posts, they can't resist.....sigh, oh well.


----------



## Shine

gibbsgirl said:


> I don't know how to cut and paste from my phone, so I had to edit my post because when I typed it in by hand, the autocorrect messed up the link. I didn't realize what i tyoed was altered fir the weblink. It just took me a minute to do it when I saw it. That's one of the reasons I don't put many links up, although i really do enjoy checking many links others provide .
> 
> . But, I guess some people are so laser focused on trying to scoop up anything that might be a chance to rip apart something another person posts, they can't resist.....sigh, oh well.


Then I was out of line... My apologies to whomever might have been offended.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Someone has trouble with cutting and pasting... or simply clicking, I don't know - the link worked fine for me


I clicked the *original* link, and then copied and pasted the results I got

She obviously then went back and repaired the link, since in the original version, only a small portion at the beginning was blue, indicating the actual hyperlink


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Hey Bear, riddle me this, what if you had have been aborted? Oh wait, you would have never known, the spot where you sit and type this evening would now be empty, you would have no friends, no family, no farm, no you. Everything that you have done in your life would be absent from this world.
> 
> Sound reasonable?


It wouldn't matter at all, since I don't really care about "what if's"


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It wouldn't matter at all, since I don't really care about "what if's"


Didn't think you would delve into this, another point that destroys your entire argument. You can't answer these questions.

Here is one more for you. 

A team of police go undercover, they work their way into a nefarious crime syndicate... They gather the necessary information to shed light on the operations of that criminal syndicate and then present that as evidence. 

Does the Judge scream "Liars" at them and throw them out of court?


----------



## susieneddy

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
The link goes to "Donuts Inc" at : http://www.donuts.domains/

I wouldn't put much faith in any documents from the confirmed liars


Shine said:


> Someone has trouble with cutting and pasting... or simply clicking, I don't know - the link worked fine for me


really...you don't know??


----------



## susieneddy

just curious if anyone has changed their mind yet?


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Hey Bear, riddle me this, what if you had have been aborted? Oh wait, you would have never known, the spot where you sit and type this evening would now be empty, you would have no friends, no family, no farm, no you. Everything that you have done in your life would be absent from this world.
> 
> Sound reasonable?


Sounds like ridiculous reasoning. Some make it to birth, some make it to age 5, some make it to their twenties, some die old. No one is guaranteed any of that including grandchildren.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Didn't think you would delve into this, another point that destroys your entire argument. You can't answer these questions.
> 
> Here is one more for you.
> 
> A team of police go undercover, they work their way into a nefarious crime syndicate... They gather the necessary information to shed light on the operations of that criminal syndicate and then present that as evidence.
> 
> Does the Judge scream "Liars" at them and throw them out of court?


They aren't valid questions
They are your "what if" fantasies

In the police case, they wouldn't be in court if they didn't have* real *evidence, whereas in the PP case, all we have is patched together videos with no actual proof of any crimes.

Let's stick to actual facts and forget the fiction, OK?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

susieneddy said:


> just curious if anyone has changed their mind yet?


Of course not, and no one will


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Sounds like ridiculous reasoning. Some make it to birth, some make it to age 5, some make it to their twenties, some die old. No one is guaranteed any of that including grandchildren.


No, some are GUARANTEED NOTHING because someone SPECIFICALLY and with MALICE snuffs out their chances before they even get into the game. Someone who feels as if they are an annoyance to be flicked off of their body like an annoying mosquito.

Have you ever swatted a mosquito? Wow... what a pain they are.

From that Jack Nicholson movie - You can't HANDLE the TRUTH. Go ahead, tell me it is legal for now, again, I understand that mindset, although - for a free person, it is quite a feeble response.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Bear-free zones are good for your blood pressure.


And yet you seem to mention me once or twice a day.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't valid questions
> They are your "what if" fantasies
> 
> In the police case, they wouldn't be in court if they didn't have* real *evidence, whereas in the PP case, all we have is patched together videos with no actual proof of any crimes.
> 
> Let's stick to actual facts and forget the fiction, OK?


Your opinion. Did you see the tray of fetal parts on the lighted table? Did you see the hands, did you see the feet? Did you see the portion of the skull with the eyes intact? Are those fiction? What if there are crimes? Will you stand aside and allow the investigations [thank God] to come to fruition? Or will you continue to try to spin it as you have been solidly doing? What if they are involved in crimes - Oh.. you don't go there - you appear to hide in your bubble and type - abortions are legal. What if they are working a scam to enrich themselves via fetal tissue? Oh, heck - you do not answer those questions, they are dangerous to your stance.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> No, some are GUARANTEED NOTHING because someone SPECIFICALLY and with MALICE snuffs out their chances before they even get into the game. Someone who feels as if they are an annoyance to be flicked off of their body like an annoying mosquito.
> 
> Have you ever swatted a mosquito? Wow... what a pain they are.
> 
> From that Jack Nicholson movie - You can't HANDLE the TRUTH. Go ahead, tell me it is legal for now, again, I understand that mindset, although - for a free person, it is quite a feeble response.


Malice. Reaching shows the mzny flaws i your posted position.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Your opinion. Did you see the tray of fetal parts on the lighted table? Did you see the hands, did you see the feet? Did you see the portion of the skull with the eyes intact? Are those fiction? *What if* there are crimes? Will you stand aside and allow the investigations [thank God] to come to fruition? Or will you continue to try to spin it as you have been solidly doing? *What if* they are involved in crimes - Oh.. you don't go there - you appear to hide in your bubble and type - abortions are legal. *What if *they are working a scam to enrich themselves via fetal tissue? Oh, heck - you do not answer those questions, they are dangerous to your stance.


Nothing is dangerous to "my stance" which has been, and still remains, "Mind your own business, and stop trying to control others"

What if I just stop replying to these fantasies, and wait until you have something reasonable to discuss, since you're repeating these same things on about three different threads now?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Malice. Reaching shows the mzny flaws i your posted position.


OK, for those unborn children, what are their options?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing is dangerous to "my stance" which has been, and still remains, "Mind your own business, and stop trying to control others"
> 
> What if I just stop replying to these fantasies, and wait until you have something reasonable to discuss, since you're repeating these same things on about three different threads now?


When the actions of others include killing unborn children - I will not be silent.

My arguments have sound reasoning, you just duck and weave because you have no valid point of reference other than "it's legal now" and that you have the barest of opinion margins to capitalize upon.

[I reference Ron White's methodology of debate once more.]

I am grateful for all of these videos, for they have focused the stare of America upon abortion and the processes associated with them. This is good.

Your arguments carry the slightest shred of validity in that I do not have the right to tell others what they have to do, but you seem to gloss over the premise that a product of conception should have it's chance at the world - you wish to deny that - I am confident that I have shown that.

Spin away.

Oh... ETA - your argument will be stronger if you chose not to answer the tough questions that are attacking your stance. So... I understand


----------



## beenaround

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course not, and no one will


there are many groups who help pregnant women change their minds all the time. I support a local pregnancy center in town.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> No, some are GUARANTEED NOTHING because someone SPECIFICALLY and with MALICE snuffs out their chances before they even get into the game. Someone who feels as if they are an annoyance to be flicked off of their body like an annoying mosquito.
> 
> Have you ever swatted a mosquito? Wow... what a pain they are.
> 
> From that Jack Nicholson movie - You can't HANDLE the TRUTH. Go ahead, tell me it is legal for now, again, I understand that mindset, although - for a free person, it is quite a feeble response.


Are you sure there is malice involved?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Hey Bear, riddle me this, what if you had have been aborted? Oh wait, you would have never known, the spot where you sit and type this evening would now be empty, you would have no friends, no family, no farm, no you. Everything that you have done in your life would be absent from this world.
> 
> Sound reasonable?


This sounds very reasonable. It also sounds very much like that of any child who has been denied their chance at life by many forms of birth control.... The regular pill, the morning after pill, use of a condom, IUDs, abstinence.... They also never know anything about friends, family, love, playing with puppy's..... 
It's exactly the same from that child's pov.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Didn't think you would delve into this, another point that destroys your entire argument. You can't answer these questions.
> 
> Here is one more for you.
> 
> A team of police go undercover, they work their way into a nefarious crime syndicate... They gather the necessary information to shed light on the operations of that criminal syndicate and then present that as evidence.
> 
> Does the Judge scream "Liars" at them and throw them out of court?


Nope, the judge will look at the "evidence" and determine its validity, if it's just hype and false accusations or misleading he will toss the case in the trash where it deserves to be.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This sounds very reasonable. It also sounds very much like that of any child who has been denied their chance at life by many forms of birth control.... The regular pill, the morning after pill, use of a condom, IUDs, abstinence.... They also never know anything about friends, family, love, playing with puppy's.....
> It's exactly the same from that child's pov.


 What is your earliest memory? I am willing to bet it was not your first breath. So, that being said, you would not have known the difference if you had been killed prior to ~age 3 years. Under those conditions, would it be acceptable to kill a child that is below the "age of Sentience"?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> What is your earliest memory? I am willing to bet it was not your first breath. So, that being said, you would not have known the difference if you had been killed prior to ~age 3 years. Under those conditions, would it be acceptable to kill a child that is below the "age of Sentience"?


Which kid?? It makes a big difference to my answer!

As to my earliest memory.... I remember going to the dance with dad, coming home with mom! That 49 Dodge had a big back seat.


----------



## Farmerga

We hear about choice, in medical decisions, for the mother, but, think about this. Those decisions have limits. If your child has chicken pox, you can't decide to take a knife and "bleed" the child to bring his body back into balance. Why? besides being totally useless, it is also dangerous to the child. Abortion is not just dangerous to the child, it is DEADLY. It is the right and responsibility of a just society to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Just like you can't choose to "bleed" your child, you shouldn't be able to choose to kill him either.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> We hear about choice, in medical decisions, for the mother, but, think about this. Those decisions have limits. If your child has chicken pox, you can't decide to take a knife and "bleed" the child to bring his body back into balance. Why? besides being totally useless, it is also dangerous to the child. Abortion is not just dangerous to the child, it is DEADLY. It is the right and responsibility of a just society to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Just like you can't choose to "bleed" your child, you shouldn't be able to choose to kill him either.


I am curious. Is there any point for you from fertilization to birth that is a hard line with regards to abortion?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> We hear about choice, in medical decisions, for the mother, but, think about this. Those decisions have limits. If your child has chicken pox, you can't decide to take a knife and "bleed" the child to bring his body back into balance. Why? besides being totally useless, it is also dangerous to the child. Abortion is not just dangerous to the child, it is DEADLY. It is the right and responsibility of a just society to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Just like you can't choose to "bleed" your child, you shouldn't be able to choose to kill him either.


I am fairly certain that killing children is illegal in all fifty states and the death penalty still exists in many of them....life sentences in those that won't kill you for it. A fetus on the other hand has not been labeled as off limits to an abortionist. Well they were many years ago, but due to the many problems associated with enforcement and women dying those laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I am curious. Is there any point for you from fertilization to birth that is a hard line with regards to abortion?


 With the spark of fertilization, a unique, human life is created. I do not see how it would be within another's right to terminate that unique human life.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> With the spark of fertilization, a unique, human life is created. I do not see how it would be within another's right to terminate that unique human life.


So birth control in any form that prevents implantation is a no go for you as well.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am fairly certain that killing children is illegal in all fifty states and the death penalty still exists in many of them....life sentences in those that won't kill you for it. A fetus on the other hand has not been labeled as off limits to an abortionist. Well they were many years ago, but due to the many problems associated with enforcement and women dying those laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.


 Once upon a time Black slaves and Native Americans (among others) weren't labeled as fully human and had few rights of same. Our society evolved past that foolishness. It is my hope that we can expand human rights to the last group of humans not yet included, the unborn.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> With the spark of fertilization, a unique, human life is created. I do not see how it would be within another's right to terminate that unique human life.


The Supreme Court saw it differently. There is a reason we have courts and laws.... It keeps those who like to meddle in others lives from being able to do so. Well, not really but it helps sometimes. Meddlers will meddle... It's what they do.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So birth control in any form that prevents implantation is a no go for you as well.


 
Yes, as prevention of implantation kills a unique human life.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Once upon a time Black slaves and Native Americans (among others) weren't labeled as fully human and had few rights of same. Our society evolved past that foolishness. It is my hope that we can expand human rights to the last group of humans not yet included, the unborn.


Yep, and women were denied the right to deal with their reproductive systems as they think best too.... We didn't evolve on that point for well over a century after we got rid of slavery.... Little by little we are getting there!


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The Supreme Court saw it differently. There is a reason we have courts and laws.... It keeps those who like to meddle in others lives from being able to do so. Well, not really but it helps sometimes. Meddlers will meddle... It's what they do.


 
The SCOTUS has been and often is, totally wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson 
for example, springs to mind.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Yes, as prevention of implantation kills a unique human life.


Okay we get where your line is.

Do you believe that I have the right to have my own line and that I can believe from my education and gathered knowledge that there is no cortical function and therefore no person until much later in the gestation?


----------



## FeralFemale

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Are you sure there is malice involved?


Actually, it does fit the legal definition of malice in regard to murder which boils down to intent and premeditation.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Yes, as prevention of implantation kills a unique human life.


I don't think a single cell is a human being... Although it does have the potential to become one. On today's world of cloning most any cell has that potential.... Wanna have people put in jail for trimming their toenails, Or getting a haircut?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> The SCOTUS has been and often is, totally wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson
> for example, springs to mind.


Sorry, I am not familiar with plessy v ferguson?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and women were denied the right to deal with their reproductive systems as they think best too.... We didn't evolve on that point for well over a century after we got rid of slavery.... Little by little we are getting there!


 Women "dealing with their reproductive systems" is not at issue. Of course women have the right to deal with their reproductive systems. What they shouldn't have the right to do is to kill a unique human life (other than in defense of another life). The right to live supersedes the right to not be inconvenienced.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Women "dealing with their reproductive systems" is not at issue. Of course women have the right to deal with their reproductive systems. What they shouldn't have the right to do is to kill a unique human life (other than in defense of another life). The right to live supersedes the right to not be inconvenienced.


You seem to believe this.... I strongly urge you not to get any abortions, it could cause you a lot of unnecessary stress.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't think a single cell is a human being... Although it does have the potential to become one. On today's world of cloning most any cell has that potential.... Wanna have people put in jail for trimming their toenails, Or getting a haircut?


 I am glad you brought up cloning. Once the adult cell is manipulated and an embryo is created, that embryo should have the same rights as "natural" embryos. Until that happens, those cells are just part of the larger organism, much like sperm and egg cells.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sorry, I am not familiar with plessy v ferguson?


Let me help you out:

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal". The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You seem to believe this.... I strongly urge you not to get any abortions, it could cause you a lot of unnecessary stress.


That is simply a silly argument, akin to telling someone against slavery not to buy a slave, but, leave others, with differing opinions, alone to enslave at will.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Okay we get where your line is.
> 
> Do you believe that I have the right to have my own line and that I can believe from my education and gathered knowledge that there is no cortical function and therefore no person until much later in the gestation?


 You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. What we, as a society must do is to come to a decision, or, likely and ebb and flow of decisions, on where that line is. There are some who believe as I do. There are some who say not after the 1st trimester, there are some who say not after the 2nd, some up to the moment of birth, and a few believe that a "parent" should be allowed to kill a child up to toddler age. Who is right? I am convinced that I am. You are convinced that you are. I will fight for my beliefs and you can fight for yours.


----------



## FutureFarm

As a society we had got a lot of lines wrong initially. There was a time when slaves didn't count as people at all. Then they were counted as 3/5 of a person, but were still denied all rights and privileges as US citizens. Then the slaves were freed, but still not treated equally. Then the SCOTUS said that separate but equal was ok, and discrimination was codified law. It was eventually rightfully overturned, and as a society we are moving closer to equality. 
The ban on late term and partial birth abortions is a step in the right direction, but much like the 3/5 compromise, it is a long way from the correct line of thought. I expect those who wish to continue to have the lawful ability to kill the unborn to fight just as hard for their "right to choose" as the slaveholder a fought for their "right to property". Hopefully one day my grandchildren struggle to realize how abortion was ever an accepted practice, like I struggle to realize how slavery was an accepted practice. 
Look up the characteristics of life in any biology book. Tell me if after reading those you don't see how a fetus qualifies as life. And as long as it is a human fetus it is a human life. Don't all lives matter? Don't all humans have the right to live their life?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

beenaround said:


> there are many groups who help pregnant women change their minds all the time. I support a local pregnancy center in town.


None of them are *here* are they?
My answers don't necessarily apply to the entire world


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Yes, as *prevention of implantation* kills a unique human life.


You should be out having sex, because if you're not, you're killing a unique human life


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should be out having sex, because if you're not, you're killing a unique human life


How silly!! I don't understand how one can be so obtuse as to not understand the difference between an unfertilized gamete and a fertilized egg/embryo.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> How silly!! I don't understand how one can be so obtuse as to not understand the difference between an unfertilized gamete and a fertilized egg/embryo.


I could stay the same about the difference between a fertilized egg and a fetus with a cortical activity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *How silly!!* I don't understand how one can be so obtuse as to not understand the difference between an unfertilized gamete and a fertilized egg/embryo.


It's the exact same argument you used, and yes it is quite silly, so I'm glad you realized that.


----------



## FutureFarm

Cortical activity is not a characteristic of life. Plants never develop cortical activity and yet they are alive.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Cortical activity is not a characteristic of life. Plants never develop cortical activity and yet they are alive.


Did I say the difference between life in one organism and another?

Life is present in the unfertilized ovum as well.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I could stay the same about the difference between a fertilized egg and a fetus with a cortical activity.


 The main difference is that a fertilized egg, barring death of the egg, will likely develop into a fetus with cortical activity, then a baby. An unfertilized gamete will not. Again, it is a case of scale of development, a transient property.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yet the death of the DNA of any egg or sperm does not end the life of that DNA.
The death of an egg or sperm when not fertilized is no different than the death of million of other cells matching the same DNA of the egg or sperm... in as much as skin cells of humans have a natural independent life cycle of the whole individual human ... when a skin cell of a human dies the DNA of that human continues.

A pond fertilization a separate DNA is formed... totally different than the egg or the sperm...it is a separate life the death of that cell life cycle is the death of a new person.
The deliberate act to harm that separate life is murder..the size of a life form can not ever be used scientifically to determine if it is a live as size of life is irrelevant to the determination of living .


----------



## painterswife

DNA does not make a person. That DNA could end up a brainless fetus.


----------



## kasilofhome

DNA scientifically defines a separate life form...There for the argument of its Her body she can do what she chooses is false in as much as it honestly is her body and the body of another human.

Just a fact.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> DNA scientifically defines a separate life form...There for the argument of its Her body she can die what she chooses is false in as much as it honestly is her body and the body of another human.
> 
> Just a fact.


Yes, it could be a chicken a horse or a fish. Separate DNA does no mean it IS a person.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Yes, it could be a chicken a horse or a fish. Separate DNA does no mean it IS a person.


 If a woman is carrying a chicken, horse, or, fish in her womb, I would be in favor of her removing it quickly.


----------



## kasilofhome

I understand the practice of bestiality is a practice of some

Is this a potential personal concern 

Certain closely related separate species can breed and produce a viable life but 
Thus far the above do not seem closed enough for a viable offspring.

I hope this is of help to you.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This sounds very reasonable. It also sounds very much like that of any child who has been denied their chance at life by many forms of birth control.... The regular pill, the morning after pill, use of a condom, IUDs, abstinence.... They also never know anything about friends, family, love, playing with puppy's.....
> It's exactly the same from that child's pov.


Unless I am mistaken, most birth control prevents conception from occurring with the exception of the morning after pill which causes the products of conception to be expelled without regard to any viability. So, no, I am not against birth control that prevents conception.


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> I understand the practice of bestiality is a practice of some
> 
> Is this a potential personal concern
> 
> Certain closely related separate species can breed and produce a viable life but
> Thus far the above do not seem closed enough for a viable offspring.
> 
> I hope this is of help to you.


Your post are not much help at any time. They don't often make sense and they usually have not much to do with the reality of the thread.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Unless I am mistaken, most birth control prevents conception from occurring with the exception of the morning after pill which causes the products of conception to be expelled without regard to any viability. So, no, I am not against birth control that prevents conception.


Not true. The pill and IUD's all prevent implantation.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> The main difference is that a fertilized egg, barring death of the egg, will likely develop into a fetus with cortical activity, then a baby. An unfertilized gamete will not. Again, it is a case of scale of development, a transient property.


Well, it seems to me then that every woman should get busy and get that egg fertilized! Failure to do so (according to your statement) will result in the death of that baby!


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Not true. The pill and IUD's all prevent implantation.


That is true. The pills CAN prevent implantation, but, it can also prevent ovulation. Barrier methods and sterilization are two reliable methods that prevent fertilization, not 100%, but, up there.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> That is true. The pills CAN prevent implantation, but, it can also prevent ovulation. Barrier methods and sterilization are two reliable methods that prevent fertilization, not 100%, but, up there.


So are you fighting to outlaw birth control that prevents implantation?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, it seems to me then that every woman should get busy and get that egg fertilized! Failure to do so (according to your statement) will result in the death of that baby!


 You cannot be that obtuse. I implied nothing of the kind, in my statement.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, it seems to me then that every woman should get busy and get that egg fertilized! Failure to do so (according to your statement) will result in the death of that baby!


kasilofhome kasilofhome is online now


Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alaska- Kenai Pen- Kasilof
Posts: 9,072
Yet the death of the DNA of any egg or sperm does not end the life of that DNA.
The death of an egg or sperm when not fertilized is no different than the death of million of other cells matching the same DNA of the egg or sperm... in as much as skin cells of humans have a natural independent life cycle of the whole individual human ... when a skin cell of a human dies the DNA of that human continues.

A pond fertilization a separate DNA is formed... totally different than the egg or the sperm...it is a separate life the death of that cell life cycle is the death of a new person.
The deliberate act to harm that separate life is murder..the size of a life form can not ever be used scientifically to determine if it is a live as size of life is irrelevant to the determination of living .


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> Unless I am mistaken, most birth control prevents conception from occurring with the exception of the morning after pill which causes the products of conception to be expelled without regard to any viability. So, no, I am not against birth control that prevents conception.


ok, but you do seem to be apposed to others being able to make their own choice as to which type of birth control they wish to use. What makes your choice so much better than the next person? All forms of birth control are designed to prevent an unwanted child being born.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> You cannot be that obtuse. *I implied nothing* of the kind, in my statement.


That's correct since you plainly stated:



> Yes, as prevention of implantation kills a unique human life.


There are no implications at all
Anything that "prevents implantation" is unacceptable to you


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So are you fighting to outlaw birth control that prevents implantation?


 I would like to see that happen, but, that is a fight for another day. I would like to see fertilization prevention technology improve to the point where taking vast amounts of hormones is no longer the preferred method of BC.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's correct since you plainly stated:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no implications at all
> Anything that "prevents implantation" is unacceptable to you


 Of an embryo, of course. As I plainly stated in several other posts, for days and days. What is that you say? context matters?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I would like to see that happen, but, that is a fight for another day. I would like to see fertilization prevention technology improve to the point where taking vast amounts of hormones is no longer the preferred method of BC.


I personally can not understand how you can not fight for both if you believe it is the same thing.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> kasilofhome kasilofhome is online now
> 
> 
> Join Date: Feb 2005
> Location: Alaska- Kenai Pen- Kasilof
> Posts: 9,072
> Yet the death of the DNA of any egg or sperm does not end the life of that DNA.
> The death of an egg or sperm when not fertilized is no different than the death of million of other cells matching the same DNA of the egg or sperm... in as much as skin cells of humans have a natural independent life cycle of the whole individual human ... when a skin cell of a human dies the DNA of that human continues.
> 
> A pond fertilization a separate DNA is formed... totally different than the egg or the sperm...it is a separate life the death of that cell life cycle is the death of a new person.
> The deliberate act to harm that separate life is murder..the size of a life form can not ever be used scientifically to determine if it is a live as size of life is irrelevant to the determination of living .


Ok, eggs and sperm cells are somewhat different than skin cells, or hair cells if I am reading this correctly.... the egg and sperm cells are designed to carry on life. Those cells would therefor need to be brought together lest that life should perish. By what right do you claim not allowing that life to fulfill its role is murder after they are brought together and not murder by deliberately keeping them separated for the purpose of letting them die? Either way that life dies, and never plays with butterflies nor puppies.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I personally can not understand how you can not fight for both if you believe it is the same thing.


 It is a matter of chance of success and picking low hanging fruit. It is easier to stop partial birth abortion that it is to stop the anti-implantation forms of birth-control. This fight is incremental. If we are to concentrate on anti-implantation forms of BC, we might lose an important battle on the other side of the issue. I wish we could do it all at once, but, that aint gonna happen.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> The main difference is that *a fertilized egg, barring death of the egg, will likely develop into a fetus with cortical activity, then a baby. An unfertilized gamete will not. * Again, it is a case of scale of development, a transient property.





Farmerga said:


> You cannot be that obtuse. I implied nothing of the kind, in my statement.


Of course you did! Its right there in black and white, and I bolded it just for you. If left unfertilized you say that egg will die, then I say "so lets get busy and get it fertilized!" so it doesnt die!


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> It is a matter of chance of success and picking low hanging fruit. It is easier to stop partial birth abortion that it is to stop the anti-implantation forms of birth-control. This fight is incremental. If we are to concentrate on anti-implantation forms of BC, we might lose an important battle on the other side of the issue. I wish we could do it all at once, but, that aint gonna happen.


I see it all about what you can win not about what you think is right.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, eggs and sperm cells are somewhat different than skin cells, or hair cells if I am reading this correctly.... the egg and sperm cells are designed to carry on life. Those cells would therefor need to be brought together lest that life should perish. By what right do you claim not allowing that life to fulfill its role is murder after they are brought together and not murder by deliberately keeping them separated for the purpose of letting them die? Either way that life dies, and never plays with butterflies nor puppies.


I fail to see the logic of your argument. You are suggesting that a woman should carry to term all ~200 million eggs? Or do you think that some were intended as cast offs? What of the number of sperm that are generated in a man's lifetime.

Again, your argument carries no concept of consideration for the actuality of the subject that you address.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> I fail to see the logic of your argument. You are suggesting that a woman should carry to term all ~200 million eggs? Or do you think that some were intended as cast offs? What of the number of sperm that are generated in a man's lifetime.
> 
> Again, your argument carries no concept of consideration for the actuality of the subject that you address.


Women only ovulate 300 to 400 eggs and less if they get pregnant every time they can. So maybe doable.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Of an embryo, of course. As I plainly stated in several other posts, for days and days. What is that you say? context matters?


I am pretty sure abstinence prevents implantation of an embryo too.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, eggs and sperm cells are somewhat different than skin cells, or hair cells if I am reading this correctly.... the egg and sperm cells are designed to carry on life. Those cells would therefor need to be brought together lest that life should perish. By what right do you claim not allowing that life to fulfill its role is murder after they are brought together and not murder by deliberately keeping them separated for the purpose of letting them die? Either way that life dies, and never plays with butterflies nor puppies.


 I know you understand this and are just being silly, but, once more, Sperm and Egg cells are part of the parent organism, they are not separate life forms they are not unique. Once fertilization occurs, a new, separate life is created. Like we have discussed before, when the issue of cloning was raised, Sperm, left alone will not develop into new life. Nor would an egg, nor would a skin or blood cell. It is only when those two cells come together is a new life created. Anything that happens, after that moment to stop its development kills a new unique human life. Anything that happens prior to that event does not kill a unique human life.


----------



## painterswife

Lets add in cloning. Now ever cell is a new human life form. Does every ear or liver we grow get to have it's own rights? Maybe only the brains. Though maybe clones won't have rights because they don't have separate DNA.


----------



## painterswife

What about twins or identical multiples. They have identical DNA so I guess they have to share the rights. Or does one get the rights and the rest are out of luck?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure abstinence prevents implantation of an embryo too.


 It prevents CREATION of an embryo. Without the embryo, there is nothing to kill, so, abortion/non-implantation is irrelevant.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> What about twins or identical multiples. They have identical DNA so I guess they have to share the rights. Or does one get the rights and the rest are out of luck?


 Even with identical twins, multiples, clones, etc. None are exact copies with exactly the same DNA. There are differences in the genomes, perhaps small differences, but, they are there.


----------



## kasilofhome

Fertilization creates the the need to attach and implant... failure to be fertilized sends the egg to follow the natural course for an egg no longer needed.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Lets add in cloning. Now ever cell is a new human life form. Does every ear or liver we grow get to have it's own rights? Maybe only the brains. Though maybe clones won't have rights because they don't have separate DNA.


 As I have discussed previously. Clones become separate life forms when an embryo is produced. The skin/blood/ hair of the parent organism is part of the original organism much like sperm and egg cells. Also, clones have slightly different DNA than the "parent" organism.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> As I have discussed previously. Clones become separate life forms when an embryo is produced. The skin/blood/ hair of the parent organism is part of the original organism much like sperm and egg cells. Also, clones have slightly different DNA than the "parent" organism.


Okay, do you really believe that you will succeed in outlawing all abortion?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> I fail to see the logic of your argument. You are suggesting that a woman should carry to term all ~200 million eggs? Or do you think that some were intended as cast offs? What of the number of sperm that are generated in a man's lifetime.


Naw just the ones she drops into hopper to be fertilized. If there is indeed a beginning for the process of creating "new life" that would be it. Until that egg drops, there is little anyone can do to "save" it. Once it hits the hopper life can proceed and unless someone deliberately prevents its fertilization or its implantation after being fertilized or a host of other maladies that can occur twixt that time and a live birth, we are going to need a puppy for the kid to play with. It makes little difference who does or doesnt do what along the way, the results are identical if the process is interfered with.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Okay, do you really believe that you will succeed in outlawing all abortion?


 Lets get one thing straight. I am not opposed to abortion to save the life of the mother, so, I am not wanting to outlaw all abortion. But, will I be successful? Likely not. I see this as a multi-decade, multi-generational fight. I may not live to see it be tossed on the dust bin of history, but, perhaps my daughter will, or, my future grand children.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> It prevents CREATION of an embryo. Without the embryo, there is nothing to kill, so, abortion/non-implantation is irrelevant.


very good, I am glad you grasp that abstinence prevents the implantation of an embryo! Hang in there, you will get the rest of it too...... maybe.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Lets get one thing straight. I am not opposed to abortion to save the life of the mother, so, I am not wanting to outlaw all abortion. But, will I be successful? Likely not. I see this as a multi-decade, multi-generational fight. I may not live to see it be tossed on the dust bin of history, but, perhaps my daughter will, or, my future grand children.


Ok, from this statement I can logically deduce that you are prochoice.... and like most prolifers "as long as its you who gets to make the choice".


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Naw just the ones she drops into hopper to be fertilized. If there is indeed a beginning for the process of creating "new life" that would be it. Until that egg drops, there is little anyone can do to "save" it. Once it hits the hopper life can proceed and unless someone deliberately prevents its fertilization or its implantation after being fertilized or a host of other maladies that can occur twixt that time and a live birth, we are going to need a puppy for the kid to play with. It makes little difference who does or doesnt do what along the way, *the results are identical if the process is interfered with*.


 But they aren't. Sure, the result of fertilization prevention is the absence of a baby, just like taking pills to prevent implantation, or, having an abortion, but, preventing fertilization doesn't result with the death of a unique human life whereas the other two do. While one result is, indeed, identical, to say that the RESULTS are the same, is false.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Fertilization creates the the need to attach and implant... failure to be fertilized sends the egg to follow the natural course for an egg no longer needed.


Yeppers, a deliberate failure on the part of the woman to get it fertilized and that egg winds up in the same place a late term aborted fetus ends up.... in someones trash! This is of course followed up by a phone call to the pet shop.... "we wont be needing that puppy after all"


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> But they aren't. Sure, the result of fertilization prevention is the absence of a baby, just like taking pills to prevent implantation, or, having an abortion, but, preventing fertilization doesn't result with the death of a unique human life whereas the other two do. While one result is, indeed, identical, to say that the RESULTS are the same, is false.


Pray tell.... what is the difference from the childs point of view? or the pet shops point of view? In both cases there will be no child, and no need for that puppy. The ONLY difference that I can see is that in one case the meddler gets to beat his chest and announce to the world that they are indeed holier than someone else. I hope thats reward enough for interfering with a total strangers right to peruse their happiness.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, from this statement I can logically deduce that you are prochoice.... and like most prolifers "as long as its you who gets to make the choice".


 Of course I am pro-choice, as long as that choice doesn't infringe on the rights of another. I am just human enough to count our unborn population among those deserving of rights. If one wants to take an ice pick and pluck his own eye out, I say have at it. If a women wants to remove her uterus and print the text of the Roe V. Wade decision on it and hang it from her wall, more power to her. If a man wants to call himself Mr. Ed and go around on all fours and winey, To each his own. If a church group wants to dance with snakes and drink poison, I say have a blast. If any of those people want to harm me, or, anyone else, I have a problem with that and I will not alter in that belief.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Pray tell.... what is the difference from the childs point of view? or the pet shops point of view? In both cases there will be no child, and no need for that puppy.


 In one instance there IS NO CHILD, in the other, THERE IS. Again a 1 year old is at the mercy of his/her parents. Few remember being 1 year old, does that mean that it is acceptable for the parents to kill that child? I mean what is the difference, from the child's point of view?


----------



## kasilofhome

painterswife said:


> Lets add in cloning. Now ever cell is a new human life form. Does every ear or liver we grow get to have it's own rights? Maybe only the brains. Though maybe clones won't have rights because they don't have separate DNA.


Already answered...


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Of course I am pro-choice, as long as that choice doesn't infringe on the rights of another. I am just human enough to count our unborn population among those deserving of rights. If one wants to take an ice pick and pluck his own eye out, I say have at it. If a women wants to remove her uterus and print the text of the Roe V. Wade decision on it and hang it from her wall, more power to her. If a man wants to call himself Mr. Ed and go around on all fours and winey, To each his own. If a church group wants to dance with snakes and drink poison, I say have a blast. *If any of those people want to harm me, or, anyone else, I have a problem with that* and I will not alter in that belief.


As do I. Even that child that will never be because someone couldnt be bothered to complete their role in the cycle of life. Which is when the egg drops. From that moment on its "game on".


----------



## gapeach

Some of these abortions are bound to be twins so identicals have the same DNA because they both come from one of the mother's eggs.

Fraternals have 2 DNA's. 2 eggs 2 sperm.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> As do I. Even that child that will never be because someone couldnt be bothered to complete their role in the cycle of life. Which is when the egg drops. From that moment on its "game on".


Well, that is your choice to report unused sperm..


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> In one instance there IS NO CHILD, in the other, THERE IS. Again a 1 year old is at the mercy of his/her parents. Few remember being 1 year old, does that mean that it is acceptable for the parents to kill that child? I mean what is the difference, from the child's point of view?


I am sorry, a single cell is NOT A CHILD. Its an embryo that MIGHT become a child if the conditions are right. An egg might become a child too, if the proper conditions are met. As to the question... As I said before... which kid? the differences can alter my answer drastically!


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> Well, that is your choice to report unused sperm..


I am not nearly as concerned about unused sperm as I am making sure at least one gets to that egg. They are male ya know, gotta send billions to insure one finds his way home.... it would be much handier if the lil buggers would stop and ask directions!


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am not nearly as concerned about unused sperm as I am making sure at least one gets to that egg. They are male ya know, gotta send billions to insure one finds his way home.... it would be much handier if the lil buggers would stop and ask directions!


No, they are not male.... Some are x and some are y.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am sorry, a single cell is NOT A CHILD. Its an embryo that MIGHT become a child if the conditions are right. An egg might become a child too, if the proper conditions are met. As to the question... As I said before... which kid? the differences can alter my answer drastically!


 Sure it is, just less developed than a full term baby, but, unique in its genetic makeup. Please clarify "which kid".? If you ever see a reason to kill a 1 year old, I would like to know under what circumstances that would be.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No, they are not male.... Some are x and some are y.


Either way, most of them get lost along the way. I find it amazing that as many get where they going.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Sure it is, just less developed than a full term baby, but, unique in its genetic makeup. Please clarify "which kid".? If you ever see a reason to kill a 1 year old, I would like to know under what circumstances that would be.


Its kinda hard to spot them at only a year old, but I have seen quite a few 4 and 5 year olds that are not ever going to make the world a better place. I have an older brother that daddy really should have knocked in the head at birth and fed the milk to the pigs. You are aware that pigs have unique dna too? There really isnt anything all that special, since we ALL share in the same dna pool. Life began... since that time our dna has managed to keep life on earth going, nothing new, and nothing unique about it.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Its kinda hard to spot them at only a year old, but I have seen quite a few 4 and 5 year olds that are not ever going to make the world a better place. I have an older brother that daddy really should have knocked in the head at birth and fed the milk to the pigs. You are aware that pigs have unique dna too? There really isnt anything all that special, since we ALL share in the same dna pool. Life began... since that time our dna has managed to keep life on earth going, nothing new, and nothing unique about it.


 If that were true, why not just live by the laws of the jungle? Don't like someone, killem. Hungry? either kill and eat a weaker person, or, kill them and take their food. While all life has certain things in common, humans are special as we are a cut above the other animals. Call it winning the genetic lottery, call it Devine inspiration, but, we are supposed to be civilized creatures. Humans are unique among all creatures, we are special. To kill a member of that special group is a crime against nature itself. 

BTW, that is why, in most of my posts, I qualify the term "unique" with the term "human". That is to differentiate the new human life from the parent stock as well as to differentiate it from the rest of Creation.


----------



## kasilofhome

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, a deliberate failure on the part of the woman to get it fertilized and that egg winds up in the same place a late term aborted fetus ends up.... in someones trash! This is of course followed up by a phone call to the pet shop.... "we wont be needing that puppy after all"


No, plan parenthood negotiations a price for the mutilation. 

Now if you wish those who have excess eggs if you provide your address would you like them?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> Okay, do you really believe that you will succeed in outlawing all abortion?


I believe "We" will, those that care for the unborn and are willing to stand up and say "No!"


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> If that were true, why not just live by the laws of the jungle? Don't like someone, killem. Hungry? either kill and eat a weaker person, or, kill them and take their food. While all life has certain things in common, *humans are special as we are a cut above the other animals. Call it winning the genetic lottery, call it Devine inspiration, but, we are supposed to be civilized creatures. Humans are unique among all creatures, we are special. To kill a member of that special group is a crime against nature itself. *
> 
> BTW, that is why, in most of my posts, I qualify the term "unique" with the term "human". That is to differentiate the new human life from the parent stock as well as to differentiate it from the rest of Creation.


why are we so special? Or if you prefer..... Horse hockey! We are just one more of Gods creatures. You are no more superior to a frog than I am to a flower in Gods eyes. If you read your bible you would know that mankind along with the rest of what we call the universe was an after thought.


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> No, plan parenthood negotiations a price for the mutilation.
> 
> Now if you wish those who have excess eggs if you provide your address would you like them?


PP negotiates the costs involved with collecting, packaging and shipping some fetal organs in only those cases that the mother opts to allow that fetal tissue to be "donated" for research purposes. The remaining tissue ends up in the same type trash bin as that unfertilized egg. You can't have it both ways. Aborting a fetus carries no more "immoral" connotation than deliberately not allowing that egg to be fertilized.


----------



## kasilofhome

One without morals will never have an issue...


----------



## WildernesFamily

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Aborting a fetus carries no more "immoral" connotation than deliberately not allowing that egg to be fertilized.


Do you really believe that YH? I mean really and truly? 

One is life that has begun, the other not yet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> One *without morals* will never have an issue...


You don't get to define "morals" for anyone other than yourself


----------



## Evons hubby

WildernesFamily said:


> Do you really believe that YH? I mean really and truly?
> 
> One is life that has begun, the other not yet.


Yes, weely and twuly, right down to my socks. Morally there is no difference between preventing a life by refusing natures course to occur prior to conception than after. Conception is just one of many events required to produce that scene of a wee one playing with a puppy or chasing those butterflys. If one really looks at the entire process it becomes quite clear that the only real beginning of the process is when a woman drops her egg into the "hopper" where it awaits that sperm to take it to the next fragile steps.
Anyone who try's to tell you otherwise is either bsing you or haven't given it very much thought.


----------



## beenaround

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to define "morals" for anyone other than yourself


That ignorant way of thinking is why government gets to decide what your morals will be.This earth was created with moral laws and the punishment for breaking them is government. Contrary to popular opinion, there has never been a time that anyone could say,"I can do that, there's no law against it". Always been a law against immorality.

Truth decides what morals are, doesn't matter if it comes from a rock or a child, immorality is the life blood of regulation and regulation is always to regulate your freedom away. In other words government decides what your morals are if you violate morality.


----------



## Lisa in WA

beenaround said:


> That ignorant way of thinking is why government gets to decide what your morals will be.This earth was created with moral laws and the punishment for breaking them is government..


Cool. I was unaware of this. Did they find a rock with this inscribed on it left over from the big blast or what? Maybe the dinosaurs had government too?


----------



## painterswife

basketti said:


> Cool. I was unaware of this. Did they find a rock with this inscribed on it left over from the big blast or what? Maybe the dinosaurs had government too?


Didn't you know protozoa have morals?


----------



## WildernesFamily

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, weely and twuly, right down to my socks. Morally there is no difference between preventing a life by refusing natures course to occur prior to conception than after. Conception is just one of many events required to produce that scene of a wee one playing with a puppy or chasing those butterflys. If one really looks at the entire process it becomes quite clear that the only real beginning of the process is when a woman drops her egg into the "hopper" where it awaits that sperm to take it to the next fragile steps.
> Anyone who try's to tell you otherwise is either bsing you or haven't given it very much thought.


Okay, that tells me all I need to know.

By the way, since you brought it up: I don't know what Bible you've read, but in mine it says mankind was created in God's image. He then put man in dominion over the animals... and then later on sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins. That makes humans quite superior to the animals or the flowers. According to God and the Bible anyway.


----------



## Shine

As a person who abhors the killing of the unborn, I wish to thank our opponents for your views and other things you also provided as I trust in the whole value of people to make up their mind herein. They now have a view of both sides and can make up their own minds. 

I wish you all well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

beenaround said:


> That ignorant way of thinking is why government gets to decide what your morals will be.This earth was created with moral laws and the punishment for breaking them is government. Contrary to popular opinion, there has never been a time that anyone could say,"I can do that, there's no law against it". Always been a law against immorality.
> 
> Truth decides what morals are, doesn't matter if it comes from a rock or a child, immorality is the life blood of regulation and regulation is always to regulate your freedom away. In other words* government decides what your morals are* if you violate morality.


The Govt can't legislate morality, and people can't force their beliefs on others, whether you happen to consider that "ignorant" or not.

You only speak for yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> As a person who abhors the killing of the unborn, I wish to thank our opponents for your views and other things you also provided as I trust in the whole value of people to make up their mind herein. They now have a view of both sides and can make up their own minds.
> 
> I wish you all well.


Isn't that about the 6th or 7th time you've done the Swan Song?

You'll be back soon, so why be so dramatic?


----------



## Evons hubby

WildernesFamily said:


> Okay, that tells me all I need to know.
> 
> By the way, since you brought it up: I don't know what Bible you've read, but in mine it says mankind was created in God's image. He then put man in dominion over the animals... and then later on sent His Son to die on the cross for our sins. That makes humans quite superior to the animals or the flowers. According to God and the Bible anyway.


Primarily I read the King James Version. It seems to go very well with what God has revealed to me during my sitty down chat with Him. Having the responsibility of being the caretaker of our fellow creatures (dominion) is not the same thing as being superior to them in His eyes. He gave us free will (choice) but that doesn't mean superior to our plant and animal relatives.... Different yes.. Superior no.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You don't get to define "morals" for anyone other than yourself


Here's a fact for ya, you don't either!


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Govt can't legislate morality, and people can't force their beliefs on others, whether you happen to consider that "ignorant" or not.
> 
> You only speak for yourself


The government at every level is trying to legislate morality, open your eyes and look around.


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Here's a fact for ya, you don't either!


But then we are not the ones who want to impose our morals upon others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Here's a fact for ya, you don't either!


I'm not attempting to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do



> The government at every level is *trying* to legislate morality, open your eyes and look around.


They can try all they like.
They can never do it.


----------



## arabian knight

If there is one thing about this it IS TRUE from the liberal folks


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> Cool. I was unaware of this. Did they find a rock with this inscribed on it left over from the big blast or what? Maybe the dinosaurs had government too?


Those who do not try to understand, will not...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Govt can't legislate morality, and people can't force their beliefs on others, whether you happen to consider that "ignorant" or not.
> 
> You only speak for yourself


The government cannot legislate morality??? You would seem to be quite foolish in your beliefs... The only legislated morality IS by the government. The government tells how to behave in the midst of gay people, the government tells us we have to allow people to kill their unborn children, the government tells us that we must let people touch our genitals if we want to travel... You do not see this?


No... I would imagine not...

The government has been legislating morality since their inception. wow.. just wow.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not attempting to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do
> You are forcing us to accept something that is terribly offensive to us, the killing of unborn children - you and people like you, you have no moral compass - killing unborn children is fine by your standards.
> 
> 
> They can try all they like.
> They can never do it.


Your compass is broken. It will affect you one day...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> The government cannot legislate morality??? You would seem to be quite foolish in your beliefs... The only legislated morality IS by the government. The government tells how to behave in the midst of gay people, the government tells us we have to allow people to kill their unborn children, the government tells us that we must let people touch our genitals if we want to travel... You do not see this?
> 
> 
> No... I would imagine not...
> 
> The government has been legislating morality since their inception. wow.. just wow.


If the Govt could legislate morality, and always has (according to you) why isn't the world perfect? Why don't we all think identically?



> wow.. just wow


Are you like, totally like, some, like Valley Girl?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> If the Govt could legislate morality, and always has (according to you) why isn't the world perfect? Why don't we all think identically?
> 
> The government is made up of humans. Some do not think that their understanding is flawed, therefore they feel perfectly wonderful legislating things like the killing of unborn children.
> 
> 
> Are you like, totally like, some, like Valley Girl? - do you feel powerful when you taunt people?


Please see above...

ETA: pssst, your commas are in the wrong spots and you missed on the Valley Girl attempt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *You are forcing us* to accept something that is terribly offensive to us, the killing of unborn children - you and people like you, *you have no moral compass* - killing unborn children is fine by your standards.


I had nothing to do with those laws being passed, Write your Congressman.
I was still a teenager back then



Shine said:


> Your compass is broken. *It will affect you one day*...


That's another opinion with no basis in fact, and just another attempt to transfer your beliefs to another

You worry about following your own "compass" and I will take care of mine


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The government is made up on humans. Some do not think that their understanding is flawed, therefore they feel perfectly wonderful legislating things like the killing of unborn children.


But you said they could "legislate morality" so why isn't everyone the same?
If they aren't then you must be wrong



> do you feel powerful when you taunt people?


I have to go by what I see, and all the "wow" and "sigh" sounds like teenage Valley Girl language to me.

You don't seem to mind telling me I have no morals, or I' ignorant, so you shouldn't be too upset if I comment on your melodramatic expressions


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Govt can't legislate morality, and people can't force their beliefs on others, whether you happen to consider that "ignorant" or not.
> 
> You only speak for yourself


And yet time after time you tell others they are wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> And yet time after time you tell others they are wrong.


Quite often they are, but I'm not forcing anyone to live by my rules, or even read my posts if they don't like what I say.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> ETA: pssst, your commas are in the wrong spots and you missed on the Valley Girl attempt.


You would know better than I, since I'm not one of them


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I had nothing to do with those laws being passed, Write your Congressman.
> I was still a teenager back then It does not matter when the laws were written, it matters that you stand behind them as a staunch supporter. It is the staunch supporter that forces this upon us, it violates the principles of Christianity to kill those that are unprotected, we are called to stand up against this. We are to do this in a loving fashion as well as we are able to, this is my task.
> 
> 
> That's another opinion with no basis in fact, and just another attempt to transfer your beliefs to another No, I wish I could say else wise but it will affect you. There is no possible way that you can proceed in this fashion as a whole, loving and compassionate person if you follow this path. You advocate the killing of unborn children.
> 
> You worry about following your own "compass" and I will take care of mine - My compass is oriented to do as well as I can, I am not allowed to kill someone or something that doesn't harm another, what says you about your compass?



...as you wish, but - jest sayin' - I usually warn people if I see them about to step in a pothole...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Quite often they are, but I'm not forcing anyone to live by my rules, or even read my posts if they don't like what I say.



Only the rules that you support, right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It does not matter when the laws were written, it matters that you stand behind them as a staunch supporter.


I support people minding their own business. I don't care which side of the abortion issue someone is on. 



> There is no possible way that you can proceed in this fashion as a whole, loving and compassionate person if you follow this path. You advocate the killing of unborn children.


See the statement above



> My compass is oriented to do as well as I can, I am not allowed to kill someone or something that doesn't harm another, what says you about your compass?


I haven't killed anyone at all, and I am not responsible for the acts of anyone other than myself. You can't transfer your guilt trip on me.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> But you said they could "legislate morality" so why isn't everyone the same?
> If they aren't then you must be wrong
> 
> Legislate and Enforce are the same words? You are picking at straws. Why to hide behind words, what do you fear in speaking clearly?
> 
> 
> I have to go by what I see, and all the "wow" and "sigh" sounds like teenage Valley Girl language to me.
> 
> This would be both your perception and your understanding. This proves that both are found wanting... lol - a 56 year old balding valley girl with a paunch that she cannot get rid of.
> 
> You don't seem to mind telling me I have no morals, or I' ignorant, so you shouldn't be too upset if I comment on your melodramatic expressions
> 
> One man's trash is another man's treasure... It is funny. Fairly much of that which Christ asks of us seems to go straight down to the core of "natural". But some do not see that and ridicule us because they cannot see this. Oh, well...



Please see above...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I support people minding their own business. You cannot get off that easily, in this particular scenario, you support the killing of the unborn child.
> 
> I don't care which side of the abortion issue someone is on.
> 
> um... really, you don't care?
> 
> 
> 
> See the statement above
> 
> 
> See the statement above
> 
> 
> I haven't killed anyone at all, and I am not responsible for the acts of anyone other than myself. You can't transfer your guilt trip on me.
> 
> Let's see, if you support something and the legislators see this as something that THEY agree with, therefore making it a legal act and the legal act is to condone the killing of the unborn child and you stand with that legislation then you cannot run away saying that you did not know, - you ARE connected. You CONDONE the killing of the unborn child and you refuse to explore the ramifications therein.



Please see above...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Life or biological activity? Is something without a functioning brain life? Would you fight to keep alive a fetus that develops with no brain?


This is a rarity as well as very sad.
When I was a nursing student in my ped rotation, my patient was an anencephalic newborn. I took care of him for a week...they didn't know what to do, the parents had abandoned him at the hospital. He was fed, cleaned, rocked, loved & died at about a month old, IIRC.
I know in some hospitals they put them aside, in a separate area & don't feed them -seems too cruel.


----------



## Tricky Grama

fireweed farm said:


> All those millions of unwanted babies carried to term, most born into single parent welfare recipient families??
> 
> Many here endlessly complain about welfare bums and who will forget Obama phones? Who's going to pay the bills? Not just unpaid hospital, what about food, housing, schooling, roads/infrastructure for all of them? Many are going to be crack babies and medical cases.
> 
> This is a huge chunk of who is having abortions. Call it murder or whatever you want, but are you ready for millions more of what you already complain about all day long?


So if we don't provide for everyone who fails to provide for themselves, they are free to kill the unborn. 
Sounds like blackmail to me.


----------



## Tricky Grama

fireweed farm said:


> I'm hoping for an intelligent answer to this.
> 
> Are we as a society prepared, ready and willing to take care of millions more babies that the parents don't want or are incapable of providing for themselves without being crybabies about it?
> As it's mainly a religious issue, are churches willing to step up to the challenge?
> Are you expecting the government to bear all costs?
> 
> I don't think there is a compromise here. So what are you all going to do with all these babies?


Do you believe there would've been that many more children if abortion had not been "on demand" all these yrs?
Seems babies were born & cared for & raised b/4 & would again & if it was harder to obtain, more would use b.c. more carefully.
More would really find a way to provide...we hashed this a while back: almost all of us either knew of someone or were related to or even ourselves had unplanned children & almost none killed their unborn.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> So is hunting for food.


So far, we don't hunt babies for food.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> why are we so special? Or if you prefer..... Horse hockey! We are just one more of Gods creatures. You are no more superior to a frog than I am to a flower in Gods eyes. If you read your bible you would know that mankind along with the rest of what we call the universe was an after thought.


 What Bible have you been reading? Here is a short reading list that pretty much blows this statement out of the water: 

God clearly says from creation that people (male and female) are superior to animals - Gen. 1:26-28; Psalm 8:4-8. Man is more valuable to God than animals - Matt. 10:29-31; 12:11,12; 6:26; 15:26. God authorized man to kill animals for food, but we are not authorized to kill people for food - Gen. 9:2,3; Luke 15:23; Gen. 18:7,8; 27:3,4. God Himself used animal skins to make clothing for Adam and Eve - Gen. 3:21. Numerous Scriptures show people owning and herding animals and using them for their own purposes and prosperity - Psalm 32:9; James 3:3,7. 
Men are more intelligent than animals - Job 35:10,11; Psalms 73:22; Hosea 7:11; Psalms 32:9. Because of this superior intelligence, God is able to communicate to man by the written word, the Scriptures - 2 Tim. 3:16,17. What has God written to communicate His will to animals?
Even more important, the Bible clearly teaches that men were created in the image of God - Gen. 1:26-28; 5:1; 9:2-6; James 3:9. This is not said of animals. Men have spirits that are responsible to study God's word and obey it - Job 32:8; Zechariah 12:1; 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1. Ecclesiastes 3:21 - The spirit of man goes upward, but the spirit of a beast goes down to the earth. There is a sense in which an animal has a spirit - animal life. But it does not continue past death. (Isaiah 31:3)
Men will be judged for their lives, good or bad, and will receive eternal rewards accordingly - Genesis 2:16,17; Ecclesiastes 12:13,14; Hebrews 9:27; Matthew 12:36; Acts 17:30,31; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Romans 2:6-10; Hebrews 4:9. Animals do not have this moral responsibility - Matthew 7:6; 23:33; 12:34; Acts 20:29,30; Titus 1:12,13; 2 Peter 2:12; Jude 10; 1 Peter 5:8; Proverbs 26:3.
Finally, the most important proof of all is that Jesus died to save mankind - human beings, not animals - Titus 2:11,12; 3:3-7; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Isaiah 53:5,8; Romans 5:6-9,12,18,19. If God values animals as equally important to man, why did Jesus not die for them? The answer is obvious. Animals have no spirit, no moral responsibility, no eternal destiny, and therefore they are not held accountable for right and wrong. Jesus did not die to save them because they do not need to be saved.
Men are superior to animals in their spirit, their intelligence, their value to God, their moral responsibility, their eternal destiny, and in the price God paid to save them from sin.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> But you said they could "legislate morality" so why isn't everyone the same?
> If they aren't then you must be wrong


 Because not everyone follows the law. There are punishments reserved for those who do not comply. 

Murder is against the law. Why? There are over 7 billion humans on earth, would it be such a bad thing to let us kill each other? Think about what that would mean for the human gene pool. Only the smartest and strongest would survive long enough to procreate, making the human race stronger in the long run. It could be argued that it would be good for the environment as well. When animals are overpopulated, we tend to kill off the excess, why not humans? Could it be that murder is not seen as moral and, therefore, outlawed? Or, if you prefer, the prevailing morality is codified in legislation?


----------



## painterswife

Laws don't legislate morality they legislate behaviour.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> What Bible have you been reading? Here is a short reading list that pretty much blows this statement out of the water:
> 
> God clearly says from creation that people (male and female) are superior to animals - Gen. 1:26-28; Psalm 8:4-8. Man is more valuable to God than animals - Matt. 10:29-31; 12:11,12; 6:26; 15:26. God authorized man to kill animals for food, but we are not authorized to kill people for food - Gen. 9:2,3; Luke 15:23; Gen. 18:7,8; 27:3,4. God Himself used animal skins to make clothing for Adam and Eve - Gen. 3:21. Numerous Scriptures show people owning and herding animals and using them for their own purposes and prosperity - Psalm 32:9; James 3:3,7.
> Men are more intelligent than animals - Job 35:10,11; Psalms 73:22; Hosea 7:11; Psalms 32:9. Because of this superior intelligence, God is able to communicate to man by the written word, the Scriptures - 2 Tim. 3:16,17. What has God written to communicate His will to animals?
> Even more important, the Bible clearly teaches that men were created in the image of God - Gen. 1:26-28; 5:1; 9:2-6; James 3:9. This is not said of animals. Men have spirits that are responsible to study God's word and obey it - Job 32:8; Zechariah 12:1; 2 Corinthians 4:16-5:1. Ecclesiastes 3:21 - The spirit of man goes upward, but the spirit of a beast goes down to the earth. There is a sense in which an animal has a spirit - animal life. But it does not continue past death. (Isaiah 31:3)
> Men will be judged for their lives, good or bad, and will receive eternal rewards accordingly - Genesis 2:16,17; Ecclesiastes 12:13,14; Hebrews 9:27; Matthew 12:36; Acts 17:30,31; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Romans 2:6-10; Hebrews 4:9. Animals do not have this moral responsibility - Matthew 7:6; 23:33; 12:34; Acts 20:29,30; Titus 1:12,13; 2 Peter 2:12; Jude 10; 1 Peter 5:8; Proverbs 26:3.
> Finally, the most important proof of all is that Jesus died to save mankind - human beings, not animals - Titus 2:11,12; 3:3-7; 1 Timothy 2:4-6; Isaiah 53:5,8; Romans 5:6-9,12,18,19. If God values animals as equally important to man, why did Jesus not die for them? The answer is obvious. Animals have no spirit, no moral responsibility, no eternal destiny, and therefore they are not held accountable for right and wrong. Jesus did not die to save them because they do not need to be saved.
> Men are superior to animals in their spirit, their intelligence, their value to God, their moral responsibility, their eternal destiny, and in the price God paid to save them from sin.


so many verses..... And so little understanding.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Because not everyone follows the law. There are punishments reserved for those who do not comply.
> 
> Murder is against the law. Why? *There are over 7 billion humans on earth, would it be such a bad thing to let us kill each other? *Think about what that would mean for the human gene pool. Only the smartest and strongest would survive long enough to procreate, making the human race stronger in the long run. It could be argued that it would be good for the environment as well. When animals are overpopulated, we tend to kill off the excess, why not humans? Could it be that murder is not seen as moral and, therefore, outlawed? Or, if you prefer, the prevailing morality is codified in legislation?


We have been killing each other since the beginning of recorded history, most likely even before. There is nothing new about war. Legislating morals is impossible, laws don't change people's minds, just some of their behavior some of the time.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> so many verses..... And so little understanding.


 
I am sure that if you put in the work, understanding will be forthcoming. :heh:


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> We have been killing each other since the beginning of recorded history, most likely even before. There is nothing new about war.


 But, I wasn't speaking of war, which is legal, I was speaking of murder which is illegal.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> I am sure that if you put in the work, understanding will be forthcoming. :heh:


It's not my understanding that I am concerned with, or referring to.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Laws don't legislate morality they legislate behaviour.


 Where do the ideas for such laws come from? Do they make a list, close their eyes and point to one and say "I think I will write legislation to outlaw this today"? Or, is it more logical that, in the opinion of the lawmaker, some action is morally wrong, so he/she decides to write legislation to impose that morality on the masses?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Where do the ideas for such laws come from? Do they make a list, close their eyes and point to one and say "I think I will write legislation to outlaw this today"? Or, is it more logical that, in the opinion of the lawmaker, some action is morally wrong, so he/she decides to write legislation to impose that morality on the masses?


One simple question.

Do the lack of laws on abortion reflect your morals on the situation?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> But, I wasn't speaking of war, which is legal, I was speaking of murder which is illegal.


So a soldier isn't just as dead as a civilian when his head is removed?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's not my understanding that I am concerned with, or referring to.


 You probably should be, unless, in your world, the sentence "I was stung by a red wasp" means "The yellow flower smells nice".


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> One simple question.
> 
> Do the lack of laws on abortion reflect your morals on the situation?


 No, they reflect the morals of someone else.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Where do the ideas for such laws come from?


I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of those ideas come from some whiney meddler that feels the need to impose their morals upon everyone else.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So a soldier isn't just as dead as a civilian when his head is removed?


 Of course, but, that is irrelevant to my post.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> No, they reflect the morals of someone else.


So how does it change your morals?

Would your morality allow you to murder someone when there is no law for it?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of those ideas come from some whiney meddler that feels the need to impose their morals upon everyone else.


 But, if it is true that morality cannot be legislated, would he/she not simply be spitting into the wind?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> But, if it is true that morality cannot be legislated, would he/she not simply be spitting into the wind?


If changing others minds is the goal then yes they might as well spit into the wind. If changing their behavior is the goal then passing laws are semi effective. I am pretty sure every state has laws against drinking and driving..... And yet thousands do it every day.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So how does it change your morals?
> 
> Would your morality allow you to murder someone when there is no law for it?


 
No, because my morality matches those who outlawed murder, in that instance. There are, however, things that are currently illegal, that some find immoral, that nothing other than the law is keeping me from doing. So, in effect, they have successfully imposed their morality on me.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If changing others minds is the goal then yes they might as well spit into the wind. If changing their behavior is the goal then passing laws are semi effective. I am pretty sure every state has laws against drinking and driving..... And yet thousands do it every day.


 True enough, but, think about this. When the 13th amendment was ratified it was done to change behavior, but, over time, minds were changed because of it. Now the vast majority of Americans find Slavery to be a crime against humanity. The same was not true in the 1860's.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> No, because my morality matches those who outlawed murder, in that instance. There are, however, things that are currently illegal, that some find immoral, that nothing other than the law is keeping me from doing. So, in effect, they have successfully imposed their morality on me.


Sad. I don't let their whiney laws deter me.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> True enough, but, think about this. When the 13th amendment was ratified it was done to change behavior, but, over time, minds were changed because of it. Now the vast majority of Americans find Slavery to be a crime against humanity. The same was not true in the 1860's.


I don't think there are very many minds still around that were present in 1860. I also think those people died with their morals unchanged. Our morals do not come out of law books.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Sad. I don't let their whiney laws deter me.


 
Unfortunately, the laws, that limit me, cannot be broken without Big Brother quickly finding out and giving me a spanking.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> No, because my morality matches those who outlawed murder, in that instance. There are, however, things that are currently illegal, that some find immoral, that nothing other than the law is keeping me from doing. So, in effect, they have successfully imposed their morality on me.


Well that is just sad. My morality is mine. No law can force someone else's morality on me. It might me think twice about the consequences of going against a law but that is all.

There are people that fight and break laws everyday because they go against their morality. We just had a wonderful result with same sex marriage.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't think there are very many minds still around that were present in 1860. I also think those people died with their morals unchanged. Our morals do not come out of law books.


 Do a little reading about the history of Nathan Bedford Forrest and Robert E. Lee, and there activities after the war when it comes to racial healing.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Well that is just sad. My morality is mine. No law can force someone else's morality on me. It might me think twice about the consequences of going against a law but that is all.
> 
> There are people that fight and break laws everyday because they go against their morality. We just had a wonderful result with same sex marriage.


 So, in some cases the law will suppress your morality.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> So, in some cases the law will suppress your morality.


Not a chance. You might allow the law to do that but I have lived long enough to know I won't allow that to happen.


----------



## FutureFarm

I distinctly remember several people saying that state bans on same-sex marriages were enforcing one groups morality on another group. Now you say that laws cannot enforce morality. If laws cannot enforce morality, why did the Supreme Court need to get involved. Personally, I have no problem with homosexuality. I don't think the gov't should be involved with any marriage, because I don't want anyone meddling in my life, but I guess a lot of people wanted the more gov't meddling.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Unfortunately, the laws, that limit me, cannot be broken without Big Brother quickly finding out and giving me a spanking.


So did those laws change your moral code? Or just your behavior?


----------



## Farmerga

Again we are chasing rabbits. It matters not if, in my opinion, laws legislate morality, or, simply reflect the morality of others, or, whatever. The truth is that it doesn't matter. What matters is that the law is meant to protect people. Murder, Rape, theft, fraud, etc. are illegal in order to give people protection from those who would do them harm. No law is 100% effective. There will be murder, rape, theft, fraud etc. No law will stop that. If, by the grace of God, we are successful in outlawing abortion as a form of birth control, that law will not stop all abortions. It will reduce them, drastically. That is the simple goal. It is no more or less "forced morality" than the laws against rape, murder, fraud, etc.. The whole reason that pro-lifers are fighting abortion is to protect the weakest among us, the unborn. We are not misogynists who get off on controlling women. That is a straw man argument. Since only women have abortions and the false argument is that we anti-abortion people want to control women, I say make performing an abortion illegal, not receiving one. Lock up abortion providers, leave the "mothers" alone.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Do a little reading about the history of Nathan Bedford Forrest and Robert E. Lee, and there activities after the war when it comes to racial healing.


I have read about them, their morals after the war was pretty much unchanged from their morals before the war.


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> I distinctly remember several people saying that state bans on same-sex marriages were enforcing one groups morality on another group. Now you say that laws cannot enforce morality. If laws cannot enforce morality, why did the Supreme Court need to get involved. Personally, I have no problem with homosexuality. I don't think the gov't should be involved with any marriage, because I don't want anyone meddling in my life, but I guess a lot of people wanted the more gov't meddling.


The government can, and does, enforce morality. What it cannot do is change one's personal morals. There is a difference. Now the government is less involved in the personal morality of marrying the consenting adult of one's choosing. Just as in this case the government should be minimally involved in the personal morality that leads one to have an abortion, or not.


----------



## FutureFarm

Should the gov't be less involved in the personal morality that leads one to steal from another? How about rape? Fraud? 
This isn't about restricting freedom, it's about expanding freedom to those who are being oppressed by the law and cannot speak for themselves.


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> Should the gov't be less involved in the personal morality that leads one to steal from another? How about rape? Fraud?
> This isn't about restricting freedom, it's about expanding freedom to those who are being oppressed by the law and cannot speak for themselves.


I know of no law requiring anyone to have an abortion.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So did those laws change your moral code? Or just your behavior?


 It doesn't matter, the results are the same. The laws effectively impose the morality of another on me. That is what laws do.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> The government can, and does, enforce morality. What it cannot do is change one's personal morals. There is a difference. Now the government is less involved in the personal morality of marrying the consenting adult of one's choosing. Just as in this case the government should be minimally involved in the personal morality that leads one to have an abortion, or not.


 The whole fight for gay marriage, was to get the government to recognize the union of two gay people. So, the government is now more involved.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> The whole fight for gay marriage, was to get the government to recognize the union of two gay people. So, the government is now more involved.


No. It was to allow same sex couples to have and exercise the same rights as different sex couples.


----------



## FutureFarm

The gov't creates laws to protect the people from those who would do then harm. The gov't has decided that fraud causes enough harm to the victims to be outlawed. Abortion causes far more harm to its victims than fraud. The victims of abortion need to be protected in the same way that the victims of fraud are protected.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have read about them, their morals after the war was pretty much unchanged from their morals before the war.


 So, a former slave holder (NBF), who was the first white person invited to speak at a meeting of the Pole Bearers (the progenitor of the NAACP)
Who spoke of the races coming together and was one of the few whites, North or South who would hire skilled black workers, after the war, was unchanged in his morals? The evidence would indicate that you are wrong.


----------



## Farmerga

FutureFarm said:


> The gov't creates laws to protect the people from those who would do then harm. The gov't has decided that fraud causes enough harm to the victims to be outlawed. Abortion causes far more harm to its victims than fraud. The victims of abortion need to be protected in the same way that the victims of fraud are protected.


 Just needed to be repeated.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> No. It was to allow same sex couples to have and exercise the same rights as different sex couples.


 And what right is that? Oh yeah, to have the government recognize their unions.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Just needed to be repeated.


The majority of abortions take place before there is a person.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> And what right is that? Oh yeah, to have the government recognize their unions.


So entertaining. When did that become a right?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I know of no law requiring anyone to have an abortion.


 I know of no law requiring anyone to commit murder, rape, fraud, etc. So, what is your point?


----------



## Shine

painterswife said:


> No. It was to allow same sex couples to have and exercise the same rights as different sex couples.


This is off topic but need a little shove:

"...have and exercise the same rights..."

Government Ordained Rights, not God given...


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So entertaining. When did that become a right?


 Ok, what right were they fighting for? Any two, or, more people could have always had a ceremony, before their friends and family, professing their love and devotion to each other. Gay, straight, multiple, etc. So, what were the gay couples fighting for? GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION OF THEIR UNIONS.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> The whole fight for gay marriage, was to get the government to recognize the union of two gay people. So, the government is now more involved.


Any time the laws are less restrictive makes the government less involved.  The laws regarding marriage eligability are now less restrictive, therefor the government is less involved. Any government ban on abortion involves government more, not less, in people's lives.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> The majority of abortions take place before there is a person.


So you do admit that some abortions are the killing of a person, aka murder?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> The majority of abortions take place before there is a person.


 Who are you to say that a embryo/fetus is not a person? Why do you get to inflict your morality on them? It is well established that the embryo/fetus is alive. A test on its DNA would come back as human. They breath, after a fashion, they eat. they move. Just because they are less developed than you, or, I doesn't make them less of a person.


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> So you do admit that some abortions are the killing of a person, aka murder?


Abortion is not murder.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Any time the laws are less restrictive makes the government less involved. The laws regarding marriage eligability are now less restrictive, therefor the government is less involved. Any government ban on abortion involves government more, not less, in people's lives.


 In most cases, you would be correct, but, now the Government gets to keep records on gay couples. Prior to this the couples didn't exist, in the eyes of government. Government will encroach further into their lives through tax law etc. Not saying that they are not entitled, but, lets be honest about what they have gained. 

One of the only justified roles of government is the protection of people. Just like laws against murder, fraud, rape, etc. are in place to protect people, so would any law limiting or outlawing abortion. So, in that case, government involvement is justified.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Who are you to say that a embryo/fetus is not a person? Why do you get to inflict your morality on them? It is well established that the embryo/fetus is alive. A test on its DNA would come back as human. They breath, after a fashion, they eat. they move. Just because they are less developed than you, or, I doesn't make them less of a person.


Who are you to say it is otherwise?

Don't twist my words and don't speak for me. What I believe is my choice from my education and my experience. I don't believe in God and you do. Who are you to say otherwise?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Any time the laws are less restrictive makes the government less involved. The laws regarding marriage eligability are now less restrictive, therefor the government is less involved. Any government ban on abortion involves government more, not less, in people's lives.



No, it used to be A+B=C, the government ordained rights were expanded, not reduced. Now there must be legislation meaning A+A=C or B+B=C and all the tax code will ultimately need to be altered to allow for this modification, the Social Security code, much will need to be modified so as to regulate this newly ordained government "right".

God forbid that they add in a "D".


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> The majority of abortions take place before there is a person.



What is required to be a person? I'll respectfully answer, and then you respectfully answer. 
A person is any human being that is alive. This forces the question, "what is alive?" In the beginning of every biology textbook, the same question is asked. It is usually answered that there are seven characteristics of life, and that the object in question must meet them to be considered alive. They include homeostasis, organization, growth, metabolism, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. If an object does these things over a period of time it is considered to be alive. Therefore I believe that once the egg and sperm have joined and the DNA has paired, a new life has started. Likewise, once a single cell organism has replicated, or budded asexually a new life is created. 
I oppose abortion because it destroys what science accepts as life, and what is surely a human life.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Who are you to say it is otherwise?
> 
> Don't twist my words and don't speak for me. What I believe is my choice from my education and my experience. I don't believe in God and you do. Who are you to say otherwise?


 I am someone who believes that all humans, both born and unborn have a right to live.

When did I twist your words, or, speak for you? Who brought God into this?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> What is required to be a person? I'll respectfully answer, and then you respectfully answer.
> A person is any human being that is alive. This forces the question, "what is alive?" In the beginning of every biology textbook, the same question is asked. It is usually answered that there are seven characteristics of life, and that the object in question must meet them to be considered alive. They include homeostasis, organization, growth, metabolism, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. If an object does these things over a period of time it is considered to be alive. Therefore I believe that once the egg and sperm have joined and the DNA has paired, a new life has started. Likewise, once a single cell organism has replicated, or budded asexually a new life is created.
> I oppose abortion because it destroys what science accepts as life, and what is surely a human life.


I believe a *person* is someone capable of thought. Fetuses after a certain gestational age are persons. They are not before that. Just as a brain dead adult is no longer a person just a body.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I believe a *person* is someone capable of thought. Fetuses after a certain gestational age are persons. They are not before that. Just as a brain dead adult is no longer a person just a body.


 And you are comfortable knowing EXACTLY when that point occurs, in every case?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> And you are comfortable knowing EXACTLY when that point occurs, in every case?


Of course I am not. 

I also believe that we will get to the place that we will know it pretty conclusively.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> In most cases, you would be correct, but, now the Government gets to keep records on gay couples. Prior to this the couples didn't exist, in the eyes of government. Government will encroach further into their lives through tax law etc. Not saying that they are not entitled, but, lets be honest about what they have gained.
> 
> One of the only justified roles of government is the protection of people. Just like laws against murder, fraud, rape, etc. are in place to protect people, so would any law limiting or outlawing abortion. So, in that case, government involvement is justified.


No one forces any couple to register their union with the government. Straight couples were free to choose whether they wanted to for various tax, financial and legal reasons before. The only difference is that the freedom to register, or not, that union has been extended to more people. More people with the freedom to choose how involved they wish the government to be involved. No one is forcing them to increase their involvement.

When you can tell me with absolute certainty when personhood occurs we can agree to outlaw abortion after that time. I'm not interested in when you believe it happens because others can argue just as rationally for their, contrary, beliefs. For much of history quickening, or the begining of movement, was a standard followed even by the religous. Were they all wrong?


----------



## mmoetc

Shine said:


> No, it used to be A+B=C, the government ordained rights were expanded, not reduced. Now there must be legislation meaning A+A=C or B+B=C and all the tax code will ultimately need to be altered to allow for this modification, the Social Security code, much will need to be modified so as to regulate this newly ordained government "right".
> 
> God forbid that they add in a "D".


It is, indeed, an interesting world you live in that defines giving more people rights as a negative thing. No new rights were created, the existing ones were just extended to more people. No new laws must be written. Spousal benefits will still be extended to those whose marriage is legally registered. It's just that now the government doesn't care whether you're an A or a B. And neither do I.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> But, I wasn't speaking of war, which is legal, I was speaking of murder which is illegal.


Abortion is also legal, therefore abortion isn't murder


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> No one forces any couple to register their union with the government. Straight couples were free to choose whether they wanted to for various tax, financial and legal reasons before. The only difference is that the freedom to register, or not, that union has been extended to more people. More people with the freedom to choose how involved they wish the government to be involved. No one is forcing them to increase their involvement.
> 
> When you can tell me with absolute certainty when personhood occurs we can agree to outlaw abortion after that time. I'm not interested in when you believe it happens because others can argue just as rationally for their, contrary, beliefs. For much of history quickening, or the begining of movement, was a standard followed even by the religous. Were they all wrong?


 As we have learned more and more about human development, we see that, the ole "it is just a clump of cells" line is false, very shortly after conception. My belief is that level of development doesn't matter as much as their uniqueness and humanity. Even if you believe that there is some magic point after fertilization, when one becomes a "person" and there is much disagreement as to where that point lies, the logical course of action is to err on the side of caution and just not kill any unless there is a real medical reason to do so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Because* not everyone follows the law*. There are punishments reserved for those who do not comply.
> 
> Murder is against the law. Why? There are over 7 billion humans on earth, would it be such a bad thing to let us kill each other? Think about what that would mean for the human gene pool. Only the smartest and strongest would survive long enough to procreate, making the human race stronger in the long run. It could be argued that it would be good for the environment as well. When animals are overpopulated, we tend to kill off the excess, why not humans? Could it be that murder is not seen as moral and, therefore, outlawed? Or, if you prefer, the prevailing morality is codified in legislation?


Then they are not able to "legislate morality"
They only make laws and decide the penalties.

"Legislating morality" would mean they can MAKE all people think in a certain way, when what they really do is make suggestions, and people make their own moral choices


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Abortion is also legal, therefore abortion isn't murder


 At this point, according to our legal system, you are correct. Things change and one day I hope to make your statement false.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then they are not able to "legislate morality"
> They only make laws and decide the penalties.
> 
> "Legislating morality" would mean they can MAKE all people think in a certain way, when what they really do is make suggestions, and people make their own moral choices


 Irrelevant semantics meant to distract from the matter at hand. I will say this, on an individual level, perhaps you have a point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> True enough, but, think about this. When the 13th amendment was ratified it was done to change behavior, but, over time, minds were changed because of it. Now the vast majority of Americans find Slavery to be a crime against humanity. The same was not true in the 1860's.


Actually the "vast majority" never approved of slavery, and only a small minority owned slaves at all. 

Less than 15% of the world slave trade involved the US.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Irrelevant semantics meant to distract from the matter at hand. I will say this, *on an individual level,* perhaps you have a point.


Morality is *only* on an "individual level", which is why it cannot be legislated.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> It is, indeed, an interesting world you live in that defines giving more people rights as a negative thing. No new rights were created, the existing ones were just extended to more people. No new laws must be written. Spousal benefits will still be extended to those whose marriage is legally registered. It's just that now the government doesn't care whether you're an A or a B. And neither do I.


 But, don't you define giving more people rights as a negative thing? I mean just because you don't recognize the humanity of the unborn, doesn't mean that they are not human and entitled to certain inalienable rights.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually the "vast majority" never approved of slavery, and only a small minority owned slaves at all.
> 
> Less than 15% of the world slave trade involved the US.


 
I never said that they did, but, it was, at least, largely tolerated by many Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> As we have learned more and more about human development, we see that, the ole "it is just a clump of cells" line is false, very shortly after conception. My belief is that level of development doesn't matter as much as their uniqueness and humanity. Even if you believe that there is some magic point after fertilization, when one becomes a "person" and there is much disagreement as to where that point lies, the logical course of action is to err on the side of caution and just not kill any unless there is a real medical reason to do so.


My logic dictates that without evidence of exactly when personhood occurs a woman's personal freedom to have an abortion trumps government's desire to limit her rights. You also bring up the tricky question of medical necessity. If any group of cells is human why should government decide that one has supremacy and allow that one to live. In fact, not just allow but allow proactive action that favors one life above another. Shouldn't that choice be left to nature, or god?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Birth control fails.


Rarely.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> I believe a *person* is someone capable of thought. Fetuses after a certain gestational age are persons. They are not before that. Just as a brain dead adult is no longer a person just a body.



What constitutes a thought? Are people in a coma, medically or otherwise induced, capable of thought? I have been knocked unconscious and was incapable of thought for those few minutes. I then had amnesia for a few hours where I have no recollection of anything that happened to me or things I did and said. Do you consider me to have died when I was unconscious? Are the comatose dead?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Yet we have children begging to be adopted. Solve that problem first and people might take your stance more seriously.


It's so difficult to adopt some people go overseas to adopt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> But, don't you define giving more people rights as a negative thing? I mean just because you don't recognize the humanity of the unborn, doesn't mean that they are not human and entitled to certain inalienable rights.


You want to take away the rights of the mothers, and they come first.

You keep wanting to make the comparison to slavery, but want to "enslave" these mothers by forcing them to have these babies they don't want, and will be "enslaving" others to care for them for at least 18 years.


----------



## FutureFarm

Also to clarify do you agree to the seven characteristics of life? If yes, do you acknowledge that for though to define personhood, there is a time before a certain gestational age that the fetus can be a living human but not a person?
If not, which characteristics do you disagree with?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> But, don't you define giving more people rights as a negative thing? I mean just because you don't recognize the humanity of the unborn, doesn't mean that they are not human and entitled to certain inalienable rights.


I don't recognize the humanity of my cat either. I don't wish to extend rights to her either. Just because you feel they are human doesn't make it so entitling them to those rights. Prove their humanity, not just your belief in their humanity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> It's so difficult to adopt some people go overseas to adopt.


Then those are the laws you should be trying to change rather than wanting to add to the numbers


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> Also to clarify do you agree to the seven characteristics of life? If yes, do you acknowledge that for though to define personhood, there is a time before a certain gestational age that the fetus can be a living human but not a person?
> If not, which characteristics do you disagree with?


Life doesn't equal humanity. The paramecium, a cat and a monkey all share the same characteristics of life. It makes none of them human.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> My logic dictates that without evidence of exactly when personhood occurs a woman's personal freedom to have an abortion trumps government's desire to limit her rights. You also bring up the tricky question of medical necessity. If any group of cells is human why should government decide that one has supremacy and allow that one to live. In fact, not just allow but allow proactive action that favors one life above another. Shouldn't that choice be left to nature, or god?


 Medical necessity is not that difficult of a question. As a pre 3rd trimester fetus, at this point, cannot survive without the mother, logic would dictate that, if the mother's life is in danger, she should be saved, because to not would mean two deaths instead of one. 

So, you are comfortable enough to allow the possible death of a person to 
protect against inconvenience?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> I never said that they did, but, it was, at least, largely tolerated by many Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries.


I don't know that is true. 

I suspect most never gave it much thought at all, since they had many other more important things to worry about, and didn't waste time on the internet


----------



## FutureFarm

mmoetc said:


> Life doesn't equal humanity. The paramecium, a cat and a monkey all share the same characteristics of life. It makes none of them human.



I agree life does not equal humanity. All living things do have DNA. This molecule differentiates one living thing from another. It is a blueprint for the living thing. Do you believe that some living thing with human DNA can be biologically alive, yet not be a person?


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I don't recognize the humanity of my cat either. I don't wish to extend rights to her either. Just because you feel they are human doesn't make it so entitling them to those rights. Prove their humanity, not just your belief in their humanity.


Any DNA test will prove that they are human. Take a sample of a human fetus en utero, run a DNA test and I will be willing to bet that the results will NOT be feline. Those are hard facts. Not waxing poetic about when they have enough brain power to join the "people club".


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know that is true.
> 
> I suspect most never gave it much thought at all, since they had many other more important things to worry about, and didn't waste time on the internet


 Would that not be a decent definition of "tolerated it"?


----------



## FutureFarm

mmoetc said:


> I don't recognize the humanity of my cat either. I don't wish to extend rights to her either. Just because you feel they are human doesn't make it so entitling them to those rights. Prove their humanity, not just your belief in their humanity.



PW and I seem to be having a respectful discussion on personhood. Do you believe there is a difference between personhood and humanity? If so, what is the difference between a person and a human? Can there be times where said being falls into only one category? What causes said being to move from one to the other? What are the qualifications to be in each category? What rights and privileges are assigned to each?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> PW and I seem to be having a respectful discussion on personhood. Do you believe there is a difference between personhood and humanity? If so, what is the difference between a person and a human? Can there be times where said being falls into only one category? What causes said being to move from one to the other? What are the qualifications to be in each category? What rights and privileges are assigned to each?


Human is your species
Person is thinking breathing human - the individual has rights
Humanity is a set of characteristic of the group of humans

PS A coma is a long sleep. No brain activity means there is now just a body and the person no longer exists.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Would that not be a decent definition of "tolerated it"?


No, since I suspect many never even considered it at all.

You aren't "tolerating" something you never think about.

If there were no slaves where those people lived, it wasn't even a part of their reality

Are you "tolerating" the existing slave trade now?
Are you "tolerating" terrorists training 8 year old boys for suicide bombings?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Medical necessity is not that difficult of a question. As a pre 3rd trimester fetus, at this point, cannot survive without the mother, logic would dictate that, if the mother's life is in danger, she should be saved, because to not would mean two deaths instead of one.
> 
> So, you are comfortable enough to allow the possible death of a person to
> protect against inconvenience?


You might wish to check on those stats. There are a lot of people walking around today who were delivered prior to the third trimester. That still doesn't answer the question of why you, or your doctor, should get to choose which life to save. We're told that medical miracles happen. Who's to say god didn't have one in store that would save both if only the abortion hadn't happened. Why do you advocate the death of a person to maybe save another.

If I felt all fertilized cells were persons your question would deserve an answer. I don't. It doesn't.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Rarely.
> 
> Not that rare.
> [/http://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/birth-control-failure/
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/?action=clic...opBar&module=HomePage-Title&pgtype=Multimedia


----------



## painterswife

basketti said:


> Tricky Grama said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rarely.
> 
> Not that rare.
> [/http://americanpregnancy.org/preventing-pregnancy/birth-control-failure/
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/?action=clic...opBar&module=HomePage-Title&pgtype=Multimedia
> 
> 
> 
> I did not even bother responding to that post because we all know someone who had their birth control fail.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Sorry if you are only willing to take babies then you don't deserve to adopt. This was meant as the general you and not a particular you.


Here's another slam at conservatives when it's been proven conservatives DO help pregnant women, their newborns, adoptions, & liberals only talk.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's another slam at conservatives when it's been proven conservatives DO help pregnant women, their newborns, adoptions, & liberals only talk.


What a ridiculous post.


----------



## Tricky Grama

wr said:


> If those folks truly wanted a child and met the criteria for adopting, they could most assuredly bring home a child with birth defects, FAS, Down's Syndrome or perhaps a baby born crack addicted. What they truly want is a healthy, perfectly developed child with no flaws.
> 
> Quite often the reason for adopting outside the country is because they don't meet the requirements to adopt or their adoption expectations are unrealistic, which has often played out quite publicly, in a couple of cases, adoptive parents wanted to return those children right back to the country they came from.


So, what % of all the adoption were these 2, 3 cases?
It's all about what gets publicity.
I have a friend who's DD & hub adopted 2 babies/toddlers from china. No returns. They knew of many Asian adoptions, so went that route after being denied adoption here. Facts appreciate, there are not that many babies to adopt.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Here's another slam at conservatives when it's been proven conservatives DO help pregnant women, their newborns, adoptions, & liberals only talk.


You're just dodging the issue and resorting to name calling because you were proven wrong. 

That's pretty childish


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> PW and I seem to be having a respectful discussion on personhood. Do you believe there is a difference between personhood and humanity? If so, what is the difference between a person and a human? Can there be times where said being falls into only one category? What causes said being to move from one to the other? What are the qualifications to be in each category? What rights and privileges are assigned to each?


I apologize if I butted in. I thought an open forum was open to all comments and discussion. The rules are ever changing.

You posted a definition of life and then tried to conflate it with a defintion of personhood or humanity. I simply pointed out that there are many things that meet your definition of life which aren't human or persons. Thus your argument that your definition of life equals personhood or humanity fails.

Now a simple question for you. I went out to the chicken coop this morning and collected eggs. I fried up a couple for breakfast. The rooster seemed to have done his job a fertilized them. Did I eat eggs, or chickens?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> The more I read this the crazier it becomes.
> 
> Older children up for adoption because parents did not plan. Guess how many more older children would be out their begging to be adopted because there was no abortion and the parents did not really wanted them and tried to race them and failed.
> 
> There would be more unwanted to adopt but no one to adopt them because of the glut of BABIES that are wanted. No one would have to resort to taking those older children.


So, how have you helped? 
Other than being all for aborting the unwanted babies?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I wonder what she is doing to make sure these people are informed? Has she started a website? I know that when I want info about my medical procedures I start googling.


Easy for those who want women to be able to kill their offspring to say, like it's been noted b/4, conservatives do enormous am'ts to assist pregnant women & their babies, liberals do not, but they can google.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Easy for those who want women to be able to kill their offspring to say, like it's been noted b/4, conservatives do enormous am'ts to assist pregnant women & their babies, liberals do not, but they can google.


You really work hard to always have a put down in your posts. Does that make you happy?


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Don't believe I insulted bear, WR.
> Just suggested that if he didn't try to shoot someone else down, for their opinion not making something true like he somehow feels is his duty to tell every single person I the other side, that that was a lack of integrity.
> 
> Not an insult, kind of a definition, really.
> 
> But, since you've already taken a side in this debate, should I see the reasoning as self-evident?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Lisa in WA

painterswife said:


> You really work hard to always have a put down in your posts. Does that make you happy?


I doubt she has to work hard at it at all. Most likely it comes naturally.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> If they made it to Planned Parenthood they are getting the information they need.


Really. 
Seems they fight tooth & nail to inform women.
Fight tooth & nail to keep clinics up to snuff, they DO not want docs to be able to send patients to hospital if something goes wrong & it does! They do not want clinics to have the same standards as out patient clinics.
Check into how much counseling women have on OPTIONS!
Tell us how many moms leave w/bundle of joy.
If PP cared at all about women they'd have post natal care too. Do they do mammograms? No. Any help for moms wanting to keep their babies? BWHahaha!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> BWHahaha!


Sadly, that was the most sensible portion of the entire post


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I think I would want to add this if we went with your scenario.
> 
> Adoptions are first in first out. You get the kid they assign you and the oldest get adopted before the babies. You don't get to pick. Color, sex, age etc don't get to be part of the criteria.


So, the socialist, communist approach. 
Are you for Sanders for POTUS, too?
I'd suggest giving an orphan to each progressive 1st but I'm afraid they'd be followers if Peter Singer...


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You want to take away the rights of the mothers, and they come first.
> 
> You keep wanting to make the comparison to slavery, but want to "enslave" these mothers by forcing them to have these babies they don't want, and will be "enslaving" others to care for them for at least 18 years.


The right not to be inconvenienced should not outweigh the right to live. I am all for property rights, but, if I find a squatter on my property, I don't think I should legally have the right to shoot him on sight. His right to life outweighs my right to not be inconvenienced.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Then you will be happy to know that Planned Parenthood requires that you have one before getting an abortion.


Yup, are 'clients' shown it? 
It's used for obtaining less crunched specimens, but you knew that.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, are 'clients' shown it?
> It's used for obtaining less crunched specimens, but you knew that.


Do you think they should be forced to watch it?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, are 'clients' shown it?
> It's used for obtaining less crunched specimens, but you knew that.


Do you get a prize for escalating the nasty in your posts? You must be piling them up today.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> You might wish to check on those stats. There are a lot of people walking around today who were delivered prior to the third trimester. That still doesn't answer the question of why you, or your doctor, should get to choose which life to save. We're told that medical miracles happen. Who's to say god didn't have one in store that would save both if only the abortion hadn't happened. Why do you advocate the death of a person to maybe save another.
> 
> If I felt all fertilized cells were persons your question would deserve an answer. I don't. It doesn't.


 I picked that number because it was a good starting point. I know that viability is being pushed back somewhat prior to the 3rd trimester, as medical science advances. 

Another straw man, but, I will bite. If carrying a fetus will kill the mother, there is no point in continuing the pregnancy because if the fetus is younger than the age of viability, the death of the mother will result in the death of the fetus. If the fetus is beyond the age of viability, there is no reason why the baby couldn't be delivered early, alive and intact, in most cases.


----------



## FutureFarm

mmoetc said:


> I apologize if I butted in. I thought an open forum was open to all comments and discussion. The rules are ever changing.
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a definition of life and then tried to conflate it with a defintion of personhood or humanity. I simply pointed out that there are many things that meet your definition of life which aren't human or persons. Thus your argument that your definition of life equals personhood or humanity fails.
> 
> 
> 
> Now a simple question for you. I went out to the chicken coop this morning and collected eggs. I fried up a couple for breakfast. The rooster seemed to have done his job a fertilized them. Did I eat eggs, or chickens?



I didn't mean to imply you butted in, and apologize for my perceived rudeness. I had always thought that person and human were interchangeable and inseparable, all humans are people and all people are humans. I'm learning that according to you and others, that the definition I learned might not be true. 
In regards to your breakfast, I would say that you in truth ate unborn chickens. 
I'll try to be more clear on my views of life, personhood, and humanity. As stated earlier I was unaware of anyone who believed that a person could not be a human or a human could not be a person. I therefore believe that personhood and humanity are one in the same and have the same rights and privileges. 
Every living thing meets the seven characteristics of life. We agree there. My dog, the grass, and the bacteria on your keyboard are all alive, because they meet the seven characteristics. DNA differentiates living things. A living thing with dog DNA is a dog. A living thing with bacterial DNA is a bacteria. A living thing with human DNA would therefore be a human. A fertilized egg meets the seven characteristics and is therefore alive. I believe personhood and humanity are defined by life, and therefore a fertilized human egg is alive and a person/human.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You want to take away the rights of the mothers, and they come first.
> 
> You keep wanting to make the comparison to slavery, but want to "enslave" these mothers by forcing them to have these babies they don't want, and will be "enslaving" others to care for them for at least 18 years.


"forcing them to have these babies they don't want" - so then, in this scenario, the fact that they did some act that got them pregnant thereby placing additional responsibility within their personal realm, you wish for them to have the capacity to kill the unborn child because they don't want it, a mere whim?


----------



## Shine

mmoetc said:


> Life doesn't equal humanity. The paramecium, a cat and a monkey all share the same characteristics of life. It makes none of them human.


Which one(s) of the above noted organisms could be called "self-aware"


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> "forcing them to have these babies they don't want" - so then, in this scenario, the fact that they did some act that got them pregnant thereby placing additional responsibility within their personal realm, you wish for them to have the capacity to kill the unborn child because they don't want it, a mere whim?


How in the world do you purport to know the thinking of any of these women enough to declare their decision a whim? Or is any decision different than what you have made a whim? The arrogance here is mind boggling.

And really...it's none of your business what their decision is. Not your body, not your choice. If you want the fetus, take it out and carry it yourself.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> If carrying a fetus will kill the mother, there is no point in continuing the pregnancy because if the fetus is younger than the age of viability, the death of the mother will result in the death of the fetus. If the fetus is beyond the age of viability, there is no reason why the baby couldn't be delivered early, alive and intact, in most cases.


In a perfect world that is what I would want to happen. There is a bit of a sticking point to the perfect solution. Delivery. Do you induce and hope it survives or is a c-section performed. Decisions that the mother would need to make. Both have medical problems.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> I didn't mean to imply you butted in, and apologize for my perceived rudeness. I had always thought that person and human were interchangeable and inseparable, all humans are people and all people are humans. I'm learning that according to you and others, that the definition I learned might not be true.
> In regards to your breakfast, I would say that you in truth ate unborn chickens.
> I'll try to be more clear on my views of life, personhood, and humanity. As stated earlier I was unaware of anyone who believed that a person could not be a human or a human could not be a person. I therefore believe that personhood and humanity are one in the same and have the same rights and privileges.
> Every living thing meets the seven characteristics of life. We agree there. My dog, the grass, and the bacteria on your keyboard are all alive, because they meet the seven characteristics. DNA differentiates living things. A living thing with dog DNA is a dog. A living thing with bacterial DNA is a bacteria. A living thing with human DNA would therefore be a human. A fertilized egg meets the seven characteristics and is therefore alive. I believe personhood and humanity are defined by life, and therefore a fertilized human egg is alive and a person/human.


Does a human with no brain activity have the right to life?


----------



## Farmerga

Some have questioned my comparison of Abortion to American Slavery, an the arguments for and against are also very similar. I submit that there are several very striking similarities. I will list a few of them:

1) Defenders of slavery often questioned the humanity of their chattel, much like the defenders of abortion question the humanity of the victims of abortion. 

2) Defenders of slavery often held out their right to property as an excuse for holding others in bondage. Abortion defenders hold out the "right to choose".

3) There were, relatively few on each side of the fight. There were few slave owners and few abolitionists, the majority didn't think about it much, or, care (I feel most had an opinion, one way or another, but, didn't care enough to get involved.) The same can be said of abortion. 

4)The Supreme Court, on several occasions, upheld the institution of slavery, just like the SCOTUS today upholds abortion. 

You can see that the arguments are very much the same. It is my hope that I live to see this shameful practice halted. I also hope that we are not forced to pay the price, in blood, for the sin of abortion, like this nation was forced to pay for the sin of slavery.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> The right not to be inconvenienced should not outweigh the* right to live*. I am all for property rights, but, if I find a squatter on my property, I don't think I should legally have the right to shoot him on sight. His right to life outweighs my right to not be inconvenienced.


There is no "right to live" prior to birth

All your analogies deal with those who were already born


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> How in the world do you purport to know the thinking of any of these women enough to declare their decision a whim? Or is any decision different than what you have made a whim? The arrogance here is mind boggling.
> 
> And really...it's none of your business what their decision is. Not your body, not your choice. If you want the fetus, take it out and carry it yourself.


I do not purport to know their thinking, I was commenting on another person's post that said the words "she didn't want it" - this implies no real consideration other than personal preference. 

It is not the woman's body if the fetus has it's own DNA. It is a different organism being supported by it's host. 

If I choose to seek protection for the unprotected which, most likely the woman did not seek to be responsible for her acts then yes, it is my business.

...and you last suggestion is ludicris at best...


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Does a human with no brain activity have the right to life?


 
I don't see life as a bell curve, but, if I did, I would be forced to think of the status of the human life. The brain dead person, at the end of life gets to choose. In fact, I have a "living will" that precludes any extreme measures to extend my life in case of catastrophic illness or injury. I chose to do that. The difference between the two is that the early embryo/zygote/fetus will, very likely, develop the brain function you seek. The brain dead person will likely not recover. (I know, if they are truly brain dead they will NOT recover, but, there have been cases when people were wrongly diagnosed as brain dead). Still, I feel it is up to the person doing the dying as to what medical intervention is performed, or, not.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "right to live" prior to birth
> 
> All your analogies deal with those who were already born


So this is your limit, up to the point birth the unborn child can be killed with no regard. Correct?

This is truly a sad sentiment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Yup, are 'clients' shown it?
> It's used for obtaining less crunched specimens, but you knew that.


You're confusing the PRE-procedure ultrasound with the one done DURING procedure.

If you'd devote even half as much energy to studying the topic as you do to the personal jabs, you'd be much better informed


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I don't see life as a bell curve, but, if I did, I would be forced to think of the status of the human life. The brain dead person, at the end of life gets to choose. In fact, I have a "living will" that precludes any extreme measures to extend my life in case of catastrophic illness or injury. I chose to do that. The difference between the two is that the early embryo/zygote/fetus will, very likely, develop the brain function you seek. The brain dead person will likely not recover. (I know, if they are truly brain dead they will NOT recover, but, there have been cases when people were wrongly diagnosed as brain dead). Still, I feel it is up to the person doing the dying as to what medical intervention is performed, or, not.


So if that person wants to be kept alive even though there is no brain activity and has no estate is someone required to keep the body alive?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> "forcing them to have these babies they don't want" - so then, in this scenario, the fact that *they did some act that got them pregnant *thereby placing additional responsibility within their personal realm, you wish for them to have the capacity to kill the unborn child because they don't want it, a mere whim?


I wish for them to have the capacity to make their own choices without being compelled by others. 

It's obvious they had intercourse, but that doesn't mean they had any intentions of getting pregnant, or that they have the means and ability to raise a child. 

Forcing them to do so does no one any good, and it's not your decision to make


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "right to live" prior to birth
> 
> All your analogies deal with those who were already born


 There is not currently a "legal" right to life, in the U.S., for the unborn. I find that to be as unjust as forced servitude. Until a few weeks ago, gay couples didn't have a legal right to marry in most places. A few decades ago, in several places, black people didn't have the legal right to go to school, eat with, marry, live next to, etc. white people. A couple of centuries ago, black people and Native Americans were not legally recognized as fully human. Again, one day, I hope and believe, that we will look back on the legality of abortion as an abhorrent period in the history of our nation, because it most certainly is. 

Of course my analogies deal with those who are already born, any others will be met with the same tired "the unborn have no rights" line.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Which one(s) of the above noted organisms could be called "*self-aware*"


There's no way to know that, so it really makes no difference.
Some have contended the ability to move or react to outside stimuli constitutes "self awareness"


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So if that person wants to be kept alive even though there is no brain activity and has no estate is someone required to keep the body alive?


Yes, as I understand it, under current law, the wishes of the person would be honored.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> Does a human with no brain activity have the right to life?



I'm by no means a doctor, nor do I have extensive medical training so my response might have some minor inaccuracies, but I'm willing to learn. 
I do not see brain activity as a necessity to life. My grass does not have a brain and is alive. Is brain activity necessary for personhood? Again I say no. I think lack of brain activity can be an indication that a human has passed from life to death, but do not believe that brain activity is necessary to declare the start of a life. I think heartbeat and respiration fall in similar categories. When my grandpa had a heart attack his heart stopped beating, yet I considered him alive. At the end of his life when his heart stopped permanently, I considered him dead. So I guess it depends on permanence. Permanent loss of brain activity would result in that being no longer classified as alive.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no "right to live" prior to birth
> 
> 
> 
> All your analogies deal with those who were already born



People have rights, so if it is determined that personhood can exist through thought, or brain activity or meeting the seven characteristics of life, then the right to live would also have to exist before birth. Unless all people don't have the right to life?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Yes, as I understand it, under current law, the wishes of the person would be honored.


Who would then be responsible to pay for that?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> I'm by no means a doctor, nor do I have extensive medical training so my response might have some minor inaccuracies, but I'm willing to learn.
> I do not see brain activity as a necessity to life. My grass does not have a brain and is alive. Is brain activity necessary for personhood? Again I say no. I think lack of brain activity can be an indication that a human has passed from life to death, but do not believe that brain activity is necessary to declare the start of a life. I think heartbeat and respiration fall in similar categories. When my grandpa had a heart attack his heart stopped beating, yet I considered him alive. At the end of his life when his heart stopped permanently, I considered him dead. So I guess it depends on permanence. Permanent loss of brain activity would result in that being no longer classified as alive.


What are the requirements then to have the right to not be murdered? that is if you believe murder is causing death of something.

What is death for a human organism? For a person?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> People have rights, so *if it is determined* that personhood can exist through thought, or brain activity or meeting the seven characteristics of life, then the right to live would also have to exist before birth. Unless all people don't have the right to life?


That is all your personal opinion.

What HAS been determined is a woman has the right to an abortion if she follows the established laws, and she gets to choose, not you.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Who would then be responsible to pay for that?


 We would, through medicare/higher insurance/ medical bills.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> We would, through medicare/higher insurance/ medical bills.


So now we would be required to keep everyone alive on life support if they wrote it in their will. We will also require every pregnancy to be brought to term and we will of course then be required to pay for every single one of those children until they die and beyond ( if they wish) because we can keep them on life support.

I think you just gave the right to life and support to every single person from embryo to when ever.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> So this is *your limit*, up to the point birth the unborn child can be killed with no regard. Correct?
> 
> This is truly a sad sentiment.


Those are the limits set by the laws.

It's really none of my business what someone else does if it doesn't affect me *directly*


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no way to know that, so it really makes no difference.
> Some have contended the ability to move or react to outside stimuli constitutes "self awareness"


Then you are unaware of the premise that Self-awareness separates the human species from the primates. This is a formal statement by many anthropologists so there is a way to know that, and no... "movement" or neural responses in no way constitutes "self-awareness". This premise has been hashed over at great lengths.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those are the limits set by the laws.
> 
> It's really none of my business what someone else does if it doesn't affect me *directly*


Ah, but it does affect you and all of us. While it may be indirectly now, it will come to pass when you will be in direct contact with the issue.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> So now we would be required to keep everyone alive on life support if they wrote it in their will. We will also require every pregnancy to be brought to term and we will of course then be required to pay for every single one of those children until they die and beyond ( if they wish) because we can keep them on life support.
> 
> I think you just gave the right to life and support to every single person from embryo to when ever.


 We are required to keep people on life support now, if they request it. I don't get why you think that we will be required to pay for "every single one" of those new children until they die. My bet is that a large majority of those children would be fully functional, contributing members of society. Even if they weren't, it is a cruel world that makes being conceived by a poor person a death sentence.


----------



## FutureFarm

When you answer my question I'll answer yours. This way you get a chance to express your opinion and the discussion is more balanced.

I see you are busy responding to other people too. Please don't feel rushed. I'll be here. I'll be busy tonight, so I might pick back up in the morning. 

Also to clarify do you agree to the seven characteristics of life? If yes, do you acknowledge that for thought to define personhood, there is a time before a certain gestational age that the fetus can be a living human but not a person? And to clarify, only people have rights? 
In one response you said that thought was needed for personhood, and in another a person was described as a living, breathing, human. Is thought or thought and breath required for personhood?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Then you are unaware of *the premise* that Self-awareness separates the human species from the primates. This is a formal statement by many anthropologists so there is a way to know that, and no... *"movement" or neural responses in no way constitutes "self-awareness".* This premise has been hashed over at great lengths.


The bolded premise was set forth by one of those claiming it proved a fetus was "self aware". 

The fact that scientists *can't tell* if another species is "self aware" isn't proof they are not. It's only proof they don't know

For many years those same scientists claimed humans were the only species to use tools, but that premise has been long disproven


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> We are required to keep people on life support now, if they request it. I don't get why you think that we will be required to pay for "every single one" of those new children until they die. My bet is that a large majority of those children would be fully functional, contributing members of society. Even if they weren't, it is a cruel world that makes being conceived by a poor person a death sentence.


Can you point me towards those laws?

If you require a child to be born are you not required to support it?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> We are required to keep people on life support now, if they request it. I don't get why you think that we will be required to pay for "every single one" of those new children until they die. My bet is that a large majority of those children would be fully functional, contributing members of society. Even if they weren't, it is a cruel world that makes being conceived by a poor person a death sentence.


I just want to clarify what you mean.

You are saying that even if someone is "brain dead" and has specified being kept on life support, the government is required to keep them on life support keeping that legally dead person's body going.

That a legally brain dead person is not really dead.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Ah, but *it does affect you and all of us.* While it may be indirectly now, it will come to pass when you will be in direct contact with the issue.


No, it has no effect on me at all, no matter how much you want to think it does.

Having a few million more unwanted babies would have much more of a negative impact on the entire world.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Can you point me towards those laws?
> 
> If you require a child to be born are you not required to support it?


Here is a little reading: http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/life-support/

The laws vary by state. 

To your other question. Not anymore than for any other child born in the U.S.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Here is a little reading: http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/life-support/
> 
> The laws vary by state.
> 
> To your other question. Not anymore than for any other child born in the U.S.


From your link. This has nothing to do with maintaining the body of a brain dead human.

"The term life support includes any life-sustaining medical treatment, procedure, or intervention that, in the judgment of the attending physician, when applied to the patient, would serve only to prolong the dying process where the patient has a terminal illness or injury, or would serve only to maintain the patient in a condition of permanent unconsciousness."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Not anymore than for any other child born in the U.S.


The Govt is supporting millions of them now.
We don't need millions more


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I just want to clarify what you mean.
> 
> You are saying that even if someone is &quot;brain dead&quot; and has specified being kept on life support, the government is required to keep them on life support keeping that legally dead person's body going.
> 
> That a legally brain dead person is not really dead.


 I believe, in most states, one has to specify that they do NOT want to be kept on life support. I believe those measures are the default. I am not saying I agree with it, in that case, but, I believe that is the law.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Govt is supporting millions of them now.
> We don't need millions more


 So, because they are poor, they do not deserve to have a go at life. Noted.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> That is all your personal opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> What HAS been determined is a woman has the right to an abortion if she follows the established laws, and she gets to choose, not you.



In a civil, respectful, and thoughtful hunt for common ground and mutual understanding, PW and mmoetc advocated that personhood starts at thought and that persons, which I learned are different from humans, have rights. It would logically appear the. That a fetus with thoughts is a person with rights, and that although the law currently allows for abortions, PW believes that abortions should be illegal after the first thought.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> In a civil, respectful, and thoughtful hunt for common ground and mutual understanding, PW and mmoetc advocated that personhood starts at thought and that persons, which I learned are different from humans, have rights. It would logically appear the. That a fetus with thoughts is a person with rights, and that although the law currently allows for abortions, PW believes that abortions should be illegal after the first thought.


No you are parsing my opinion into assumptions. There are reasons that an abortion might be required and advisable at any point in gestation.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> I do not purport to know their thinking, I was commenting on another person's post that said the words "she didn't want it" - this implies no real consideration other than personal preference.
> 
> It is not the woman's body if the fetus has it's own DNA. It is a different organism being supported by it's host.
> 
> If I choose to seek protection for the unprotected which, most likely the woman did not seek to be responsible for her acts then yes, it is my business.
> 
> ...and you last suggestion is ludicris at best...


Saying "she didn't want it" implies nothing. She might not want to continue the pregnancy for an array of reasons. 


No, still not your business. The Supreme Court ruled 7&#8211;2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. 

Privacy. Meaning: none of your business, beeswax, etc.



And my suggestion is no more ludicrous than your wanting to take dominion over another persons body.


----------



## FutureFarm

Duly noted. Care to elaborate those reasons in your response to my previous questions?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Duly noted. Care to elaborate those reasons in your response to my previous questions?


Is this to me and what question?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> So, because they are poor, they do not deserve to have a go at life. Noted.


Because they are poor, their mothers should determine if they are carried to term, not you


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> In a civil, respectful, and thoughtful hunt for common ground and mutual understanding, PW and mmoetc advocated that personhood starts at thought and that persons, which I learned are different from humans, have rights. It would logically appear the. That a fetus with thoughts is a person with rights, and that although the law currently allows for abortions, PW believes that abortions should be illegal after the first thought.


Tell me when you can positively determine the timing of those "first thoughts"

Until then we have to go by current laws, and allow the mothers to make whatever choice is appropriate to their particular circumstances, and not the wishes of others


----------



## Farmerga

I think the debate has circled enough on this thread. I think I am done. Until next time!!


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> Is this to me and what question?



Well I wish more people would share their views on the subject in a respectful manner as you are now, but the question outstanding is "is there a point in time where a human life is not a person?" Also you have differing qualifications for life. In one instance thought, and in another thought and breath. Can you clarify?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I think the debate has circled enough on this thread. I think I am done. Until next time!!


I thought the discussion was going well. Actual question sabout why people believe things.


----------



## gibbsgirl

Tricky Grama said:


> So, how have you helped?
> Other than being all for aborting the unwanted babies?


Tricky grama, the problem I have with people arguing that there would be such a glut of babies needing adoption is that it's premised on the system being overwhelmed by babies and older children who have been willingly surrender for adoption bybtheir parents, and the is not the case. 

There are a ton of babies and especially older children who are assigned either foster or adoptee status by our govt that were removed against the wishes of their parents. And, even amongst those removed unwillingly, many have blood kin or friends who would gladly take those children in. 

The problem with the system being overwhelmed, IMO, has far more to do with the govt overstepping its bounds by removing many children initially, and then making it unreasonably difficult for their parents, relatives, or others that are part of the children's lives to handle the children instead if govt authorities.

The number of children willingly surrendered is not the majority. And, the argument that the kids had to be removed just doesn't fly in my mind the vast majority of the time.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Tell me when you can positively determine the timing of those "first thoughts"
> 
> 
> 
> Until then we have to go by current laws, and allow the mothers to make whatever choice is appropriate to their particular circumstances, and not the wishes of others



I don't know, and I don't agree with PW on when life starts. That would be a good question for her to answer. I think new life begins at conception, because it then meets the seven characteristics of life in the front of most biology textbooks. My apple tree does not think and it is alive, which is why I disagree with PW. 
I don't think current law should be a factor in whether an option is right or wrong, as there have been many things that are clearly wrong that were once legal.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I thought the discussion was going well. Actual question sabout why people believe things.


I reserve the right to jump back in, if it gets interesting again.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Well I wish more people would share their views on the subject in a respectful manner as you are now, but the question outstanding is "is there a point in time where a human life is not a person?" Also you have differing qualifications for life. In one instance thought, and in another thought and breath. Can you clarify?


Brain function by the cerebrum. The part of your brain that controls higher thought. If that is not there or is dead you are not a person.

You could be breathing and responding to touch but what makes you a person would not be there. Sort of like a worm, lives and functions but there is no thought.


----------



## gibbsgirl

painterswife said:


> Does a human with no brain activity have the right to life?


A person with no brain activity has had brain death. Is that what you're talking about? Or are you meaning a person in a permenant vegitative state?


----------



## painterswife

gibbsgirl said:


> A person with no brain activity has had brain death. Is that what you're talking about? Or are you meaning a person in a permenant vegitative state?


Brain dead.

Actually both. The potential for cognition is totally and permanently lost.


----------



## FutureFarm

So you believe that until a human has fully formed cerebrum, they are not granted the rights and responsibilities of personhood?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> So you believe that until a human has fully formed cerebrum, they are not granted the rights and responsibilities of personhood?


No. It could be perfectly formed and be non functioning and there would be no person as well.

But yes, there is no rights to make it to personhood unless the mother grants those rights by giving it permission to use her body to make it to that point.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Tricky grama, the problem I have with people arguing that there would be such a glut of babies needing adoption is that it's premised on the system being overwhelmed by babies and older children who have been willingly surrender for adoption bybtheir parents, and *the is not the case*.


The statistics show about 30-40% of abortions are performed on low income minority women.

To pretend they would make good mothers and would provide good homes if forced to have the babies is not realistic in any way.

Whether they are adopted or on welfare, the burden for everyone will increase exponentially

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/21/why-are-black-women-three-times-more-likely-to-have-an-abortion/



> The problem with the system being overwhelmed, IMO, has far more to do with the govt overstepping its bounds by removing many children initially, and then making it unreasonably difficult for their parents, relatives, or others that are part of the children's lives to handle the children instead if govt authorities.


That has nothing to do with abortions, or abortion restrictions adding to the numbers
The end result remains the system is overwhelmed already, regardless of all the various reasons


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> So, a former slave holder (NBF), who was the first white person invited to speak at a meeting of the Pole Bearers (the progenitor of the NAACP)
> Who spoke of the races coming together and was one of the few whites, North or South who would hire skilled black workers, after the war, was unchanged in his morals? *The evidence would indicate that you are wrong.*


Only if the record shows that his moral agenda was somewhat different previous to the war. Can you provide any evidence to that affect? Such things as being a brutal slave owner, with some deep seated hatred toward them?


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> We are required to keep people on life support now, if they request it. I don't get why you think that we will be required to pay for "every single one" of those new children until they die. My bet is that a large majority of those children would be fully functional, contributing members of society. Even if they weren't, *it is a cruel world that makes being conceived by a poor person a death sentence.*


Look around you.... do you really see unicorns dancing in rainbows? It IS a cruel world that we inhabit.... as my dear departed daddy would say "get used to it".


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're confusing the PRE-procedure ultrasound with the one done DURING procedure.
> 
> If you'd devote even half as much energy to studying the topic as you do to the personal jabs, you'd be much better informed


...according to your standards. [which I feel are invalid in my world]


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Only if the record shows that his moral agenda was somewhat different previous to the war. Can you provide any evidence to that affect? Such things as being a brutal slave owner, with some deep seated hatred toward them?


...you have proof that it was the same or are you just throwing that out there?

"Forrest was a brilliant cavalryman and courageous soldier. As author Jack Hurst writes: a man possessed of physical valor perhaps unprecedented among his countrymen, as well as, ironically, a man whose social attitudes may well have changed farther in the direction of racial enlightenment over the span of his lifetime than those of most American historical figures"


wow... that was really hard to find...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> ...according to your standards. [which I feel are invalid in my world]


You can have anything you like in your world.
It can't be forced on anyone else's world.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> No. It could be perfectly formed and be non functioning and there would be no person as well.
> 
> But yes, there is no rights to make it to personhood unless the mother grants those rights by giving it permission to use her body to make it to that point.


How much cerebral development is required for personhood to be granted whether or not the mother grants those rights? From what I've been reading,the cerebrum is noticably different from the brainstem and other parts of the brain at gestational age 4 weeks, and doesn't stop developing until the "fetus" is 25 years old. If full development of the cerebrum is required, that's a lot of people who can have their personhood and therefore lives revoked by their mothers. Can a mother grant personhood prior to development of the cerebrum? Those in a coma and when unconscious a person loses the ability to access and use their cerebrum, and I'm not willing to call anyone on an operating table dead. 
I still don't think I can accept that all humans aren't people.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Quote:
Originally Posted by painterswife View Post 
Birth control fails. 

Rarely. 



In my lifetime, I have been pregnant 4 times. Three of those pregnancies were due to birth control failures (different methods each time and, yes, I was using it correctly). So birth control failures happen more than you want to admit.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> How much cerebral development is required for personhood to be granted whether or not the mother grants those rights? From what I've been reading,the cerebrum is noticably different from the brainstem and other parts of the brain at gestational age 4 weeks, and doesn't stop developing until the "fetus" is 25 years old. If full development of the cerebrum is required, that's a lot of people who can have their personhood and therefore lives revoked by their mothers. Can a mother grant personhood prior to development of the cerebrum? Those in a coma and when unconscious a person loses the ability to access and use their cerebrum, and I'm not willing to call anyone on an operating table dead.
> I still don't think I can accept that all humans aren't people.


And I don't accept there is a god. We get to decide for ourselves.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> And I don't accept there is a god. We get to decide for ourselves.


Well how much development is required for you to decide that living human is a person?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Well how much development is required for you to decide that living human is a person?


I think I was pretty clear. Capable of thought.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Shine said:


> ... It is the staunch supporter that forces this upon us, it violates the principles of Christianity to kill those that are unprotected, we are called to stand up against this.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Right there is the problem. You seek to make secular law based on your religious beliefs. Why should your religious beliefs trump mine? Why should your religious beliefs trump the beliefs of someone who holds to no religious beliefs? Making law based on religion is a very slippery slope.


----------



## beenaround

basketti said:


> Cool. I was unaware of this. Did they find a rock with this inscribed on it left over from the big blast or what? Maybe the dinosaurs had government too?


they are dead, extinct. You are unaware of this because your uneducated. Every regulation is based on bad behavior, got to be over a million of them. Maybe look up at the rock your living under, look up real quick, that might be your first step to understanding how things work. Things get bad enough and you'll see something called martial law, but you keep thinking your morals are all there is. 

Freedom has a demand, if you want to keep your own you must not use your freedom to infringe upon another's freedom. In other words love your neighbor or suffer governments morals. And people are ignorant on why government is so gigantic.

The thing about freedom is it allows people to be educated before they lose it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Shine;7516217... It is the staunch supporter that forces this upon us, it *violates the principles of Christianity* to kill those that are unprotected, we are called to stand up against this.


No one is forcing anything on you at all.
You aren't being required to do anything, nor are you prevented from doing anything.

You keep wanting to force others to obey your religion while acting as if you're being victimized


----------



## Lisa in WA

beenaround said:


> they are dead, extinct. You are unaware of this because your uneducated.


Unintended irony? I think yes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Freedom has a demand, if you want to keep your own you must not use your freedom to infringe upon another's freedom.


That's what some of us have been saying all along.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

basketti said:


> Unintended irony? I think yes.


I suspect that will go right over their heads


----------



## beenaround

SLFarmMI said:


> Shine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... It is the staunch supporter that forces this upon us, it violates the principles of Christianity to kill those that are unprotected, we are called to stand up against this.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Right there is the problem. You seek to make secular law based on your religious beliefs. Why should your religious beliefs trump mine? Why should your religious beliefs trump the beliefs of someone who holds to no religious beliefs? Making law based on religion is a very slippery slope.
> 
> 
> 
> no one needs to tell you it's wrong to rip apart a child and I firmly believe there is a law that will silence anyone who thinks different.
> 
> How's things going on this round ball? Things good? Things are just getting going and no one will stop for a second to help anyone who stands and calls abortion right when the time gets where it's bound to, but what really sucks is the sins of the fathers are often paid by the children of the third and forth generations.
> 
> This globe was created with checks and balances, those who don't believe it will reap the consequences, history proves it out time and time again.
> 
> Every read the history of the Aztecs? They were baby butchers to their gods/themselves. Someone came along and showed them the error of their morals. No suffering was to great for those people at the hands of a government. You know what brought that government to them? Their wealth, Aztec gold. You know how they amassed that wealth, butchering babies for starters.
> 
> Being a law unto yourself is stepping off a cliff. Ask the Aztecs.
Click to expand...


----------



## beenaround

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's what some of us have been saying all along.


the exact opposite is what you've been saying. 

There are also degrees in that demand, the more helpless and defenseless the freedom the greater the demand. 

There is nothing more heinous than willingly ripping a child who has never commuted one wrong apart. Even in the case of the mother life, freedom demands no one use their freedom to infringe upon another's for personal gain, but that is forgivable. What is not forgivable is calling that wrong right.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> I think I was pretty clear. Capable of thought.



How can you prove thought? Does a one minute old baby out of the womb breathing and screaming show any more thought than the same baby one minute before its birth?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> How can you prove thought? Does a one minute old baby out of the womb breathing and screaming show any more thought than the same baby one minute before its birth?


You seem to be getting quite worked up. I personally can't prove thought. Scientists are pretty good at it though. They may have a bit of a hard time proving the exact time but they are getting closer.


----------



## FutureFarm

I'm not worked up. I find the decision to end a human life very serious and not to be taken lightly. If we err, it should be on the side of caution. You claim that the capability of thought is what defines rights. Because at times I have been incapable of thought, by your own definition, I have been dead three times. I'm relieved to know that those who surrounded me in my times of weakness did not take actions that would have ended my life, and concerned for those who would lose their capability of thought in front of you.
Where does science define thought currently? If it moves earlier, are you willing to accept that? What should happen to those who ended the life a person?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

beenaround said:


> the exact opposite is what you've been saying.


No.
It's the same


> Freedom has a demand, if you want to keep your own *you must not use your freedom to infringe upon another's freedom.*


----------



## Jolly

painterswife said:


> I think I was pretty clear. Capable of thought.


Talk about a hanging curve, right over the middle of the plate....Must...Must not, grrrr...Must not give in! :grit:


----------



## Evons hubby

beenaround said:


> SLFarmMI said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one needs to tell you it's wrong to rip apart a child and I firmly believe there is a law that will silence anyone who thinks different.
> 
> How's things going on this round ball? Things good? Things are just getting going and no one will stop for a second to help anyone who stands and calls abortion right when the time gets where it's bound to, but what really sucks is the sins of the fathers are often paid by the children of the third and forth generations.
> 
> This globe was created with checks and balances, those who don't believe it will reap the consequences, history proves it out time and time again.
> 
> Every read the history of the Aztecs? They were baby butchers to their gods/themselves. Someone came along and showed them the error of their morals. No suffering was to great for those people at the hands of a government. You know what brought that government to them? Their wealth, Aztec gold. *You know how they amassed that wealth, butchering babies for starters.*
> 
> Being a law unto yourself is stepping off a cliff. Ask the Aztecs.
> 
> 
> 
> ok, this is interesting..... exactly how does "butchering babies" amass huge amounts of gold?
Click to expand...


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> ...you have proof that it was the same or are you just throwing that out there?
> 
> "Forrest was a brilliant cavalryman and courageous soldier. As author Jack Hurst writes: a man possessed of physical valor perhaps unprecedented among his countrymen, as well as, ironically, a man whose social attitudes may well have changed farther in the direction of racial enlightenment over the span of his lifetime than those of most American historical figures"
> 
> 
> wow... that was really hard to find...


Ok, so now both you and whoever Jack is think he may have changed is attitudes toward slavery over his lifetime. Two people with similar opinions, but neither bring forth a shred of evidence. At least Jack doesnt say he changed because of the war... only that he may have over the course of his life. I know some of my attitudes and beliefs have changed over the years too, but it had nothing to do with wars or laws.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, so now both you and whoever Jack is think he may have changed is attitudes toward slavery over his lifetime. Two people with similar opinions, but neither bring forth a shred of evidence. At least Jack doesnt say he changed because of the war... only that he may have over the course of his life. I know some of my attitudes and beliefs have changed over the years too, but it had nothing to do with wars or laws.


You know what? - I'm busy - find another tree.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> You know what? - I'm busy - find another tree.


I thought you might be.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Will you be interjecting a comment on another of your pet peeves such as others being allowed to get married because they are gay and you don't like that?


Will you always bring up gay?


----------



## Tricky Grama

FutureFarm said:


> Raccoon, possum, skunk, squirrel, deer, crow, and fox all have seasons.
> I'm not telling anyone how to live their life. All I want is for everyone to have an opportunity to live their life.
> No one deserves to die because they are inconvenient.


Post of the century award.


----------



## FutureFarm

I'm not convinced that all humans have rights because of the phrase "basic human right". The slaveholder a didn't depersonalize the selves to soothe their conscious, they dehumanized them. Is there anyone else out there that thinks that a living human can not be a person?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> I'm not convinced that all humans have rights because of the phrase "basic human right". The slaveholder a didn't depersonalize the selves to soothe their conscious, they dehumanized them. Is there anyone else out there that thinks that a living human can not be a person?


What is the difference for you between human cells and and a person?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Not being done on purpose, it is all reflex and muscle spasms.


And is this your opinion, too? 
There's facts from science to back up that unborn babies feel pain at LEAST at 20 wks, probably earlier. Do you have facts showing b/c at 12 wks those movements are only muscle spasms, it's ok to kill the unborn then?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> And is this your opinion, too?
> There's facts from science to back up that unborn babies feel pain at LEAST at 20 wks, probably earlier. Do you have facts showing b/c at 12 wks those movements are only muscle spasms, it's ok to kill the unborn then?


I suggest you read all the posts instead of asking questions after you read each post. I understand you just pop in and react but the rest of us have been having a conversation.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> When the actions of others include killing unborn children - I will not be silent.
> 
> My arguments have sound reasoning, you just duck and weave because you have no valid point of reference other than "it's legal now" and that you have the barest of opinion margins to capitalize upon.
> 
> [I reference Ron White's methodology of debate once more.]
> 
> I am grateful for all of these videos, for they have focused the stare of America upon abortion and the processes associated with them. This is good.
> 
> Your arguments carry the slightest shred of validity in that I do not have the right to tell others what they have to do, but you seem to gloss over the premise that a product of conception should have it's chance at the world - you wish to deny that - I am confident that I have shown that.
> 
> Spin away.
> 
> Oh... ETA - your argument will be stronger if you chose not to answer the tough questions that are attacking your stance. So... I understand


I was gonna post something similar many times...at the very least, this should raise awareness, betcha when stats are assimilated we'll see a sharp decrease in killing the unborn.
There's less abortions now then a few yrs ago, due to education, awareness, & possible the vids that came out a couple yrs ago showing PP did nothing about statutory rape & doing abortions on minors w/o parental consent.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Farmerga said:


> What is your earliest memory? I am willing to bet it was not your first breath. So, that being said, you would not have known the difference if you had been killed prior to ~age 3 years. Under those conditions, would it be acceptable to kill a child that is below the "age of Sentience"?


Of course, this is why Peter Singer & other progressive followers believe it's just fine to kill a child from conception til "awareness".


----------



## FutureFarm

What do you do with people who commit human rights violations? I guess to you human rights don't exist so human rights violations don't exist either.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am fairly certain that killing children is illegal in all fifty states and the death penalty still exists in many of them....life sentences in those that won't kill you for it. A fetus on the other hand has not been labeled as off limits to an abortionist. Well they were many years ago, but due to the many problems associated with enforcement and women dying those laws were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.


What dif does it make? IIRC, Kermit gossling is in prison for negligence in deaths of a few women in his clinic, did they not fail to convict on the HUNDREDS of babies murdered w/scissors after being born?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> What do you do with people who commit human rights violations? I guess to you human rights don't exist so human rights violations don't exist either.


I will assume that is directed at me. How do you get that from anything I have posted? Where did I ever say there are no human rights?


----------



## Tricky Grama

FeralFemale said:


> Actually, it does fit the legal definition of malice in regard to murder which boils down to intent and premeditation.


Post of the century award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You seem to believe this.... I strongly urge you not to get any abortions, it could cause you a lot of unnecessary stress.


Yeah, just like we try not to kill the elderly, the disabled. Might be ok in some cultures doesn't mean we shouldnt raise awareness as to how wrong it is. Just not killing personally is hardly enuf.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> I will assume that is directed at me. How do you get that from anything I have posted? Where did I ever say there are no human rights?



You said only people have rights. Humans don't necessarily have rights, which is how you justify killing an unborn, yet living, human. The more I read, the more I find comfort in the fact that all international organizations grant rights to humans.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> You said only people have rights. Humans don't necessarily have rights, which is how you justify killing an unborn, yet living, human.


Are you saying that every living human cell has rights?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> You said only people have rights. Humans don't necessarily have rights, which is how you justify killing an unborn, yet living, human. The more I read, the more I find comfort in the fact that* all international organizations grant rights to humans*.


None of them outlaw abortions


----------



## FutureFarm

Every living human is made up of cells. From the time the DNA merges from egg and sperm, the new being meets the seven characteristics of life. At that point in time that one human cell is a person and has rights, because it is alive and comprised of human DNA.
If I chop off my finger it has no rights because it cannot maintain the seven characteristics of life.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of them outlaw abortions



The UN international Bill of Rights grants the right of life to all humans. It doesn't say people. It says humans.
So to allow abortions, you would have to say that the fetus is not human. Science has yet to develop a way for humans to breed with other species, so I'd feel pretty safe saying the fetus is a human.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> At that point in time that one human cell is a person and has rights, because it is alive and comprised of human DNA.


You're entitled to that opinion.
It doesn't change any of the current laws that disagree


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to that opinion.
> 
> It doesn't change any of the current laws that disagree



And that's what you would've said in 1850 at the slave auction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> The UN international Bill of Rights grants the right of life to all humans. *It doesn't say people*. *It says* humans.
> So to allow abortions, you would have to* say* that the fetus is not human. Science has yet to develop a way for humans to breed with other species, so I'd feel pretty safe saying the fetus is a human.


Does it *say* abortions are illegal?

If not, the the term "human" isn't including the "yet to be born", regardless of the actual biology involved

http://www.un-documents.net/a3r217.htm

Let's go by what it *says* in Article 1:



> All human beings are *born* free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


Article 29:



> In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, *everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law* solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and *respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality*, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.


There is no mention of the "unborn" having any rights, and it specifically says people are only subject to the limitations set* by law* when determining the "just requirements of morality"

If you cite a source, you should read beyond the parts with which you agree to see what it really states


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Every living human is made up of cells. From the time the DNA merges from egg and sperm, the new being meets the seven characteristics of life. At that point in time that one human cell is a person and has rights, because it is alive and comprised of human DNA.
> If I chop off my finger it has no rights because it cannot maintain the seven characteristics of life.


So your finger has rights until you chop it off?


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Does it *say* abortions are illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> If not, the the term "human" isn't including the "yet to be born", regardless of the actual biology involved



So what is something that is alive and comprised of human DNA called? Something that is alive and comprised of dog DNA is a dog. Same with every other living thing.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> So your finger has rights until you chop it off?



My finger is part of me. It is made up of cells with my unique DNA. I have rights. My finger has no rights independent of me. 
You're going to say that a fetus is part of the mother. It isn't. It has its own DNA.


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> Every living human is made up of cells. From the time the DNA merges from egg and sperm, the new being meets the seven characteristics of life. At that point in time that one human cell is a person and has rights, because it is alive and comprised of human DNA.
> If I chop off my finger it has no rights because it cannot maintain the seven characteristics of life.


God must really hate humans. The best numbers I can find show that only 30-40% of these "humans" successfully implant in a healthy, receptive uterine wall. It would seem that the system set up by god is much more dangerous and inhospitable to humans than anything they've set up themselves. Or maybe the non implanted are the lucky ones and don't have to go through the threat of 70 or 80 years of potential plague, pestilence and war to reach the next step on their road to salvation.

Every living thing meets your seven definitions of life. It doesn't make every living thing human. Many other life forms feel pain, react to stimulus, are capable of learning and show self awareness. Are they all human, too. Humanity, to me, is much more than the simple combining of two cells.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> My finger is part of me. It is made up of cells with my unique DNA. I have rights. My finger has no rights independent of me.
> You're going to say that a fetus is part of the mother. It isn't. It has its own DNA.


If it can't exist separate from it's mother how can it's rights supersede hers. Does that mean that if I need your bone marrow to live I have the right to infringe on your rights and take it?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> And that's what you would've said in 1850 at the slave auction.


We aren't discussing slavery.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> So what is something that is alive and comprised of human DNA called? Something that is alive and comprised of dog DNA is a dog. Same with every other living thing.


It makes no difference what you want to call it.

The semantics won't change anything, and you're the only one who thinks it matters

Until they are *born* they are *all* called fetuses


----------



## gapeach

FutureFarm said:


> My finger is part of me. It is made up of cells with my unique DNA. I have rights. My finger has no rights independent of me.
> You're going to say that a fetus is part of the mother. It isn't. It has its own DNA.


That is profound and it also has it's rights that are being violated. Huckabee was right on last night about abortion and right about the Supreme Court!


----------



## Shine

Wow, I'm glad I jumped out of this discussion, there are some here that only play their game, if you happen to make a misstep they jump on it and shout to high heavens as if it is something that is grandeous. There is so much nit picking going on here that this might just be an Extinction Level Event for nits...

I would say that this thread no longer has any value, it has been corrupted to the Nth degree. When people refuse to answer questions for whatever reason that they find useful, quite often frivolous but useful to them to get out of answering a simple question then their participation has become disingenuous at best. 

Have at it folks - I, for one, tire of trying to have a legitimate discussion with fake people.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference what you want to call it.
> 
> 
> 
> The semantics won't change anything, and you're the only one who thinks it matters
> 
> 
> 
> Until they are *born* they are *all* called fetuses



A dog fetus and a human fetus are very different things.


----------



## painterswife

Shine said:


> Wow, I'm glad I jumped out of this discussion, there are some here that only play their game, if you happen to make a misstep they jump on it and shout to high heavens as if it is something that is grandeous. There is so much nit picking going on here that this might just be an Extinction Level Event for nits...
> 
> I would say that this thread no longer has any value, it has been corrupted to the Nth degree. When people refuse to answer questions for whatever reason that they find useful, quite often frivolous but useful to them to get out of answering a simple question then their participation has become disingenuous at best.
> 
> Have at it folks - I, for one, tire of trying to have a legitimate discussion with fake people.


There are people hearing having an actual discussion and trying to understand the other peoples view points. If it is of no value to you then why even bother to post just to put other's conversations down. You of course are free to do so but I don't understand why you are wasting your time.


----------



## FutureFarm

mmoetc said:


> God must really hate humans. The best numbers I can find show that only 30-40% of these "humans" successfully implant in a healthy, receptive uterine wall. It would seem that the system set up by god is much more dangerous and inhospitable to humans than anything they've set up themselves. Or maybe the non implanted are the lucky ones and don't have to go through the threat of 70 or 80 years of potential plague, pestilence and war to reach the next step on their road to salvation.
> 
> 
> 
> Every living thing meets your seven definitions of life. It doesn't make every living thing human. Many other life forms feel pain, react to stimulus, are capable of learning and show self awareness. Are they all human, too. Humanity, to me, is much more than the simple combining of two cells.



I never mentioned God in any of my responses. Whatever faith I do or do not have is not pertinent to the fact that a fetus meets the biological definition of life and is a human life because it is made up of human DNA. I thought you wanted to leave religion out of the discussion, so why bring it up?
Of course all living things meet the seven characteristics of life. That's why they're considered to be alive. Being comprised of human DNA is what differentiates a human from all other living things.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference what you want to call it.
> 
> 
> 
> The semantics won't change anything, and you're the only one who thinks it matters
> 
> 
> 
> Until they are *born* they are *all* called fetuses



If it meets the scientific definition of life and is a human, how does it not qualify for human rights?


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> If it can't exist separate from it's mother how can it's rights supersede hers. Does that mean that if I need your bone marrow to live I have the right to infringe on your rights and take it?



The child's right to life does not supersede the mother's right to life. Both are designed to exist together at the same time. The child's right to life does supersede the mother's right to not be inconvenienced, much like a squatter's right to life supersedes the land owner's right to property. 
If my body created a system by which nutrients were transferred between our bodies, then yes you would have the right to my bone marrow.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Shine said:


> Wow, I'm glad I jumped out of this discussion, there are some here that only play their game, if you happen to make a misstep they jump on it and shout to high heavens as if it is something that is grandeous. There is so much nit picking going on here that this might just be an Extinction Level Event for nits...
> 
> I would say that this thread no longer has any value, it has been corrupted to the Nth degree. When people refuse to answer questions for whatever reason that they find useful, quite often frivolous but useful to them to get out of answering a simple question then their participation has become disingenuous at best.
> 
> Have at it folks - I, for one, tire of trying to have a legitimate discussion with fake people.


How many swan songs can one guy have? dude...make up your mind.


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> We aren't discussing slavery.



But if your only reasons for supporting the option of killing unborn humans are that the law as it stands allows it, and you believe they are somehow less than you, the arguments for abortion as a form of birth control and slavery are identical.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> If it meets the scientific definition of life and is a human, how does it not qualify for human rights?


According to the "international agency" you cited, a person has to be born to have rights. 

You wanted to use that source when you thought it supported your premise

Repeatedly asking the same question is pointless when the answers aren't going to change

Science has little to do with rights and the law


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> According to the "international agency" you cited, a person has to be born to have rights.
> 
> 
> 
> You wanted to use that source when you thought it supported your premise
> 
> 
> 
> Repeatedly asking the same question is pointless when the answers aren't going to change
> 
> 
> 
> Science has little to do with rights and the law



Ok, in your opinion, when do rights start? Are all humans people? Do all people have rights? Science accepts that life starts at conception. So if you say rights begin with life, then its conception. If you say birth, how do you deal with the time when a human is alive yet has no rights? Are there other groups of living humans that can be denied their right to life without due process under the 5th amendment?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> But if your only reasons for supporting the option of killing unborn humans are that the law as it stands allows it, and you believe they are somehow less than you, the arguments for abortion as a form of birth control and slavery are identical.


My reason for supporting *freedom *of choice is you don't have the right to force your standards on anyone else, and you cannot force a woman into "slavery" by making her have a baby she doesn't want, no matter what her reasons.

If you don't like it, you don't have to do it nor support it, but you can't stop anyone else

You have no right to dictate


----------



## painterswife

I believe a fetus up to some point is human but not a person just as I believe someone who has lost all function of their brain is no longer a person even though still human.

They would both not have rights with regards to life. DNA does not make a human a person. Being a person is directly tied to our brain function not our body.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> I believe a fetus up to some point is human but not a person just as I believe someone who has lost all function of their brain is no longer a person even though still human.
> 
> 
> 
> They would both not have rights with regards to life. DNA does not make a human a person. Being a person is directly tied to our brain function not our body.



What makes corn, corn? Where on the cornstalk is the brain?
Or is corn not alive?
How do you handle when a person cannot control their brain function? Coma? Unconscious? Seizures?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Ok, in your opinion, when do rights start? Are all humans people? Do all people have rights? Science accepts that life starts at conception. So if you say rights begin with life, then its conception. If you say birth, how do you deal with the time when a human is alive yet has no rights? Are there other groups of living humans that can be denied their right to life without due process under the 5th amendment?


It makes no difference what my "opinions" are

It makes no difference what "science" says.

I don't have to "deal with the time when a human is alive yet has no rights".

That's all been done, and is well documented in multiple laws around the world

All I have to "deal with" is my own actions, and not worrying about trying to control anyone else

You should give that a try.


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> What makes corn, corn? Where on the cornstalk is the brain?
> Or is corn not alive?
> How do you handle when a person cannot control their brain function? Coma? Unconscious? Seizures?


Being alive does not give anything rights. Otherwise you would not be eating that steak or fish you like. Why would having problems with how your brain functions equate with no brain or no brain function at all?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> How do you handle when a person cannot control their brain function?


All these questions have been asked and answered countless times in several threads

No one here is changing their minds.

Even the ones who keep saying "I'm done" will return and repeat it all over again.

Just scroll back if you haven't gotten it by now


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> Being alive does not give anything rights. Otherwise you would not be eating that steak or fish you like. Why would having problems with how your brain functions equate with no brain or no brain function at all?



Does being alive and being human not grant human rights?


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> It makes no difference what my "opinions" are
> 
> 
> 
> It makes no difference what "science" says.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to "deal with the time when a human is alive yet has no rights".
> 
> 
> 
> That's all been done, and is well documented in multiple laws around the world
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to "deal with" is my own actions, and not worrying about trying to control anyone else
> 
> 
> 
> You should give that a try.



Would you be fine with removing laws that criminalize rape? All you have to do is deal with your own actions and as long as nobody raping you, you shouldn't try to control them. Let the rapists rape to their heart's content? Or are there some things rat are fundamentally wrong and should be outlawed? Which things are wrong?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Does being alive and being human not grant human rights?


It really depend on what you believe being alive is. Brain dead is legally dead and therefore you no longer have human rights. with regards to our laws. So therefore technically being alive does not cut it.


----------



## FutureFarm

painterswife said:


> It really depend on what you believe being alive is. Brain dead is legally dead and therefore you no longer have human rights. with regards to our laws. So therefore technically being alive does not cut it.



If by being brain dead, the person permanently loses the seven characteristics of life, and are therefore dead. Once dead a human dies not have human rights as it ceases to be a human.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Would you be fine with removing laws that criminalize rape? All you have to do is deal with your own actions and as long as nobody raping you, you shouldn't try to control them. Let the rapists rape to their heart's content? Or are there some things rat are fundamentally wrong and should be outlawed? Which things are wrong?


You're once more repeating questions already asked and answered



> Does being alive and being human not grant human rights?


Evidently not, so why keep asking over and over?


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're once more repeating questions already asked and answered
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently not, so why keep asking over and over?



Can you point me to the answer to the question about which things are wrong and should be outlawed? I have heard it asked, but the only answer I remember hearing is meddling is wrong, which leads me to the conclusion that nothing is so wrong to be outlawed. 

The only other instances I know of where being alive and being human were not enough for human rights are looked on by history as atrocities to never be repeated. Slavery. Rwanda. Nazi Germany. Cambodia, just to name a few. Do you want to be counted along with the others that denied living humans their human rights? Not a club I want to be a member of.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> The only other instances I know of where being alive and being human were not enough for human rights are looked on by history as atrocities to never be repeated. *Slavery*. Rwanda. *Nazi Germany*. Cambodia, just to name a few.


More repetition
Scroll back and you will find all the answers

You may not like nor agree with them all, but they have been answered, so repeating serves no purpose


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> More repetition
> Scroll back and you will find all the answers
> 
> You may not like nor agree with them all, but they have been answered, so repeating serves no purpose



I honestly can't find an answer to which things are so wrong that they should be outlawed. Please show me. 
And do you have any examples of a time when human rights were denied to a group of people and the outcome was positive?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> I honestly can't find an answer to *which things are so wrong that they should be outlawed*. Please show me.
> And do you have any examples of a time when human rights were denied to a group of people and the outcome was positive?


You didn't ever really ask that question until after I told you another one had been answered. It's a meaningless question.

The outcome is positive in allowing abortions to remain legal, so that answers your last question

Those abortions will happen, legal or not.

History has proven that to be true.

Accept the fact that you don't get to decide for others


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> You didn't ever really ask that question until after I told you another one had been answered. It's a meaningless question.
> 
> 
> 
> The outcome is positive in allowing abortions to remain legal, so that answers your last question
> 
> 
> 
> Those abortions will happen, legal or not.
> 
> 
> 
> History has proven that to be true.
> 
> 
> 
> Accept the fact that you don't get to decide for others



History has also proven that although illegal slavery, genocide, rape, and theft will continue. Shall we accept the fact that we don't get to decide for others and decriminalize those heinous acts? Or are there some things that are so fundamentally wrong that they must be outlawed?
I would say that an abortion is not a positive outcome for the child that dies because of it. Do you have any better examples? You still haven't answered as to what actions are so wrong that they must be outlawed?


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> How many swan songs can one guy have? dude...make up your mind.


hmmm... Dint see that one covered in the guidelines so I am kinda' just flyin' by the seat o my pants - besides - who follows any sort of rules on this forum?

The stuff that people try to get away with in this thread taunts me like an unopened bag o Lays Potato Chips and I likes Lays Potato Chips.


----------



## painterswife

The latest unedited video is up. It really is worth watching. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCiD9_ICt44[/ame]


----------



## painterswife

About the 8 minute mark is the following. Very interesting.


"PP: Right now you hear about it almost everyday even in Congress and the state level. Just the roll backs in reproductive health care dynamics in this country are amazing. I mean, weâre even attacking birth control.

Buyer: Right, right. Whatâs your take on that? Do you have any- American
Taliban? What do you think? Is it changing or?

PP: I think, unfortunately, our society is becoming too complacent, where some of this radicalizing has been able to flourish. I think part of it is an education thing, people make statements abortion causing breast cancer, or birth control causing autism or things like that and out general public is so ill educated

Buyer:
Scientifically uneducated.

PP: Exactly. They donât understand- if they say âemergency contraception is an abortifacient because it doesnât allow the fetus to implantâ And not understand

Buyer:
*What fetus? Thereâs no fetus.*

PP: They mix up terminology and it sounds good, it looks good, people- âOh yea, that sounds right.â And in some cases some politicians that are actually OB GYNâs come out and say these things, theyâre credible. Yea, so I thinks itâs multipronged, thereâs a lot of reasons for it. We can just kind ofBuyer:
How do you fight that though? What kind of plan, well education is one.
What

PP:
Education, one. Just keep providing the best services that we have because
one in there women have attended Planned Parenthood for free services in their life. So when you have media spin about âOh Planned Parenthoods goal are this.â Whatever, you have people who have been here âI didnât get that. I got services, I got treated nice, I wasnât judged, I got to participate in these studies, I
got a stipend, I got free testing. What more can I ask?â We have patients say that
all the time. So, all we can do is counteract it.

Buyer: Ok. Sounds nice, so donât be too depressed.
PP: Donât be too depressed. Its just one of those things, you know? Every once in a while we step into a time travel machine and go back to the nineteen fifties,
politically. "


----------



## wiscto

To me this is the most important thing any of the Planned Parenthood employees in these videos have said...



> A lot of folks; I get this mainly from academic institutions. They see Planned Parenthood as; oh you're non-profit that means you're non-budget. And they will come to us with budgets that are quite frankly insulting....... Just because we're non-profit does not mean that we are fiscally unstable, if anything we have to be because we serve the community and we have to provide services to the community at a very very low cost, so, we can't underwrite (fund) anyone's research project.


They're going to charge for the collection. They're going to charge for the time it takes to go over an 8 page consent form with a patient. Because they aren't there to provide free services to research groups. Their time, and their affiliates' time (doctors), is valuable. Remember, they do more than abortion work. They have many other patients who need their services. So when you want to collect an organ, that takes valuable time away from the other services, it takes resources, and they charge you.... 

Like I said before. This whole "sting" operation has been detached from reality from the very beginning. To call this "selling organs" is a complete distortion of the truth.


----------



## painterswife

How about the next few sentences.

"PP: Right. And thatâs the thing that itâs, a lot of folks I get this mainly from
academic institutions, they see Planned Parenthood and think, âOh, youâre nonprofit.
That means youâre non-budget.â And they will come to us with budgets that
are, quite frankly, insulting. I mean, really?* Where in the United States can you, an 8-page consent form for this amount of money? It takes 30 minutes to
administer that to a patient. So, you know, again, with the understanding that just because weâre non-profit, doesnât mean that weâre fiscally unstable. If anything, we serve the community and we have to provide services to the community at a very very low cost, and we canât underwrite anyoneâs research project*."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> History has also proven that although illegal slavery, genocide, rape, and theft will continue. Shall we accept the fact that we don't get to decide for others and decriminalize those heinous acts? Or are there some things that are so fundamentally wrong that they must be outlawed?
> I would say that an abortion is not a positive outcome for the child that dies because of it. Do you have any better examples? You still haven't answered as to *what actions are so wrong that they must be outlawed*?


I gave you my answer to that
I'm not going in circles with you when all you do is repeat yourself


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> hmmm... Dint see that one covered in the guidelines so I am kinda' just flyin' by the seat o my pants - besides - *who follows any sort of rules* on this forum?
> 
> *The stuff that people try to get away with* in this thread taunts me like an unopened bag o Lays Potato Chips and I likes Lays Potato Chips.


So you're just trolling rather than attempting to add anything new and useful?


----------



## Lisa in WA

FutureFarm said:


> The child's right to life does not supersede the mother's right to life. Both are designed to exist together at the same time. The child's right to life does supersede the mother's right to not be inconvenienced,....


Wrong. Haven't you heard that abortion is legal?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by FutureFarm View Post
> The *child's right to life* does not supersede the mother's right to life. Both are designed to exist together at the same time. The *child's right to life* does supersede the mother's right to not be inconvenienced,....


It's not been established any legal "rights" exist prior to birth, so that is an opinion.

You don't know why women get abortions, and really, it's none of your business unless it's your baby


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> I gave you my answer to that
> 
> I'm not going in circles with you when all you do is repeat yourself



What exactly was your answer? You never wrote it here. What is so wrong that it should be outlawed? It is a simple question. Here's another. Who has rights?


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not been established any legal "rights" exist prior to birth, so that is an opinion.
> 
> You don't know why women get abortions, and really, it's none of your business unless it's your baby



Well sometimes when an expectant mother is murdered, the killer is charged and convicted of a double homocide. So it appears that sometimes the unborn have rights.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're just trolling rather than attempting to add anything new and useful?


I'm going with "Whatever". [say it in the Valley Girl voice, please] Someone referred to me, I responded. No one in that context responded to anything that you said or even mentioned your name but I see you had to rush over and provide your snippy two bits... No problem, it was expected.


----------



## SLFarmMI

Yvonne's hubby said:


> beenaround said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, this is interesting..... exactly how does "butchering babies" amass huge amounts of gold?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you messed up on the quote feature. I did not post that statement about "butchering babies" and amassing gold. Nor would I have.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> What exactly was your answer? You never wrote it here. What is so wrong that it should be outlawed? It is a simple question. Here's another. Who has rights?


It's not my fault you missed the answer.
Go back and find it



> Who has rights?


Everyone who is born has some rights


----------



## Bearfootfarm

SLFarmMI said:


> Yvonne's hubby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you messed up on the quote feature. I did not post that statement about "butchering babies" and amassing gold. Nor would I have.
> 
> 
> 
> There's been a glitch in the "quote" feature that sometimes gets the names wrong that's been discussed in the "support" forum.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> It seems to have done the same thing here too, putting the quote under the wrong name
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ad...nts-support/538909-quoting-posts-changes.html
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I'm going with "Whatever". [say it in the Valley Girl voice, please] Someone referred to me, I responded. No one in that context responded to anything that you said or even mentioned your name but I see you had to rush over and provide your snippy two bits... No problem, *it was expected*.


As was your return, even after saying "I'm done" for about the 6th time


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> What exactly was your answer? You never wrote it here. *What is so wrong that it should be outlawed? *It is a simple question. Here's another. Who has rights?


sticking ones nose in another fellers business where it don't belong..... AKA meddling!


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> Does being alive and being human not grant human rights?


That woman's egg is very much human and very much alive.... Does it have the right to be fertilized, go through all of the rest of the bio functions required to one day bug the daylights out of their mother for a puppy? There seems to be a lot of opinions about when life begins..... Which is a moot point because it doesn't. Life began thousands of generations ago and now simply regenerates itself through a continuous cycle. If there is a beginning to this cycle it would have to be when that egg drops awaiting fertilization.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> sticking ones nose in another fellers business where it don't belong AKA meddling!


Is that a quote from Nathan Bedford Forrest? I think you're supposed to cite the author when you quote like that.


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> If by being brain dead, the person permanently loses the seven characteristics of life, and are therefore dead. Once dead a human dies not have human rights as it ceases to be a human.


But but but what about that "unique DNA"?? Every cell in that corpse still has it!


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Is that a quote from Nathan Bedford Forrest? I think you're supposed to cite the author when you quote like that.


Nope, not a quote, but it's highly likely that others with a little common sense have said it.


----------



## painterswife

I want to know what happens wnen you take one person's kidney and put it in another. Does it get it's own rights because it has it's own DNA? It is human and alive. Does the new body have the right to abuse it by drinking? Will it get it's day in court?


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> As was your return, even after saying "I'm done" for about the 6th time


You make up your own rules... Why can't I?

...better work on that counting thing...


----------



## Shine

basketti said:


> Wrong. Haven't you heard that abortion is legal?


yeah... seems someone found a way to kill their "inconvenient" unborn children legally...


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> yeah... seems someone found a way to kill their "inconvenient" unborn children legally...


Would you rather they killed them illegally like they did for thousands of years? Most people never heard about those because they were kept very hush hush.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Would you rather they killed them illegally like they did for thousands of years? Most people never heard about those because they were kept very hush hush.


Yeah, If'n I were to kill my unborn child I would want to keep hush, hush too, ya know what I mean?


----------



## wiscto

I love how the right wants to talk about morals and values. I guess abortion is the easy battleground to pick, because unborn children don't qualify for social security or welfare or ruffle your feathers in any other way. They don't talk so they can't offend you, or, you know, have gay feelings...so you can stick up for them, that's perfectly okay. Them welfare suckers, let's just shoot them in the back and pretend there's no police brutality targeting black men. Sweep that under the rug with all the other nastiness brought to you by the right. Am I right? Am I right?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You make up your own rules... Why can't I?
> 
> ...better work on that counting thing...





Shine said:


> *yeah...* seems someone found a way to kill their "inconvenient" unborn children legally...





Shine said:


> *Yeah,* If'n I were to kill my unborn child I would want to keep hush, hush too, ya know what I mean?


*Yeah*, just trolling, like I thought.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

wiscto said:


> I love how the right wants to talk about morals and values. I guess abortion is the easy battleground to pick, because unborn children don't qualify for social security or welfare or ruffle your feathers in any other way. They don't talk so they can't offend you, or, you know, have gay feelings...so you can stick up for them, that's perfectly okay. Them welfare suckers, let's just shoot them in the back and pretend there's no police brutality targeting black men. Sweep that under the rug with all the other nastiness brought to you by the right. Am I right? Am I right?


No. You're not. 

There's actually integrity in a position, if you stop to fairly consider it, that believes in letting those who can do for themselves, while extending protection to those who cannot. 

I know your characterization of "the right" briefs well in certain circles, but preaching to the choir never saved many souls either.


----------



## FutureFarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That woman's egg is very much human and very much alive.... Does it have the right to be fertilized, go through all of the rest of the bio functions required to one day bug the daylights out of their mother for a puppy? There seems to be a lot of opinions about when life begins..... Which is a moot point because it doesn't. Life began thousands of generations ago and now simply regenerates itself through a continuous cycle. If there is a beginning to this cycle it would have to be when that egg drops awaiting fertilization.



The fact that the mother's egg only has the mother's DNS has already been discussed. Scroll up until you find it. Not a new point. Come back when you have something new to discuss.


----------



## FutureFarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But but but what about that "unique DNA"?? Every cell in that corpse still has it!



Already discussed. Come back with something new or take the time to read.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Already discussed. Come back with something new or take the time to read.


LOL
Ironic, huh?


----------



## FutureFarm

wiscto said:


> I love how the right wants to talk about morals and values. I guess abortion is the easy battleground to pick, because unborn children don't qualify for social security or welfare or ruffle your feathers in any other way. They don't talk so they can't offend you, or, you know, have gay feelings...so you can stick up for them, that's perfectly okay. Them welfare suckers, let's just shoot them in the back and pretend there's no police brutality targeting black men. Sweep that under the rug with all the other nastiness brought to you by the right. Am I right? Am I right?



This has nothing to do with right and left. If it was a topic of political debate, it would be in the politics section. It has to do with defending those who are unable to defend themselves against those who are killing them. 
It has nothing to do with homosexuality, welfare, social security, or racism.


----------



## FutureFarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Would you rather they killed them illegally like they did for thousands of years? Most people never heard about those because they were kept very hush hush.



Yes. I would much prefer that killing other humans without just cause be illegal. Don't you? Do you support legalizing other murders?


----------



## FutureFarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> sticking ones nose in another fellers business where it don't belong..... AKA meddling!



Really? Meddling is the only thing so universally wrong it should be illegal? I think rape, murder, theft, and fraud would at least make a good starting point.
If outlawing those is meddling, how do you feel about the gov't issuing licenses to folks who want to get married? What about taking money out of your pay to give to people you've never met?


----------



## Shine

wiscto said:


> I love how the right wants to talk about morals and values. I guess abortion is the easy battleground to pick, because unborn children don't qualify for social security or welfare or ruffle your feathers in any other way. They don't talk so they can't offend you, or, you know, have gay feelings...so you can stick up for them, that's perfectly okay. Them welfare suckers, let's just shoot them in the back and pretend there's no police brutality targeting black men. Sweep that under the rug with all the other nastiness brought to you by the right. Am I right? Am I right?


You missed by a long shot on a number of issues. But, I see a little bear in you...


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Yeah*, just trolling, like I thought.


I have a pro to learn from, thanks...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I believe a *person* is someone capable of thought. Fetuses after a certain gestational age are persons. They are not before that. Just as a brain dead adult is no longer a person just a body.


Many would say no one is capable of thought til about 2yrs. also doesn't seem even 24 wk unborn is thinking...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> It has nothing to do with homosexuality, welfare, social security, or racism.


Nor Nazis and slaves or native Americans


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> Every living human is made up of cells. From the time the DNA merges from egg and sperm, the new being meets the seven characteristics of life. At that point in time that one human cell is a person and has rights, because it is alive and comprised of human DNA.
> If I chop off my finger it has no rights because it cannot maintain the seven characteristics of life.


And neither can your fertilized egg. If I place them both on the counter, side by side, the same result occurs. Cells stop functioning and degrade. If both are placed in the proper environment and nurtured they will survive. Is the finger then "human" and deserving of rights of its own? Or is the fertilized egg not human because it cannot sustain your seven characteristics independent of another?

There's a frequent poster who points out repeatedly that no man has the right to that which must be forcibly supplied by another. We disagree about what forcibly means but I agree with his sentiment. What right does a fertilized egg have to the nutrients, hormones, body cavity and all the other things a woman must provide if she isn't willing to give it freely?


----------



## FutureFarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nor Nazis and slaves or native Americans


Except that they are all examples of what happens when people are denied basic human rights, which some on this board are advocating. Have you come up with a time when human rights were denied to a group, and the outcome was positive for them?
Why don't you go back to page 59 and reread the respectful conversation Painterswife and I were having. I will gladly have the same discussion with you, but for it to work we both must attempt to answer each other's questions. If you don't want to go back and read them, I'll ask the first question. Be advised, if you've read all the way through, you've already read it. 

Who has rights?


----------



## painterswife

FutureFarm said:


> Except that they are all examples of what happens when people are denied basic human rights, which some on this board are advocating. Have you come up with a time when human rights were denied to a group, and the outcome was positive for them?
> Why don't you go back to page 59 and reread the respectful conversation Painterswife and I were having. I will gladly have the same discussion with you, but for it to work we both must attempt to answer each other's questions. If you don't want to go back and read them, I'll ask the first question. Be advised, if you've read all the way through, you've already read it.
> 
> Who has rights?


Well I have seen his answer. Breathing born humans.


----------



## mmoetc

FutureFarm said:


> Except that they are all examples of what happens when people are denied basic human rights, which some on this board are advocating. Have you come up with a time when human rights were denied to a group, and the outcome was positive for them?
> Why don't you go back to page 59 and reread the respectful conversation Painterswife and I were having. I will gladly have the same discussion with you, but for it to work we both must attempt to answer each other's questions. If you don't want to go back and read them, I'll ask the first question. Be advised, if you've read all the way through, you've already read it.
> 
> Who has rights?


According to your definitions, your severed finger has rights.

There was a story on the news this week of a young boy who lost both his arms to infection. Recently both hands were replaced with hands grafted from a donor. These hands have separate DNA from the young man and are dependent on him to sustain those seven signs of life. Just like your fertilized eggs. Do the hands have rights separate from his?


----------



## painterswife

mmoetc said:


> According to your definitions, your severed finger has rights.
> 
> There was a story on the news this week of a young boy who lost both his arms to infection. Recently both hands were replaced with hands grafted from a donor. These hands have separate DNA from the young man and are dependent on him to sustain those seven signs of life. Just like your fertilized eggs. Do the hands have rights separate from his?


I have asked that here and in other threads. They won't answer because it destroys thier line of logic.


----------



## mmoetc

painterswife said:


> I have asked that here and in other threads. Yhey won'r answer because it destroys thier line og logic.


Their lack of answers won't keep me from asking. I can be very persistent. I have no expectation that anyone will change their stance on a issue such as this. It was stated earlier that I made some demand that religion not be brought up in this thread. I didn't. Religion cannot be separated from many people's views and is a valid argument to support their opinion. Its just not a valid argument to base laws upon that affect us all, believer and non believer alike.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> No one forces any couple to register their union with the government. Straight couples were free to choose whether they wanted to for various tax, financial and legal reasons before. The only difference is that the freedom to register, or not, that union has been extended to more people. More people with the freedom to choose how involved they wish the government to be involved. No one is forcing them to increase their involvement.
> 
> When you can tell me with absolute certainty when personhood occurs we can agree to outlaw abortion after that time. I'm not interested in when you believe it happens because others can argue just as rationally for their, contrary, beliefs. For much of history quickening, or the begining of movement, was a standard followed even by the religous. Were they all wrong?


I'd really rather err on the side of "could be" rather than absolute certianty.
It's a travesty, horrific, that millions of babies have bee killed by horrific, barbaric means b/c no one "knew with absolute certianty" that unborn babies feel pain at least by 20 wks & we do now.

It could be that like begins when movement is felt...how are women going to feel if/when this is discovered? Or since progressives have erroneously drilled into them that their babies are blobs, it won't matter?


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> Life doesn't equal humanity. The paramecium, a cat and a monkey all share the same characteristics of life. It makes none of them human.


Exactly.
And any woman who is pregnant is carrying a HUMAN.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> What a ridiculous post.


It's ridiculous to keep saying conservatives do not help pregnant moms & moms w/children. If non-conserves want to continue the lie then there'd better be documentation, not just cartoons.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> I'd really rather err on the side of "could be" rather than absolute certianty.
> It's a travesty, horrific, that millions of babies have bee killed by horrific, barbaric means b/c no one "knew with absolute certianty" that unborn babies feel pain at least by 20 wks & we do now.
> 
> It could be that like begins when movement is felt...how are women going to feel if/when this is discovered? Or since progressives have erroneously drilled into them that their babies are blobs, it won't matter?


What you describe has historically been known as quickening and was the standard for life for many generations and many religous traditions. It's a long way from a fertilized egg seeking implantation until that first movement is felt. I'm glad you now seem open to life beginning then and abortions prior to that being acceptable.

There are many things that "could be". Could be I'm the rightful heir to the Romanoff dynasty. I demand congress passes a law restoring me to the throne because it could be true.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> basketti said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not even bother responding to that post because we all know someone who had their birth control fail.
> 
> 
> 
> That is just a study of 1 or 3...nearly all b.c. have a failure % and it is small. Especially pills. When investigated, most failures are from forgetting to take them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You really work hard to always have a put down in your posts. Does that make you happy?


I'm responding to the myriad of posts from non-conserves who continue to say "what are you as conservatives gonna do w/ALL those unwanted babies", like it's a threat, like no one has any responsibility, if we don't want women to kill their unborn, the WE must take them & raise them.
Look it up -we DO help, far more than progressives.
So, my suggestion is: stop the lies about conservatives not helping out. I'll stop saying we do help, more than progressives. Deal?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> It's ridiculous to keep saying conservatives do not help pregnant moms & moms w/children. If non-conserves want to continue the lie then there'd better be documentation, not just cartoons.


Yup, broken record of strawman arguments brought into every discussion you can jam it into.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm responding to the myriad of posts from non-conserves who continue to say "what are you as conservatives gonna do w/ALL those unwanted babies", like it's a threat, like no one has any responsibility, if we don't want women to kill their unborn, the WE must take them & raise them.
> Look it up -we DO help, far more than progressives.
> So, my suggestion is: stop the lies about conservatives not helping out. I'll stop saying we do help, more than progressives. Deal?


You are the one bringing progressives and conservatives into every discussion. You need a new horse to ride.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Do you get a prize for escalating the nasty in your posts? You must be piling them up today.


These are facts! Did you think differently? Sonos are done so the abortionost can tell how to terminate. How to be less "crunchy". 
So you are calling ME nasty for saying this? Did you think they showed the sono to the pregnant mom? Like "oh, BTW, here's a pic of your soon-to-be-dead-baby"?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> "forcing them to have these babies they don't want" - so then, in this scenario, the fact that they did some act that got them pregnant thereby placing additional responsibility within their personal realm, you wish for them to have the capacity to kill the unborn child because they don't want it, a mere whim?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Shine said:


> Then you are unaware of the premise that Self-awareness separates the human species from the primates. This is a formal statement by many anthropologists so there is a way to know that, and no... "movement" or neural responses in no way constitutes "self-awareness". This premise has been hashed over at great lengths.


Many of the non-conservatives here have been upset at me posting the writings of Singer, & several others, who have followers who believe self-awareness dictates when there is a "person" & that self-awareness doesn't exist for several months, even years after birth.
These are 'esteemed' professors, so-called 'ethicists' that are trying to sway the masses to their side of infanticide as well as euthanasia.
So I guess if enuf go along w/their beliefs, we'll be killing 'bout whomever we want.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Many of the non-conservatives here have been upset at me posting the writings of Singer, & several others, who have followers who believe self-awareness dictates when there is a "person" & that self-awareness doesn't exist for several months, even years after birth.
> These are 'esteemed' professors, so-called 'ethicists' that are trying to sway the masses to their side of infanticide as well as euthanasia.
> So I guess if enuf go along w/their beliefs, we'll be killing 'bout whomever we want.


Here is a bit of education. You can post that stuff all you want. It is when you state things like anyone here agrees with that you are insulting us and stating lies. To even attribute to more than a few believing it is like saying you agree with the things that radical Christians like the Westboro church do in the name of their religion.


----------



## Evons hubby

FutureFarm said:


> The fact that the mother's egg only has the mother's DNS has already been discussed. Scroll up until you find it. Not a new point. Come back when you have something new to discuss.


The fact that that egg has every thing it needs to want a puppy someday if it's given the proper environment has not been fully discussed. I have put the concept out there a couple times but for whatever reason it draws little or no comment. :shrug:


----------



## Tricky Grama

FutureFarm said:


> How can you prove thought? Does a one minute old baby out of the womb breathing and screaming show any more thought than the same baby one minute before its birth?


Post of the day award.

Seems the "capable of thought" group takes in babies up to...how old? 8 mo? Does a 6 mo infant have thoughts?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> You seem to be getting quite worked up. I personally can't prove thought. Scientists are pretty good at it though. They may have a bit of a hard time proving the exact time but they are getting closer.


"Worked up"? That's a little rude, doncha think? Didn't sound worked up to anyone else...very calmly discussing things...are you 'sad'? You seem sad. 
As well as seeming to agree with Peter Singer & his ilk on self-awareness.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm responding to the myriad of posts from non-conserves who continue to say "what are you as conservatives gonna do w/ALL those unwanted babies", like it's a threat, like no one has any responsibility, if we don't want women to kill their unborn, the WE must take them & raise them.
> Look it up -we DO help, far more than progressives.
> So, my suggestion is: stop the lies about conservatives not helping out. I'll stop saying we do help, more than progressives. Deal?


Yep, we have helped them enough that our prisons are nearly empty these day, and there is no longer anyone that needs government assistance. How about we get those problems solved before we take on increasing the numbers of society's failures.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> "Worked up"? That's a little rude, doncha think? Didn't sound worked up to anyone else...very calmly discussing things...are you 'sad'? You seem sad.
> As well as seeming to agree with Peter Singer & his ilk on self-awareness.


Rude? Your posts do well at that so I guess you should know.


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.
> 
> Seems the "capable of thought" group takes in babies up to...how old? 8 mo? Does a 6 mo infant have thoughts?


I've known people who've made it all the way through gestation to adulthood without showing any inclination they are capable of thought. Now how about you use your capabilities to answer some questions. What is the difference between that severed finger and a fertilized egg? Which can sustain its own seven signs of life? What makes that fertilized egg deserving of taking things from a woman she doesn't wish to give?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I suggest you read all the posts instead of asking questions after you read each post. I understand you just pop in and react but the rest of us have been having a conversation.


So you have no answer? We ARE having a discussion & when you can't answer you become rude. 
It's a legitimate ? to ask, do you think unborn at 12wks are only having spasms or do you think they feel pain and is it just opinion or do you have documentation?


----------



## Tricky Grama

FutureFarm said:


> And that's what you would've said in 1850 at the slave auction.


Post of the day award.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> So you have no answer? We ARE having a discussion & when you can't answer you become rude.
> It's a legitimate ? to ask, do you think unborn at 12wks are only having spasms or do you think they feel pain and is it just opinion or do you have documentation?


Some of us are having a discussion. Your read and react does not qualify. You just keep telling people how their opinions are wrong.


----------



## oneraddad

Tricky Grama said:


> Many of the non-conservatives here have been upset at me posting the writings of Singer, & several others, who have followers who believe self-awareness dictates when there is a "person" & that self-awareness doesn't exist for several months, even years after birth.
> These are 'esteemed' professors, so-called 'ethicists' that are trying to sway the masses to their side of infanticide as well as euthanasia.
> So I guess if enuf go along w/their beliefs, we'll be killing 'bout whomever we want.




I just realized there's someone more angry than myself, you carry a heavy burden that's out of your control.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> If it can't exist separate from it's mother how can it's rights supersede hers. Does that mean that if I need your bone marrow to live I have the right to infringe on your rights and take it?


You do know you are trying to compare bone marrow that IS a part of another persons body w/an unborn who is NOT a part of another persons body?
Was there a point?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> You do know you are trying to compare bone marrow that IS a part of another persons body w/an unborn who is NOT a part of another persons body?
> Was there a point?


Like I said before, read the thread the point is there. Be part of the whole conversation .


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FutureFarm said:


> Except that they are all examples of what happens when people are denied basic human rights, which some on this board are advocating. Have you come up with a time when human rights were denied to a group, and the outcome was positive for them?
> Why don't you go back to page 59 and reread the respectful conversation Painterswife and I were having. I will gladly have the same discussion with you, but for it to work *we both must attempt to answer each other's questions. * If you don't want to go back and read them, I'll ask the first question. Be advised, if you've read all the way through, *you've already read it.*
> 
> Who has rights?


I've answered your repetitive questions more than once and you still parrot them endlessly.

There hasn't been anything new in the last few hundred posts


----------



## BlackFeather

Tricky Grama said:


> So I guess if enough go along w/their beliefs, we'll be killing 'bout whomever we want.


"But judge it wasn't murder, it was retro-active birth control."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by FutureFarm View Post
> How can you prove thought? Does a one minute old baby out of the womb breathing and screaming show any more thought than the same baby one minute before its birth?


No one is doing *abortions* one minute before a full term birth.
What is the point in such unrealistic arguments?


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> You do know you are trying to compare bone marrow that IS a part of another persons body w/an unborn who is NOT a part of another persons body?
> Was there a point?


So that unborn "person" is separate from another person's body. What gives that unborn person the right to take nutrients and hormones,force the rearrangement of organs and tissues of another person if that other person objects. I'm a separate person from you. I have rights. Can I claim I have the right to move into your house, eat from your fridge and rearrange your furniture to meet my needs. Hey, we're all human, right? What if you make the mistake of inviting me in. Do I ever have to leave?


----------



## kasilofhome

Tricky Grama said:


> Many would say no one is capable of thought til about 2yrs. also doesn't seem even 24 wk unborn is thinking...





mmoetc said:


> So that unborn "person" is separate from another person's body. What gives that unborn person the right to take nutrients and hormones,force the rearrangement of organs and tissues of another person if that other person objects. I'm a separate person from you. I have rights. Can I claim I have the right to move into your house, eat from your fridge and rearrange your furniture to meet my needs. Hey, we're all human, right? What if you make the mistake of inviting me in. Do I ever have to leave?



Since you asked


http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/073009/new_472931168.shtml#.VcYnjGrTlSA


----------



## Lisa in WA

**********


----------



## mmoetc

kasilofhome said:


> Since you asked
> 
> 
> http://peninsulaclarion.com/stories/073009/new_472931168.shtml#.VcYnjGrTlSA


It's an interesting article but according to the standard that the fertilized egg, a separate being, can implant itself and take whatever it wants or needs from an unwilling woman, the law in this case seems to have gotten it wrong. Why should the squatter have been evicted? Doesn't she have the right as a human to take whatever she wants from another human without recourse? Isn't that what many are arguing for?


----------



## JeffreyD

If an astronaut found a rock with a single cell on it, wouldn't the scientists call it life?


----------



## Irish Pixie

A week later and the pro unborn are still harping on something that has been completely and totally legal for over 40 years. Priceless. :clap:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> If an astronaut found a rock with a single cell on it, wouldn't the scientists call it life?


They would call it evidence that "life" had once existed in that location.

No one has disputed the existence of life here on Earth, although it might be questioned if there is truly "intelligent life"


----------



## kasilofhome

There is a shift ....FOLKS ARE WAKING UP AND STANDING UP

SO efforts to dismissing PLAN PARENTHOOD in the news so long COMPLAIN because when the horrors are common knowledge.... people want to disassociate from plan parenthood..great news.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nd-remove-bust-of-planned-parenthood-founder/


----------



## Tiempo

JeffreyD said:


> If an astronaut found a rock with a single cell on it, wouldn't the scientists call it life?


Relevance? A radish is life too.


----------



## Irish Pixie

I'm forever confusing the online "newspapers" is The Blaze like The Onion or Worldnutdaily?


----------



## mmoetc

Irish Pixie said:


> A week later and the pro unborn are still harping on something that has been completely and totally legal for over 40 years. Priceless. :clap:


Even more, they refuse to answer any questions that challenge their logic. And, often, when they do post their words speak counter to what their logic presumes. 

Hey Kasiloff- should the squatter have been removed? Based on what?


----------



## painterswife

I want to know how a ferilized egg deserves rights. It is only cells, no brain, no humanity. It is not even a fetus.


----------



## kasilofhome

Source vs facts...

....the blaze is not demanding that honor is not give... it the black church leadership say why honor the person who's goal was to murder of blacks.

If you ( the collective you) had something valuable I would even listen and share it...


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Source vs facts...
> 
> ....the blaze is not demanding that honor is not give... it the black church leadership say why honor the person who's goal was to murder of blacks.
> 
> If you ( the collective you) had something valuable I would even listen and share it...


I don't understand what you're trying to say... try again?


----------



## Evons hubby

kasilofhome said:


> There is a shift ....FOLKS ARE WAKING UP AND STANDING UP
> 
> SO efforts to dismissing PLAN PARENTHOOD in the news so long COMPLAIN because when the horrors are common knowledge.... people want to disassociate from plan parenthood..great news.
> 
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...nd-remove-bust-of-planned-parenthood-founder/


Yeppers, it would appear there are quite a few who are easily swayed with some hyped up misleading false accusations.... This seems to be particularly true with those who really want to believe this kind of nonsense to begin with.


----------



## kasilofhome

Your comprehension is your issue...


----------



## Irish Pixie

mmoetc said:


> Even more, they refuse to answer any questions that challenge their logic. And, often, when they do post their words speak counter to what their logic presumes.
> 
> Hey Kasiloff- should the squatter have been removed? Based on what?


They rarely answer questions regarding their "logic". The scary thing is after spending a week camping with my 4 and 2 year old grand kids I can understand where some of the "logic" comes from...


----------



## painterswife

kasilofhome said:


> Your comprehension is your issue...


Comprehension of gobbledy----. No point it wasting the time trying to decifer that crap.


----------



## kasilofhome

basketti said:


> **********


Worth repeating


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm forever confusing the online "newspapers" is The Blaze like The Onion or Worldnutdaily?


More like the news content of HuffPo, with a bit of truth added, just for variety...


----------



## Irish Pixie

basketti said:


> **********





kasilofhome said:


> Worth repeating


But it is completely understandable... and without a translator.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> I want to know how a ferilized egg deserves rights. It is only cells, no brain, no humanity. It is not even a fetus.


Anyone willing to test their logic , step up to the plate and answer this?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> More like the news content of HuffPo, with a bit of truth added, just for variety...


I checked... definitely Worldnutdaily. Thanks for the info tho.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> A week later and the pro unborn are still harping on something that has been completely and totally legal for over 40 years. Priceless. :clap:


More like being nibbled to death by a duck.

The American people agreed PBA was hoorible and banned it.

Then, abortions were banned in the last trimester.

Now, the battleground will be the middle trimester.

And the defunding of PP.

Andrew Jackson was just as right in his day as his sentiments would be today...No matter what the court may say, if the funds are taken away, much of the court's ruling becomes moot.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> I checked... definitely Worldnutdaily. Thanks for the info tho.


Nah, that's your opinion.

That, and $1, will buy you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> More like being nibbled to death by a duck.
> 
> The American people agreed PBA was hoorible and banned it.
> 
> Then, abortions were banned in the last trimester.
> 
> Now, the battleground will be the middle trimester.
> 
> And the defunding of PP.
> 
> Andrew Jackson was just as right in his day as his sentiments would be today...No matter what the court may say, if the funds are taken away, much of the court's ruling becomes moot.


It's still legal to get an abortion in every state in the US, right? And has been for over 40 years?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Nah, that's your opinion.
> 
> That, and $1, will buy you a cup of coffee at McDonald's.


Aren't opinions great? And I would never ever drink McDs coffee... horrible stuff. Just sayin'.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still legal to get an abortion in every state in the US, right? And has been for over 40 years?


It's perfectly legal for you to jump to the moon, isn't it?

And has been since the dawn of law.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> It's still legal to get an abortion in every state in the US, right? And has been for over 40 years?


Yep..... once something is accepted for 40 years.... it never changes.:rotfl:


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Yep..... once something is accepted for 40 years.... it never changes.:rotfl:


Where did anyone say that? Can you explain?


----------



## painterswife

Jolly said:


> It's perfectly legal for you to jump to the moon, isn't it?
> 
> And has been since the dawn of law.


Some angry feelings escaping there.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> It's perfectly legal for you to jump to the moon, isn't it?
> 
> And has been since the dawn of law.


Yes, it is. I'm unclear why you posted this but you have every right to do so... and it's legal.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Some angry feelings escaping there.


Oh yes there is... and perhaps he's sad as well?


----------



## no really

Read a bit of this thread, interesting twists and turns. That said I am basically pro-choice. But my real comment is where are the big pharm companies on designing a more effective group of contraceptives? Looking at the stats for the more advanced nations there seems to be an issue with what is available.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> Read a bit of this thread, interesting twists and turns. That said I am basically pro-choice. But my real comment is where are the big pharm companies on designing a more effective group of contraceptives? Looking at the stats for the more advanced nations there seems to be an issue with what is available.


Especially male contraceptives... 

I've heard horror stories about Mirena's effectiveness. Overall IUDs are safer than they were years ago tho.


----------



## kasilofhome

Old Today, 12:07 PM
Irish Pixie's Avatar	
Irish Pixie Irish Pixie is offline
****

Where did anyone say that? Can you explain?


ASK THIS POSTER... IT SEEMED IT CEMENTED THE DEAL TO THEM



Irish Pixie said:


> It's still legal to get an abortion in every state in the US, right? And has been for over 40 years?


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> Especially male contraceptives...
> 
> I've heard horror stories about Mirena's effectiveness. Overall IUDs are safer than they were years ago tho.


I know several guys in my age group that are all for male contraceptives. They want more control over things. 

Me I got my tubes tied, tired of having mess with contraceptives.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> I know several guys in my age group that are all for male contraceptives. They want more control over things.
> 
> Me I got my tubes tied, tired of having mess with contraceptives.


There would be a lot less "she tricked me!" wouldn't there? I have no idea why there aren't more contraceptives for guys. I've been married forevah (33 years in Nov) is there something other than condoms? 

I was impressed with implant contraceptives.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Old Today, 12:07 PM
> Irish Pixie's Avatar
> Irish Pixie Irish Pixie is offline
> ****
> 
> Where did anyone say that? Can you explain?
> 
> 
> ASK THIS POSTER... IT SEEMED IT CEMENTED THE DEAL TO THEM


Where did I say it would never change? Please point it out. Thanks.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say it would never change? Please point it out. Thanks.


Do you actually have a clue about what she is trying to say?


----------



## no really

Irish Pixie said:


> There would be a lot less "she tricked me!" wouldn't there? I have no idea why there aren't more contraceptives for guys. I've been married forevah (33 years in Nov) is there something other than condoms?
> 
> I was impressed with implant contraceptives.


I preferred the implant, wasn't always where taking a daily pill was optimal. 

Yeah one of my friends said it would be much better for his blood pressure not to be reliant on someone else to provide the protection, even though he never went without condoms. After I got my tubes tied he has pretty much decided on a vasectomy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Do you actually have a clue about what she is trying to say?


I *think* she's trying to say that because I said it's been legal for 40 years that it will always be legal. 

Again, a week in a cabin with a 4 year old has tweaked my translating skills.


----------



## Irish Pixie

no really said:


> I preferred the implant, wasn't always where taking a daily pill was optimal.
> 
> Yeah one of my friends said it would be much better for his blood pressure not to be reliant on someone else to provide the protection, even though he never went without condoms. After I got my tubes tied he has pretty much decided on a vasectomy.


A permanent solution isn't for everyone but it is the perfect one if you never want kids.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh yes there is... and perhaps he's sad as well?


As sad as anybody can be...got a new grandbaby on the way, daughter's getting married, retired with a good pension, happily married for almost 40 years. Bought a new tractor -paid cash. Will buy a new car in the next week or so -will pay cash. The two houses are paid for, along with everything else. Got a bit bored and went back to work - something different, though. Health is still pretty good. Along with no more Obama.

And I'm looking forward to eternal Life.

Yeah, I'm absolutely wailing in ashes over here....How you doin'?


----------



## painterswife

I suspect that we will soon be taking breathlizers or wearing watches that will tell you when you are pregnant within days. Then you can take a pill and stop it within a week. Of course that won't help the males. They need to step up and find a way to stop those sperm escaping and making it to their target.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> As sad as anybody can be...got a new grandbaby on the way, daughter's getting married, retired with a good pension, happily married for almost 40 years. Bought a new tractor -paid cash. Will buy a new car in the next week or so -will pay cash. The two houses are paid for, along with everything else. Got a bit bored and went back to work - something different, though. Health is still pretty good. Along with no more Obama.
> 
> And I'm looking forward to eternal Life.
> 
> Yeah, I'm absolutely wailing in ashes over here....How you doin'?


Ab fab. I have a grand son due next month. We just spent a week camping with the two grand kids we already have. I'd say more but that saying about "those that brag..." 

Betcha the next Pres will be a northern liberal although I'd prefer Bernie. I'm glad I don't have to have "magic" to tell me live right and be a good person. I can do that all by myself.


----------



## kasilofhome

Irish Pixie said:


> I *think* she's trying to say that because I said it's been legal for 40 years that it will always be legal.
> 
> Again, a week in a cabin with a 4 year old has tweaked my translating skills.


Add in the tide is turning... people talking..people learning how sick the leadership is at "plan to murder blacks" is.

The leadership is heavy with whites... times are racial when racial tensions are high.

Changes can finally get move away from the fake war on women distortions.

It is my goal that abortion is one day looked as a shameful time in history.


----------



## Irish Pixie

kasilofhome said:


> Add in the tide is turning... people talking..people learning how sick the leadership is at "plan to murder blacks" is.
> 
> The leadership is heavy with whites... times are racial when racial tensions are high.
> 
> Changes can finally get move away from the fake war on women distortions.
> 
> It is my goal that abortion is one day looked as a shameful time in history.


Where did I say that abortion would always be legal? Isn't that why you were "ROTFL"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Yep..... once something is accepted for 40 years.... it never changes.:rotfl:


Abortion has been "accepted" by most of the world for thousands of years.

Studies show the overall number of abortions stays about the same whether they are legal or not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Jolly View Post
> It's perfectly legal for you to jump to the moon, isn't it?
> 
> And has been since the dawn of law.


The Law of Gravity makes it "illegal"


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> I want to know what happens wnen you take one person's kidney and put it in another. Does it get it's own rights because it has it's own DNA? It is human and alive. Does the new body have the right to abuse it by drinking? Will it get it's day in court?


Let me explain again.

A kidney is part of a human being. It grew-2of them-as the human grew. Kidneys, heart, lungs, spleen, liver, etc, grew AS THE HUMAN GREW. These are a PART OF A HUMAN BODY. A kidney did NOT grow as a result of conception: uniting of sperm & egg and implanting in a uterus & growing as a human being.

I hope that clears thing up, however that question about kidney transplants and kidney rights leads me to believe that some do not know that a kidney is NOT a human...


----------



## Tricky Grama

wiscto said:


> I love how the right wants to talk about morals and values. I guess abortion is the easy battleground to pick, because unborn children don't qualify for social security or welfare or ruffle your feathers in any other way. They don't talk so they can't offend you, or, you know, have gay feelings...so you can stick up for them, that's perfectly okay. Them welfare suckers, let's just shoot them in the back and pretend there's no police brutality targeting black men. Sweep that under the rug with all the other nastiness brought to you by the right. Am I right? Am I right?


Another rude, condescending post directed at conservatives.

I'll tell you again, conservatives give more $$, donate more time as well as blood than do non-conservatives. Conservatives help more poor, more pregnant women than do non-conserves-they just talk more about it.

BTW, about 7% of the aborted were gay as well as about 1/2 were female.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Let me explain again.
> 
> A kidney is part of a human being. It grew-2of them-as the human grew. Kidneys, heart, lungs, spleen, liver, etc, grew AS THE HUMAN GREW. These are a PART OF A HUMAN BODY. A kidney did NOT grow as a result of conception: uniting of sperm & egg and implanting in a uterus & growing as a human being.
> 
> I hope that clears thing up, however that question about kidney transplants and kidney rights leads me to believe that some do not know that a kidney is NOT a human...


A fertilized egg is not *a* human either but it seems some want it to have it's own rights.


----------



## Tricky Grama

FutureFarm said:


> This has nothing to do with right and left. If it was a topic of political debate, it would be in the politics section. It has to do with defending those who are unable to defend themselves against those who are killing them.
> It has nothing to do with homosexuality, welfare, social security, or racism.


I think it sorta does.
More black babies have been killed than other races. 7% wouldve been homosexual.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Another *rude, condescending* post directed at conservatives.


Just like most of yours aimed at "liberals" or anyone else who doesn't nod in agreement with you.



> I hope that clears thing up, however that question about kidney transplants and kidney rights leads me to believe that *some do not know that a kidney is NOT a human...*


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> And neither can your fertilized egg. If I place them both on the counter, side by side, the same result occurs. Cells stop functioning and degrade. If both are placed in the proper environment and nurtured they will survive. Is the finger then "human" and deserving of rights of its own? Or is the fertilized egg not human because it cannot sustain your seven characteristics independent of another?
> 
> There's a frequent poster who points out repeatedly that no man has the right to that which must be forcibly supplied by another. We disagree about what forcibly means but I agree with his sentiment. What right does a fertilized egg have to the nutrients, hormones, body cavity and all the other things a woman must provide if she isn't willing to give it freely?


My gosh, read your 2nd paragraph...someone had sex in case you didn't know, that mean ol' embryo didn't just jump into an innocent uterus. If there is a woman who doesn't know what can happen or has no knowledge of b.c. then PP has certainly not done a very good job.unless you are speaking of rape, then that's another thread.

Women have access to free b.c.


----------



## Irish Pixie

> BTW, about 7% of the aborted were gay as well as about 1/2 were female.


Someone has learned how to Google. It's quite impressive. :thumb:


----------



## mmoetc

Tricky Grama said:


> Let me explain again.
> 
> A kidney is part of a human being. It grew-2of them-as the human grew. Kidneys, heart, lungs, spleen, liver, etc, grew AS THE HUMAN GREW. These are a PART OF A HUMAN BODY. A kidney did NOT grow as a result of conception: uniting of sperm & egg and implanting in a uterus & growing as a human being.
> 
> I hope that clears thing up, however that question about kidney transplants and kidney rights leads me to believe that some do not know that a kidney is NOT a human...


I'm having a hard time understanding how that kidney grew without being a result of human conception. Does it just magically appear? You still haven't answered the question of how that fertilized egg you think of as person gets the right to take things from someone who doesn't want to give them.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> According to your definitions, your severed finger has rights.
> 
> There was a story on the news this week of a young boy who lost both his arms to infection. Recently both hands were replaced with hands grafted from a donor. These hands have separate DNA from the young man and are dependent on him to sustain those seven signs of life. Just like your fertilized eggs. Do the hands have rights separate from his?


Ok, I can explain.
Hands are a part of a human body. Never were they the product of a fertilized egg. Hands are a part of a body. An unborn child HAS hands, kidneys too, BTW, but the WHOLE human was once an embryo growing in a woman's womb, never a part of that woman's body,

I think this is where y'all are going wrong, you are confusing a kidney, hands, with a human being. Those are parts. This may be why some think women are doing what they "choose" with their bodies. Their bodies consist of hands, kidneys, heart but NOT an unborn child.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> What you describe has historically been known as quickening and was the standard for life for many generations and many religous traditions. It's a long way from a fertilized egg seeking implantation until that first movement is felt. I'm glad you now seem open to life beginning then and abortions prior to that being acceptable.
> 
> There are many things that "could be". Could be I'm the rightful heir to the Romanoff dynasty. I demand congress passes a law restoring me to the throne because it could be true.


I'm well aware of the term & what I said was, many HAVE used that as standard. NEVER did I say I did. Why did you attribute that to me being open to that standard of beginning of life? Or are you deliberately antagonizing me?


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> Ok, I can explain.
> Hands are a part of a human body.* Never werebthey the product of a fertilized egg.* Hands are a part of a body. An unborn child HAS hands, kidneys too, BTW, but the WHOLE human was once an embryo growing in a woman's womb, never a part of that woman's body,
> 
> I think this is where y'all are going wrong, you are confusing a kidney, hands, with a human being. Those are parts. This may be why some think women are doing what they "choose" with their bodies. Their bodies consist of hands, kidneys, heart but NOT an unborn child.


Huh , that egg is how those hands got started.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Rude? Your posts do well at that so I guess you should know.


I've stated which I thought were rude. Your last comment about me being nasty was an honest question, nothing nasty about it but if you don't want to answer you call someone a name.
If you don't have an answer just say so.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Women have access to free b.c.


When you consider the *millions* of women of child bearing age in the US, the number of abortions from *BC failure* alone would be quite high

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/Contraception.htm



> Combined oral contraceptives&#8212;Also called &#8220;the pill,&#8221; combined oral contraceptives contain the hormones estrogen and progestin. It is prescribed by a doctor. A pill is taken at the same time each day. If you are older than 35 years and smoke, have a history of blood clots or breast cancer, your doctor may advise you not to take the pill.
> 
> *Typical use failure rate: 9%*.


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> I've stated which I thought were rude. Your last comment about me being nasty was an honest question, nothing nasty about it but if you don't want to answer you call someone a name.
> If you don't have an answer just say so.


What name have I called someone? I have commented on posts.

PS like I said before if you read the thread the answers are all there. No need for me to repeat myself for people who don't bother reading.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I've known people who've made it all the way through gestation to adulthood without showing any inclination they are capable of thought. Now how about you use your capabilities to answer some questions. What is the difference between that severed finger and a fertilized egg? Which can sustain its own seven signs of life? What makes that fertilized egg deserving of taking things from a woman she doesn't wish to give?


Ok, I brought up nothing about a severed finger but I'll say this for maybe the 3rd time: a finger is a part of a human body. It grew from the beginning of that human body, it was never separate, it's part of a human, like a kidney. A heart. It was NEVER a fertilized egg growing in a uterus. It was never a separate human.
I cannot believe -how many of you have asked?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Some of us are having a discussion. Your read and react does not qualify. You just keep telling people how their opinions are wrong.


Really? Can you quote where I said: "your opinions are wrong"?


----------



## Tricky Grama

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is doing *abortions* one minute before a full term birth.
> What is the point in such unrealistic arguments?


Did you not hear about Kermit Gossling? And Tiller? There are more...


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Like I said before, read the thread the point is there. Be part of the whole conversation .


The 'point' is that a finger is the same as an unborn child? A kidney?
Please.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> So that unborn "person" is separate from another person's body. What gives that unborn person the right to take nutrients and hormones,force the rearrangement of organs and tissues of another person if that other person objects. I'm a separate person from you. I have rights. Can I claim I have the right to move into your house, eat from your fridge and rearrange your furniture to meet my needs. Hey, we're all human, right? What if you make the mistake of inviting me in. Do I ever have to leave?


Are you still thinking an unborn child jumps in there all by itself? 
Did someone willingly have sex? That is ALWAYS a possibility, and a RESPONSIBILITY, not of the child, of the 2 having sex.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> It's an interesting article but according to the standard that the fertilized egg, a separate being, can implant itself and take whatever it wants or needs from an unwilling woman, the law in this case seems to have gotten it wrong. Why should the squatter have been evicted? Doesn't she have the right as a human to take whatever she wants from another human without recourse? Isn't that what many are arguing for?


What unwilling woman? Rape, yes. But anyone who has no clue how to make a baby should not be having sex, babies do NOT jump in there uninvited, takes 2.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Aren't opinions great? And I would never ever drink McDs coffee... horrible stuff. Just sayin'.


They beat out Starbucks in blind taste tests, just sayin'.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Jolly said:


> As sad as anybody can be...got a new grandbaby on the way, daughter's getting married, retired with a good pension, happily married for almost 40 years. Bought a new tractor -paid cash. Will buy a new car in the next week or so -will pay cash. The two houses are paid for, along with everything else. Got a bit bored and went back to work - something different, though. Health is still pretty good. Along with no more Obama.
> 
> And I'm looking forward to eternal Life.
> 
> Yeah, I'm absolutely wailing in ashes over here....How you doin'?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Did you not hear about Kermit Gossling? And Tiller? There are more...


Did you really mean to bring up Dr. George Tiller? The one that the pro unborn shot in 1993 and assassinated while he was in church in 2009? That Dr. George Tiller? Can't really call that group "pro life" can you?


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Ab fab. I have a grand son due next month. We just spent a week camping with the two grand kids we already have. I'd say more but that saying about "those that brag..."
> 
> Betcha the next Pres will be a northern liberal although I'd prefer Bernie. I'm glad I don't have to have "magic" to tell me live right and be a good person. I can do that all by myself.


Maybe not. This weeks Repub debate was the most watched early debate in Presidential election history. I think even Obama's supporters see Hill or Biden as a third Obama term, and hve had enough.

As for the other, if I'm right, I'll send you a glass of ice water. If I'm wrong, it won't matter.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you really mean to bring up Dr. George Tiller? The one that the pro unborn shot in 1993 and assassinated while he was in church in 2009? That Dr. George Tiller? Can't really call that group "pro life" can you?


I dunno.

If you kill a murderer, is it murder?

Hmmmm....


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.


You support bragging too? 

The saying really is true.


----------



## Tricky Grama

mmoetc said:


> I'm having a hard time understanding how that kidney grew without being a result of human conception. Does it just magically appear? You still haven't answered the question of how that fertilized egg you think of as person gets the right to take things from someone who doesn't want to give them.


I know it can be hard for some to understand but kidneys do not stand on their own & grow from fertilized egg. Kidneys come from the whole entire human being. 
A human being grows from fertilized egg.
Kidneys are body parts, human babies are NOT body parts.

And the unborn did NOT magically appear in the womb. Someone invited it by having...wait for it...sexual relations.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Someone has learned how to Google. It's quite impressive. :thumb:


Ah, guess ya had to google to see if I was correct? It'll pain you to know I did not google that.
And congrats on such a short time back b/4 coming out w/the magic book stuff. Sooo like you.
You must be sad, you seem sad.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> I dunno.
> 
> If you kill a murderer, is it murder?
> 
> Hmmmm....


Without due process..... Yes! What criminal act was Tiller convicted of by a jury of his peers?


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Huh , that egg is how those hands got started.


No, an egg did not grow a pair of hands. That is, hands did not grow from an egg, the fertilized egg grew a human with hands, kidneys, heart.
I cannot believe this is that hard...


----------



## painterswife

Tricky Grama said:


> No, an egg did not grow a pair of hands. That is, hands did not grow from an egg, the fertilized egg grew a human with hands, kidneys, heart.
> I cannot believe this is that hard...


Without that fertilized egg, no hands so you need to brush up on your biology.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you really mean to bring up Dr. George Tiller? The one that the pro unborn shot in 1993 and assassinated while he was in church in 2009? That Dr. George Tiller? Can't really call that group "pro life" can you?


What "group"? Some deranged guy shot him. Not sure what you mean by "...shot in 1993 and assinated while he was in church in 2009..." 
Yup, that Tiller, the one who aborted babies up to the time of birth. 
Another posted said no one was aborting babies right up to due date but, hey, we try to educate as much as possible.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> I know it can be hard for some to understand but kidneys do not stand on their own & grow from fertilized egg. Kidneys come from the whole entire human being.
> *A human being grows from fertilized egg.*
> Kidneys are body parts, human babies are NOT body parts.
> 
> And the unborn did NOT magically appear in the womb. Someone invited it by having...wait for it...sexual relations.


a human being also grows from an egg that was not fertilized before that sperm happened by too..... But I don't hear much outcry about not having sex thus denying that "potential child" it's right to life.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> You support bragging too?
> 
> The saying really is true.


Yup, pretty sure you're sad, you seem to be.


----------



## painterswife

Hey Pixie if you are sad then I want some. Sad is the new happy obviously.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Tricky Grama said:


> Did you not hear about Kermit *Gossling*? And Tiller? There are more...


Nope never heard of any Gossling.
You mean "Gosnell", who was convicted of murder for performing ILLEGAL abortions.

Tiller I have heard of, but I don't know why you think he matters, since what he was doing was legal at that time

You wouldn't know about him at all if a crazy anti-abortion protestor hadn't shot him:

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


> Tiller's practice performed late-term abortions, which made Tiller a focal point for anti-abortion protest and violence.
> 
> Tiller treated patients who discovered late in pregnancy that their *fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects. *
> 
> He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses in cases where two doctors certified that c*arrying the fetus to term would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function*."[9] His practice frequently made him the focus of anti-abortion groups


So, as I said before, no one is doing those abortions now, and in a discussion about* legal* medical procedures, your examples mean nothing



> Yup, that Tiller, the one who aborted babies up to the time of birth.
> Another posted said no one was aborting babies right up to due date but, hey, *we try to educate *as much as possible.


Next time you should educate yourself first.


----------



## Lisa in WA

kasilofhome said:


> Worth repeating


********************


----------



## JeffreyD

Tiempo said:


> Relevance? A radish is life too.


Life. That is what is relevant, don't you think?


----------



## Evons hubby

JeffreyD said:


> Life. That is what is relevant, don't you think?


Life is only relevant to the living... The dead don't care one way or the other, or of they do they don't complain much.


----------



## Tricky Grama

painterswife said:


> Without that fertilized egg, no hands so you need to brush up on your biology.


I majored in it.
You take a fertilized egg-grow it in a Petri dish and let us know when it becomes a kidney. Or a hand.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> I majored in it.
> You take a fertilized egg-grow it in a Petri dish and let us know when it becomes a kidney. Or a hand.


Or a baby!


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or a baby!


Funny thing, they do that now, check it out.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or a baby!


You'd think that someone that majored in biology would understand that, huh? It's a good thing she made the career move to Big Pharma...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Ah, guess ya had to google to see if I was correct? It'll pain you to know I did not google that.
> And congrats on such a short time back b/4 coming out w/the magic book stuff. Sooo like you.
> You must be sad, you seem sad.


I rarely look up anything from a numbers of posters on here. I've found it usually goes back to a right wing rag, a right wing opinion piece, or is just wrong. I don't like wasting my time. 

Did you bother to see why I referred to "magic"? No? Well that's just what you do, isn't it? Blindly like everything in sight but never actually read anything. That's the SOP for cons isn't it?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> You'd think that someone that majored in biology would understand that, huh? It's a good thing she made the career move to Big Pharma...


I would expect a derogatory comment of this sort to come from you.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Funny thing, they do that now, check it out.


Well, it's not really real just yet.... But it is in the works and may become a reality in the future. When/if it happens I can see all sorts of "moral" issues developing.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> I rarely look up anything from a numbers of posters on here. I've found it usually goes back to a right wing rag, a right wing opinion piece, or is just wrong. I don't like wasting my time.
> 
> Did you bother to see why I referred to "magic"? No? Well that's just what you do, isn't it? Blindly like everything in sight but never actually read anything. That's the SOP for cons isn't it?


How about that - two in a row... glad I broke them up...

Some people just have a snotty outlook when faced with someone that does not bow to them or their ideas...


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> How about that - two in a row... glad I broke them up...
> 
> Some people just have a snotty outlook when faced with someone that does not bow to them or their ideas...


I have no idea what you're trying to say to me. Can you try again?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> How about that - two in a row... glad I broke them up...
> 
> Some people just have a snotty outlook when faced with someone that does not bow to them or their ideas...


I suspect it's often caused by depression or alcohol, or a combination of the two.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> They beat out Starbucks in blind taste tests, just sayin'.


That's nice. Any other worthless trivia you'd like to drop into this thread?


----------



## JeffreyD

Irish Pixie said:


> That's nice. Any other worthless trivia you'd like to drop into this thread?


You do that...a lot, like every thread a lot! Why is it ok for you and not others?


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> So that unborn "person" is separate from another person's body. What gives that unborn person the right to take nutrients and hormones,force the rearrangement of organs and tissues of another person if that other person objects. I'm a separate person from you. I have rights. Can I claim I have the right to move into your house, eat from your fridge and rearrange your furniture to meet my needs. Hey, we're all human, right? What if you make the mistake of inviting me in. Do I ever have to leave?


Don't laugh.
At this very moment, there are aging teenagers and young adults, sitting on their parent's couch, watching TV and raiding the fridge.
Mom and Dad are asking the very same questions.............:happy2:


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect it's often caused by depression or alcohol, or a combination of the two.


Did you just refer to your side kick as a depressed alcoholic, getting late must be reading that wrong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Did you just refer to your side kick as a depressed alcoholic, getting late must be reading that wrong.


I didn't refer to anyone in particular.

If the description fits someone they will know it.

It's pretty easy to see who tries to have actual topical discussions and who just jumps in to toss a few personal barbs every now and then.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> That's nice. Any other worthless trivia you'd like to drop into this thread?


You know, the way a person treats folks they don't know, says a lot about their character and how they treat folks they do know.

Carry on...


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Without due process..... Yes! What criminal act was Tiller convicted of by a jury of his peers?


Only if his peers consisted of a box of 9mm bullets. They kill, too.

BTW, the guy who killed Tiller will be eligible for parole in about 25 years.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> You know, the way a person treats folks they don't know, says a lot about their character and how they treat folks they do know.
> 
> Carry on...


I'm the "you get what you give" type. 

This quote suits me perfectly: âI'm not everyone's cup of tea, but that's the great part: I don't have to be.â &#8213; Brandi Glanville

I am perfectly happy with me. Being content with yourself seems to upset a lot of people, and I really don't care. If I don't respect you (collective you) why would I care in the slightest what you think of me?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Only if his peers consisted of a box of 9mm bullets. They kill, too.
> 
> BTW, the guy who killed Tiller will be eligible for parole in about 25 years.


Did you agree with what Scott Roeder and the pro unborn group that supported him, that Dr. Tiller should die for performing legal (at the time) abortions?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I do. 

We live in a bizarro world where the laws are often on the wrong side of right. Every era has their examples, and ours happens to have an extreme one. 

If breaking unjust laws was just in the face of unfair taxation and lack of governmental representation for our founders, then killing to stop a murder that current laws deem a "procedure" surely is. 

Plenty of American slaves were punished/killed for harming/killing their "legal" owners, and ended up on the right side of history. The same thing happened in the work camps of Europe in the '40s. 

The day Tiller was killed, at least one baby was granted a stay of execution, and a man went to prison for making that trade.
I can't say he was wrong for making it.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm the "you get what you give" type.
> 
> This quote suits me perfectly: âI'm not everyone's cup of tea, but that's the great part: I don't have to be.â &#8213; Brandi Glanville
> 
> I am perfectly happy with me. Being content with yourself seems to upset a lot of people, and I really don't care. If I don't respect you (collective you) why would I care in the slightest what you think of me?


Look, I'm pretty happy in my own skin, too. But if the majority of people thinks your snark hurts your argument, then maybe your snark hurts your argument.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you agree with what Scott Roeder and the pro unborn group that supported him, that Dr. Tiller should die for performing legal (at the time) abortions?


Not a bad question...Does one support murder to prevent murder?

Tiller was an abortion on demand guy, without restrictions. And that wasn't just his advocacy, that was his practice.

Therefore, yep, he deserved a bullet.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> Not a bad question...Does one support murder to prevent murder?
> 
> Tiller was an abortion on demand guy, without restrictions. And that wasn't just his advocacy, that was his practice.
> 
> Therefore, yep, he deserved a bullet.


Tiller did have to observe restrictions. So you are condoning murder of dr.s who perform abortions?


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't refer to anyone in particular.
> 
> If the description fits someone they will know it.
> 
> It's pretty easy to see who tries to have actual topical discussions and who just jumps in to toss a few personal barbs every now and then.


So you throw in demeaning insults at members and that solidifies the actual topic. Ok


----------



## sunshinytraci

Vigilante justice (injustice really because it has nothing to do with the rule of law) is really scary stuff. I am dismayed and alarmed by a couple of the above opinions. In a civilized society we should not take it upon ourselves to provide capital punishment to people who are abiding by laws we dont agree with. We work to change the laws and let the state deal with crime through the courts. 

You think abortion is murder? Very well. Lobby for change in the law. If the law does not get changed (and in this case it probably will not) then you resign yourself to that fact and do what you can to convince women not to have abortions and work to provide good alternatives. Thats it. 

I am curious to know how many people here have actually read the Supreme Court's opinions on this matter to find out what the actual reasoning behind the ruling was.


----------



## Guest

"I am curious to know how many people here have actually read the Supreme Court's opinions on this matter to find out what the actual reasoning behind the ruling was"

About the only reason was what is in the "interest" of the state and those interests were largely decided by opinion not solid fact, the majority decision admitted this.


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> "I am curious to know how many people here have actually read the Supreme Court's opinions on this matter to find out what the actual reasoning behind the ruling was"
> 
> About the only reason was what is in the "interest" of the state and those interests were largely decided by opinion not solid fact, the majority decision admitted this.


Huh. And here I thought it was about the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.


----------



## painterswife

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7â2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The Court later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey rejected Roe-&#8202;'&#8203;s trimester framework, while affirming Roe-&#8202;'&#8203;s central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[3]"


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, it's not really real just yet.... But it is in the works and may become a reality in the future. When/if it happens I can see all sorts of "moral" issues developing.


Have a couple friends who conceived in this manner. One couples 2daughters are 20 & 17.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Irish Pixie said:


> That's nice. Any other worthless trivia you'd like to drop into this thread?


Far more informative than your comment about disliking mcdonalds coffee.
You sound so sad.


----------



## farmrbrown

painterswife said:


> "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7&#8211;2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
> 
> The Court later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey rejected Roe-&#8202;'&#8203;s trimester framework, while affirming Roe-&#8202;'&#8203;s central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[2] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[3]"




As noted many times, those 9 in black robes aren't always correct........


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...rviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html



A picture is worth a 1,000 words.



A medical miracle: World's most premature baby, born at 21 weeks and five days, goes home to her delighted parents
By CLAIRE BATES 
UPDATED: 16:46 EST, 25 April 2011

40
View comments
A record-breaking baby girl who was born at just 21 weeks and five days has spent Easter at home with her delighted parents after spending five months in neonatal care.
Little Frieda was born on November 7, 2010, at Fulda Children's Hospital in Germany. She weighed just 1lb and measured 11 inches.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ure-baby-goes-home-parents.html#ixzz3iKcXC4C7 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> Huh. And here I thought it was about the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment.


Ahhh, yep that was used, as the hammer to support the interest of the state. Did you find the definitive scientific evidence supporting the separations of that interest when they devided it into three separate categories. i.e.: 1 trimester no interest, 2 trimester Some interest, 3 trimester more interest.


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I do.
> 
> We live in a bizarro world where the laws are often on the wrong side of right. Every era has their examples, and ours happens to have an extreme one.
> 
> If breaking unjust laws was just in the face of unfair taxation and lack of governmental representation for our founders, then killing to stop a murder that current laws deem a "procedure" surely is.
> 
> Plenty of American slaves were punished/killed for harming/killing their "legal" owners, and ended up on the right side of history. The same thing happened in the work camps of Europe in the '40s.
> 
> The day Tiller was killed, at least one baby was granted a stay of execution, and a man went to prison for making that trade.
> I can't say he was wrong for making it.


Having said all that, too bad he wasn't just investigated better...and taken to trial. was NOT legal what he was doing b/c he had a doc not even on site at all times who would state that the full term moms needed abortions due to headaches, etc. 

Horrific.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Have a couple friends who conceived in this manner. One couples 2daughters are 20 & 17.


Yes, as I understand it an egg can be fertilized and continue the process of becoming a baby in this artificial womb method (test tube babies) but they still need a mothers womb after the first few days if they are going to become a baby. A week old embryo is not a baby.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, as I understand it an egg can be fertilized and continue the process of becoming a baby in this artificial womb method (test tube babies) but they still need a mothers womb after the first few days if they are going to become a baby. A week old embryo is not a baby.


Yes, and so many of them are thrown out. If they aren't implanted and are left to die or be thrown out, is that abortion?


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> Yes, and so many of them are thrown out. If they aren't implanted and are left to die or be thrown out, is that abortion?


 nature is what it is,


----------



## Lisa in WA

dlmcafee said:


> nature is what it is,


Nature in a Petrie dish?


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> Nature in a Petrie dish?


Could be, even you are a product of an event even science fails to explain fully.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Tricky Grama said:


> Far more informative than your comment about disliking mcdonalds coffee.
> You sound so sad.


Do you *ever* use anything original or just steal what others have said before you?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Look, I'm pretty happy in my own skin, too. But if the majority of people thinks your snark hurts your argument, then maybe your snark hurts your argument.


And again I should care, why?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Not a bad question...Does one support murder to prevent murder?
> 
> Tiller was an abortion on demand guy, without restrictions. And that wasn't just his advocacy, that was his practice.
> 
> Therefore, yep, he deserved a bullet.





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I do.
> 
> We live in a bizarro world where the laws are often on the wrong side of right. Every era has their examples, and ours happens to have an extreme one.
> 
> If breaking unjust laws was just in the face of unfair taxation and lack of governmental representation for our founders, then killing to stop a murder that current laws deem a "procedure" surely is.
> 
> Plenty of American slaves were punished/killed for harming/killing their "legal" owners, and ended up on the right side of history. The same thing happened in the work camps of Europe in the '40s.
> 
> The day Tiller was killed, at least one baby was granted a stay of execution, and a man went to prison for making that trade.
> I can't say he was wrong for making it.


Statements such as these are what should be used to assess someone's character. The "I know better than any law (biblical or otherwise)" is quite telling, isn't it? 

Two of the biggest (loudest anyway) "christians" on this forum support murder as long it's on _their_ terms. SMH


----------



## painterswife

Of course you know that being Christian is judged as well. Calling yourself Christian does not mean that you really are.


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> Yes, and so many of them are thrown out. If they aren't implanted and are left to die or be thrown out, is that abortion?


I am sure there are some here that would insist it was not only an abortion, but murder as well. What I dont get is that they are just fine as a frogs hair split three ways to allow that same egg to die and be thrown out of the womb for lack of fertilization. :shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Of course you know that being Christian is judged as well. Calling yourself Christian does not mean that you really are.


I've found that the most christian people are the ones that quietly live their lives helping others. It's the self proclaimed type that give them a bad name. I really had no problem with christians until I joined HT.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> Statements such as these are what should be used to assess someone's character. The "I know better than any law (biblical or otherwise)" is quite telling, isn't it?
> 
> Two of the biggest (loudest anyway) "christians" on this forum support murder as long it's on _their_ terms. SMH


Not sure if you're pointing at me when you say that, but I'm not Christian. 

Would it be any more substantive if I said "The SINGLE loudest snark-peddler on this forum, coincidentally being the one member who has never actually contributed anything to a conversation, in an mature, constructive manner, seeing them entirely as an outlet for his/her/its condescension, supports murder only as long as the victim is defenseless"?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. But, it's never stopped you, so why should it me?




sunshinytraci said:


> Vigilante justice (injustice really because it has nothing to do with the rule of law) is really scary stuff. I am dismayed and alarmed by a couple of the above opinions...


Semantics maybe, but I'm not sure that "vigilante" is exactly the right term. 

The implication of vigilant justice is that the vigilante is doling out punishment in retribution for crimes already committed. This is a possible motive for someone who kills an abortionist, but I think the more common motive is to stop said abortionist from murdering their next innocent victim. 

I think "affirmative-defender" (in the sense of defense of others) or "terrorist" might be more accurate terms. Terrorist, perhaps, because another likely motive is to commit an act that deters other abortionists from plying their trade through the application of fear.


----------



## Irish Pixie

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Not sure if you're pointing at me when you say that, but I'm not Christian.


I apologize for assuming you were christian.

ETA: I don't support murder of any kind. I'm not a hypocrite. 

Thank you for saying I'm the biggest snark on the forum tho, it was sweet.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Irish Pixie said:


> ETA: I don't support murder of any kind. I'm not a hypocrite.


Nor would I normally say that I thought you were, according to my normal conduct in a discussion. If you read the surrounding context of my statement (question, really), you'd see that it was a rhetorical statement about the place that you take every conversation that you participate in to. 

You make a lot of assumptions about others, you respond as though the entire party of people you disagree with are all of one mind, and you use your playground arguing tactics with an air of justification that implies that anyone on the other side of the fence "started it". 

I'm not sure if your tireless snarky condescension is just the way you actually are, or if it is, in your mind, just in retort to what you see as offensive condescension from a select group who's views you one-dimensionally apply to everyone who disagrees with you.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> I didn't refer to anyone in particular.
> 
> If the description fits someone they will know it.
> 
> It's pretty easy to see who tries to have actual topical discussions and who just jumps in to toss a few personal barbs every now and then.


Thank you! I did not think any one of your crack assassin squad members would ever admit that!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Jolly said:


> Not a bad question...Does one support murder to prevent murder?
> 
> *Tiller was an abortion on demand guy, without restrictions*. And that wasn't just his advocacy, that was his practice.
> 
> Therefore, yep, he deserved a bullet.


That's simply false, and shows you really don't know much about him at all


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's simply false, and shows you really don't know much about him at all


Doesn't know much and yet would condemn him to death. Shows what we are dealing with here.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> So you throw in demeaning insults at members and that solidifies the actual topic. Ok


What "demeaning insults"?

Bad attitudes are often signs of depression and alcohol use.

That's a reality

It's not like I called anyone a "murderer" or told them they were going to Hell


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's simply false, and shows you really don't know much about him at all


Yes, the bolded part was false.
Are there false statements in this Wiki article?



Career[edit]
Tiller was born in Wichita, Kansas, the son of Catherine and Dean Jackson "Jack" Tiller, MD.[6] He studied at the University of Kansas School of Medicine from 1963 to 1967. Shortly thereafter, he held a medical internship with United States Navy, and served as flight surgeon in Camp Pendleton, California, in 1969 and 1970.[1] In July 1970, he planned to start a dermatology residency. However on August 21, 1970, his parents, sister and brother-in-law were killed in an aircraft accident. In her will, his sister requested that Tiller take care of her one-year-old son. Tiller had intended to go back to Wichita, close up his father's family practice and then go back to become a dermatologist. However, he quickly felt pressure to take over his father's family practice. Tiller's father had performed abortions at his practice. After hearing about a woman who had died from an illegal abortion, Tiller stayed in Wichita to continue his father's practice.[7]

At the time of his death, Dr. Tiller was board certified with the American Board of Family Practice, an Associate of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, and a clinical instructor in the Department of Family Medicine for Wesley Medical Center, where he had previously served as president of the medical staff.[8]


Tiller in 1997 at his clinic, Women's Health Care
Tiller's practice performed late-term abortions, which made Tiller a focal point for anti-abortion protest and violence. Tiller treated patients who discovered late in pregnancy that their fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects. He also aborted healthy late-term fetuses in cases where two doctors certified that carrying the fetus to term would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."[9] His practice frequently made him the focus of anti-abortion groups. The Kansas Coalition for Life kept a daily vigil outside Tiller's facility from May 9, 2004, until May 31, 2009.[10] The group known as Operation Rescue held an event called 'The Summer of Mercy' in July and August 1991, focusing on Tiller's clinic but also protesting other abortion providers in Wichita, Kansas. Years later, a branch that split from the main Operation Rescue group moved from California to Kansas specifically to focus on Tiller, initially named Operation Rescue West.




*******

Kansas law prohibits abortions after the beginning of fetal viability unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."[9] The two consulting doctors must not be "financially affiliated" with the doctor doing the abortion. Tiller was charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases during 2003 who was not truly "unaffiliated".[11][12] 

********




The case became a cause cÃ©lÃ¨bre for both supporters and opponents of legal abortion. WorldNet Daily Columnist Jack Cashill compared the trial to the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals,[13] while New York University Professor Jacob Appel described Tiller as "a genuine hero who ranks alongside Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King Jr. in the pantheon of defenders of human liberty."[14] The trial took place in March 2009, with the jury finding Tiller not guilty on all charges on March 27, approximately two months before his death.

Substance abuse[edit]
Dr. Tiller struggled with substance abuse, which came to a head in 1984 when he was arrested for driving under the influence.[15] He sought treatment, overcame his difficulties, and later served on the Kansas Medical Society&#8217;s impaired physicians committee. He also became an Associate of the American Society of Addiction Medicine.[1]


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> What "demeaning insults"?
> 
> Bad attitudes are often signs of depression and alcohol use.
> 
> That's a reality
> 
> It's not like I called anyone a "murderer" or told them they were going to Hell


I haven't called anyone such as is above, but as you said earlier, "if the shoe fits..."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Thank you! I did not think any one of your crack assassin squad members would ever admit that!


So who is doing all the *real* insulting and name calling?




> It's not like I called anyone a "murderer" or told them they were going to Hell





Shine said:


> I haven't called anyone such as is above, but as you said earlier, "if the shoe fits..."


Maybe you need to look up the definition of "assassin", and I'm pretty sure I haven't mentioned any shoes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Yes, the bolded part was false.
> Are there false statements in this Wiki article?


Possibly
They won't negate the other misinformation many keep posting


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Possibly
> They won't negate the other misinformation many keep posting


Mr. Expert, please point out any mis-information in that article. Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Mr. Expert, please point out any mis-information in that article. Thank you.


I didn't say there was any in the article.
You're not paying attention


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> What "demeaning insults"?
> 
> Bad attitudes are often signs of depression and alcohol use.
> 
> That's a reality
> *
> It's not like I called anyone a "murderer" or told them they were going to Hell*ll


Neither have I, and my lack of belief in your reference to the fire and brimstone hell would not make sense to wish your demise there.

The reality is there are a bunch of little people who get their thrill being obtuse and prejudicially critical.


----------



## Irish Pixie

dlmcafee said:


> Neither have I, and my lack of belief in your reference to the fire and brimstone hell would not make sense to wish your demise there.
> 
> *The reality is there are a bunch of little people who get their thrill being obtuse and prejudicially critical*.


We don't often agree but this is absolutely true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Neither have I, and my lack of belief in your reference to the fire and brimstone hell would not make sense to wish your demise there.
> 
> The reality is there are *a bunch of little people who get their thrill being obtuse and prejudicially critical*.


I never said I was talking about you. 
Don't be so self centered all the time. 

You last statement describes the ones I'm talking about, but you won't admit which ones they truly are, even though the "likes" group them conveniently.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I never said I was talking about you.
> Don't be so self centered all the time.
> 
> You last statement describes the ones I'm talking about, but you won't admit which ones they truly are, even though the "likes" group them conveniently.


You should heed your own advice too! Don't be so self-centered all the time.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> You should heed your own advice too! Don't be so self-centered all the time.


How many times have you posted that line already, aimed at various others?
Get some fresh bait


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many times have you posted that line already, aimed at various others?
> Get some fresh bait


It's not bait, just the truth! And ill keep posting it if you dont, aint America great! If you did follow your own advice, we wouldn't be discussing it now would we? Children, bah!


----------



## Jolly

sunshinytraci said:


> Vigilante justice (injustice really because it has nothing to do with the rule of law) is really scary stuff. I am dismayed and alarmed by a couple of the above opinions. In a civilized society we should not take it upon ourselves to provide capital punishment to people who are abiding by laws we dont agree with. We work to change the laws and let the state deal with crime through the courts.
> 
> You think abortion is murder? Very well. Lobby for change in the law. If the law does not get changed (and in this case it probably will not) then you resign yourself to that fact and do what you can to convince women not to have abortions and work to provide good alternatives. Thats it.
> 
> I am curious to know how many people here have actually read the Supreme Court's opinions on this matter to find out what the actual reasoning behind the ruling was.


I have, and it's pretty much cobbled up out of thin air. A lot of privacy stuff found in the 14th is cobbled up in the same way.

I'm a strict Constitutionalist. If it's not in black and white, it's a power reserved for the States. Abortion is an argument that belongs in state legislatures, not before the bench in SCOTUS.

If you read through many of the discussions which take place down here, you find that many people don't mind the idea of a large, central government with lots of power and authority...That is, as long as the folks in authority are giving them what they want.

I believe that the best government is that closest to the people. And, as I've said, a government operating on a state level should have quite a say in what is legal and what is not.

Which brings us back to Rowe v. Wade...If that issue were before the state legislature down here, there would be no legal abortion, except in the case of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is at peril. To me, that's a pretty common sense approach.

Therefore, the pro-kill folks, especially those who advocate abortion in the third and second trimesters, are simply killing for convenience. IMO, that's murder. Worse, it's murder of the innocent, murder of those who cannot protect themselves.

We have become a society where we look with disdain at a pregnant woman smoking a cigarette, but we don't mind that same woman walking into PP and killing her baby.

If we have become that crazy, what's so wrong about killing a killer, before he can kill? An interesting argument, to say the least.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many times have you posted that line already, aimed at various others?
> Get some fresh bait


Please try not to get him too excited.


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> I have, and it's pretty much cobbled up out of thin air. A lot of privacy stuff found in the 14th is cobbled up in the same way.
> 
> I'm a strict Constitutionalist. If it's not in black and white, it's a power reserved for the States. Abortion is an argument that belongs in state legislatures, not before the bench in SCOTUS.
> 
> If you read through many of the discussions which take place down here, you find that many people don't mind the idea of a large, central government with lots of power and authority...That is, as long as the folks in authority are giving them what they want.
> 
> I believe that the best government is that closest to the people. And, as I've said, a government operating on a state level should have quite a say in what is legal and what is not.
> 
> Which brings us back to Rowe v. Wade...If that issue were before the state legislature down here, there would be no legal abortion, except in the case of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is at peril. To me, that's a pretty common sense approach.
> 
> Therefore, the pro-kill folks, especially those who advocate abortion in the third and second trimesters, are simply killing for convenience. IMO, that's murder. Worse, it's murder of the innocent, murder of those who cannot protect themselves.
> 
> We have become a society where we look with disdain at a pregnant woman smoking a cigarette, but we don't mind that same woman walking into PP and killing her baby.
> 
> If we have become that crazy, what's so wrong about killing a killer, before he can kill? An interesting argument, to say the least.


It doesn't get crazier than vigilante justice...


----------



## JeffreyD

wiscto said:


> It doesn't get crazier than vigilante justice...


Yup, just look at "black lives matter". Ferguson, Baltimore are great examples.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> It doesn't get crazier than vigilante justice...


Sometimes, it's called for. As a history buff, a bit on olden days in Montana, you may enjoy:


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


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Sometimes, it's called for. As a history buff, a bit on olden days in Montana, you may enjoy:
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Vigilantes


Seriously? How is that even remotely similar to supporting the assassination of abortion doctors?


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> Sometimes, it's called for. As a history buff, a bit on olden days in Montana, you may enjoy:
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Vigilantes


Hey this is reality calling, we just wanted you to know that this isn't 1863, nor is it Montana, nor do we lack a justice system. Agree to live in a democracy like a civilized American, or get out and move to the Middle East with the rest of the indoctrinated psychopaths. Crap on somebody else's doorstep.


----------



## JeffreyD

wiscto said:


> Hey this is reality calling, we just wanted you to know that this isn't 1863, nor is it Montana, nor do we lack a justice system. Agree to live in a democracy like a civilized American, or get out and move to the Middle East with the rest of the indoctrinated psychopaths. Crap on somebody else's doorstep.


You go first.


----------



## Jolly

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? How is that even remotely similar to supporting the assassination of abortion doctors?


What does society do, if laboring under no law or laboring under bad law? At some point, matters are taken out of the hands of those who are supposed to be enforcing the law, and the power is passed into the hands of the people.

Sometimes, the consequences are bad. Sometimes, not so much.

In the case of abortion, what would have been a more fair outcome, letting SCOTUS decide what the law should be, or letting the people, through their duly elected representatives, decide what the law should be?

By snatching the power from the people, this is why we can have discussion like this...I think the American people are too wise the condone the killing of innocents in the millions, which is why abortion rights have been tightening since Roe and why I think they will continue to tighten.

The people know in their guts, something is inherently wrong here. 

Now, whether it is wrong enough to kill the killers...as I said, a nice discussion.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> Hey this is reality calling, we just wanted you to know that this isn't 1863, nor is it Montana, nor do we lack a justice system. Agree to live in a democracy like a civilized American, or get out and move to the Middle East with the rest of the indoctrinated psychopaths. Crap on somebody else's doorstep.


Sorry, but I think our justice system is sorely lacking, starting with who is head of the Justice Department.

I think there is something inherently wrong in any democracy or republic, where judges can circumvent the will of the people, especially by making up law as they go along.

Lastly, I thought you were the one who studied history and liked to view all things through a historical lens...


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> Sorry, but I think our justice system is sorely lacking, starting with who is head of the Justice Department.
> 
> I think there is something inherently wrong in any democracy or republic, where judges can circumvent the will of the people, especially by making up law as they go along.
> 
> Lastly, I thought you were the one who studied history and liked to view all things through a historical lens...


Wrong on all counts, looks like. Political revolutions have taken place in this country. Take a page from MLK Jr.'s book, or the Freedom Summer... Why is it that the people you hate, those liberals, are capable of achieving their goals peacefully while you sit around and brood over violence? Get out and march for peace if you believe in it so much. People might respect that and be moved....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *What does society do*, if laboring under no law or laboring under bad law? At some point, matters are taken out of the hands of those who are supposed to be enforcing the law, and the power is passed into the hands of the people.


They mainly *talk* a lot on the internet, while really *doing* very little.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> What does society do, if laboring under no law or laboring under bad law? At some point, matters are taken out of the hands of those who are supposed to be enforcing the law, and the power is passed into the hands of the people.
> 
> Sometimes, the consequences are bad. Sometimes, not so much.
> 
> In the case of abortion, what would have been a more fair outcome, letting SCOTUS decide what the law should be, or letting the people, through their duly elected representatives, decide what the law should be?
> 
> By snatching the power from the people, this is why we can have discussion like this...I think the American people are too wise the condone the killing of innocents in the millions, which is why abortion rights have been tightening since Roe and why I think they will continue to tighten.
> 
> The people know in their guts, something is inherently wrong here.
> 
> Now, whether it is wrong enough to kill the killers...as I said, a nice discussion.


Oh, so you're reiterating that it's fine and dandy to assassinate abortion doctors because you don't agree with the legal procedure they perform?


----------



## wiscto

JeffreyD said:


> You go first.


Oh see I already agreed to live in this democracy. That's why you don't hear me threatening to kill people.


----------



## Guest

wiscto said:


> Oh see I already agreed to live in this democracy. That's why you don't hear me threatening to kill people.



I have not seen anyone threaten to kill anyone on this thread. By the way it's a Republic, comrade citizen.


----------



## JeffreyD

wiscto said:


> Oh see I already agreed to live in this democracy. That's why you don't hear me threatening to kill people.


Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.


----------



## JeffreyD

dlmcafee said:


> I have not seen anyone threaten to kill anyone on this thread. By the way it's a Republic, comrade citizen.


Ha, beat me to it. Interesting how so many are so confused by this. :smack


----------



## wiscto

JeffreyD said:


> Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.


Our Constitutional Republic is a Representative Democracy


----------



## wiscto

dlmcafee said:


> I have not seen anyone threaten to kill anyone on this thread. By the way it's a Republic, comrade citizen.


What is this, fifth grade? 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/



> I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But thatâs a false dichotomy. A common definition of ârepublicâ is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, âA political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to themâ â we are that. A common definition of âdemocracyâ is, âGovernment by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representativesâ â we are that, too.


----------



## kasilofhome

What type of government does America have?



&#8220;It&#8217;s a Republic; if you can keep it&#8230;&#8221;


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> What does society do, if laboring under no law or laboring under bad law?
> 
> In the case of abortion, what would have been a more fair outcome, letting SCOTUS decide what the law should be, or letting the people, through their duly elected representatives, decide what the law should be?


Our society had laws regarding abortion. The problem came in when the supremes decided those laws violated a woman's right of privacy as guaranteed by the constitution. The states can still write their own laws as they wish, but those laws have to be in line with the provisions of our constitution or risk being struck down again.


----------



## Guest

wiscto said:


> What is this, fifth grade?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/



Well maybe you should rewrite the constitution, pledge and our legislative process. Might use something other than a newspaper opinion piece as a fifth grade argument. Try Cornell school of law or even a legal dictionary and convince yourself that above the state level that our nation is a strict democratic one.


----------



## wiscto

dlmcafee said:


> Well maybe you should rewrite the constitution, pledge and our legislative process. Might use something other than a newspaper opinion piece as a fifth grade argument. Try Cornell school of law or even a legal dictionary and convince yourself that above the state level that our nation is a strict democratic one.


LOL there you go, standard operating procedure of the uninformed, change that narrative again. You guys WERE trying to tell me that this is not a Democracy at all, but a Republic. Now you're trying to prove to me that we are not a "STRICTLY Democratic nation." 

And before all that we WERE talking about abortion.

http://thelawdictionary.org/democracy/


> That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens; as distinguished from a monarchy,aristocracy, or oligarchy. According to the theory of a pure democracy, every citizen should participate directly in the business of governing, and the legislative assembly should comprise the whole people. But the ultimate lodgment of the sovereignty being the distinguishing feature, *the introduction of the representative system does not remove a government from this type. However, a government of the latter kind is sometimes specifically described as a &#8220;representative democracy.*


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/democracy



> A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Our society had laws regarding abortion. The problem came in when the supremes decided those laws violated a woman's right of privacy as guaranteed by the constitution. The states can still write their own laws as they wish, but those laws have to be in line with the provisions of our constitution or risk being struck down again.


Close, but no cigar.

The Supremes "found" a right not really contained in the Constitution.

Or, as Rehnquist put it: _"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment." _

Roe v. Wade is widely acknowledged - even by learned liberal law scholars, such as at Yale and Harvard Law - as an absolutely horrible interpretation of the Constitution. 

_"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment." _ - L. Tribe

Here's several more quotes about how bad the law is, if you'd like to read them:

http://prolifemn.blogspot.com/2011/06/abortion-defenders-explain-why-roe-v.html


----------



## Guest

wiscto said:


> LOL there you go, standard operating procedure of the uninformed, change that narrative again. You guys WERE trying to tell me that this is not a Democracy at all, but a Republic. Now you're trying to prove to me that we are not a "STRICTLY Democratic nation."
> 
> And before all that we WERE talking about abortion.
> 
> http://thelawdictionary.org/democracy/
> 
> 
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/democracy



Spoken like a true product of the state,,,bravo


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> Wrong on all counts, looks like. Political revolutions have taken place in this country. Take a page from MLK Jr.'s book, or the Freedom Summer... Why is it that the people you hate, those liberals, are capable of achieving their goals peacefully while you sit around and brood over violence? Get out and march for peace if you believe in it so much. People might respect that and be moved....


There are history books and there is reality.

I heard MLK speak. He was an eloquent man, and we'd have been much better off had his own people and everybody else, lived by his words...but the Civil Rights era had its own share of violence. From both sides, believe it or not.

Or in a larger sense, consider Ghandi...the poster child for non-violence. Yet 1,000,000 Indians died in his protests.

And even then, when society changes, that change is enforced at the end of a gun barrel...The world is ruled by force and by violence, as Mao said. It just depends on who's making the law and what side of it you happen to be on.


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> Close, but no cigar.
> 
> The Supremes "found" a right not really contained in the Constitution.
> 
> Or, as Rehnquist put it: _"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment." _
> 
> Roe v. Wade is widely acknowledged - even by learned liberal law scholars, such as at Yale and Harvard Law - as an absolutely horrible interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> _"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment." _ - L. Tribe
> 
> Here's several more quotes about how bad the law is, if you'd like to read them:
> 
> http://prolifemn.blogspot.com/2011/06/abortion-defenders-explain-why-roe-v.html


That "mystery right" must have been one of those the founders wrote the ninth amendment about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Spoken like a true product of the state,,,bravo


Spoken like one who loves to call names and hand out labels when anyone dares to disagree.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That "mystery right" must have been one of those the founders wrote the ninth amendment about.


 I dunno. Here's what Scalia had to say about it, and he's no Constitutional dunce:

_*The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitutionâs refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judgesâ list against laws duly enacted by the people.*_


----------



## Evons hubby

Jolly said:


> I dunno. Here's what Scalia had to say about it, and he's no Constitutional dunce:
> 
> _*The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitutionâs refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judgesâ list against laws duly enacted by the people.*_


So by scalias reasoning we should still be practicing slavery?


----------



## wiscto

Jolly said:


> There are history books and there is reality.
> 
> I heard MLK speak. He was an eloquent man, and we'd have been much better off had his own people and everybody else, lived by his words...but the Civil Rights era had its own share of violence. From both sides, believe it or not.
> 
> Or in a larger sense, consider Ghandi...the poster child for non-violence. Yet 1,000,000 Indians died in his protests.
> 
> And even then, when society changes, that change is enforced at the end of a gun barrel...The world is ruled by force and by violence, as Mao said. It just depends on who's making the law and what side of it you happen to be on.


God you are a truly misguided soul, Jolly... Many people DID live by his words. There is a reason why it wasn't an all out blood bath in the 60s, and he was a big part of that. His peaceful approach made the largest difference for POSITIVE change. There is a reason why MLK is honored and Malcolm X is looked at with more scrutiny. There is a reason people continue to fight for peace. And attributing those deaths to Ghandi and the goals his peaceful protests set out to accomplish is absolutely disgusting. You should honestly look inside yourself and ask if YOU are a good person, or if YOU are willing to twist anything in order to justify murder. 

Because those deaths you're talking about? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Those deaths happened because of people like you, not Ghandi.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Spoken like one who loves to call names and hand out labels when anyone dares to disagree.



Yea sometimes us uninformed lower life forms need to hand out special labels to you almighty ones. I noticed your prejudices by not calling out the other but that was expected.


----------



## wiscto

dlmcafee said:


> Yea sometimes us uninformed lower life forms need to hand out special labels to you almighty ones. I noticed your prejudices by not calling out the other but that was expected.


Is there a fly buzzing around my ear? I'm sorry, I don't understand you, all I hear is bzz bzz bzz bzz.

Sarcasm, your last ditch effort of the evening. You were wrong, again, goodbye.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Yea sometimes us uninformed lower life forms need to hand out special labels to you almighty ones. I noticed your prejudices by not calling out the other but that was expected.


At least you're a fairly eloquent troll
Much more creative than "Follow your own advice"


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> At least you're a fairly eloquent troll
> Much more creative than "Follow your own advice"


Bzzz Bzzz Bzzz. Troll? I've never been banned, can you say the same? ound:

My advice is good, you choose to ignore it, call it trolling! I guess you should know since your pretty good at it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> Bzzz Bzzz Bzzz. Troll? I've never been banned, can you say the same? ound:
> 
> *My advice is good*, you choose to ignore it, call it trolling! I guess you should know since your pretty good at it.


If it were truly good you'd follow it yourself.
It's just more repetition


----------



## Shine

JeffreyD said:


> Bzzz Bzzz Bzzz. Troll? I've never been banned, can you say the same? ound:
> 
> My advice is good, you choose to ignore it, call it trolling! I guess you should know since your pretty good at it.


Yeah, come to think of it, I've never been banned either...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Lots of people who have behaved much in the same way as I never got banned.

It depended more on *who* you irritated than what you really said.

The remark that got me banned was telling someone they were going to drown in the Kool-Aid they were drinking.

That's far less "insulting" than many of the remarks on this thread


----------



## Guest

wiscto said:


> Is there a fly buzzing around my ear? I'm sorry, I don't understand you, all I hear is bzz bzz bzz bzz.
> 
> Sarcasm, your last ditch effort of the evening. You were wrong, again, goodbye.


From a site you are probably familiar with

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html

United States	*constitution-based federal republic*; strong democratic tradition

Sarcasm no, just stating facts, have a good day. Shalom


----------



## kasilofhome

Realty that doesn't fit a need is distorted to meet a want.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

kasilofhome said:


> Realty that doesn't fit a need is distorted to meet a want.


I think that's called "landscaping" or "remodeling"


----------



## wiscto

dlmcafee said:


> From a site you are probably familiar with
> 
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2128.html
> 
> United States	constitution-based federal republic; *strong democratic tradition
> *
> Sarcasm no, just stating facts, have a good day. Shalom


I mean... Your OWN posts argue with you. That's gotta hurt.


----------



## Evons hubby

wiscto said:


> I mean... Your OWN posts argue with you. That's gotta hurt.


I think the founders tried to set up a limited representative republic. I also think they wouldn't recognize our government today.


----------



## Jolly

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think the founders tried to set up a limited representative republic. I also think they wouldn't recognize our government today.


Pity.


----------



## Jolly

wiscto said:


> God you are a truly misguided soul, Jolly... Many people DID live by his words. There is a reason why it wasn't an all out blood bath in the 60s, and he was a big part of that. His peaceful approach made the largest difference for POSITIVE change. There is a reason why MLK is honored and Malcolm X is looked at with more scrutiny. There is a reason people continue to fight for peace. And attributing those deaths to Ghandi and the goals his peaceful protests set out to accomplish is absolutely disgusting. You should honestly look inside yourself and ask if YOU are a good person, or if YOU are willing to twist anything in order to justify murder.
> 
> Because those deaths you're talking about? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Those deaths happened because of people like you, not Ghandi.


Books are good. Life is better.

You can read about an event all you'd like, but unless you lived it, you never get the whole story.

MLK was one reason why the Civil Rights movement succeeded (to the extent it did). He was an eloquent speaker with a powerful message and that message of basic fairness won a lot of people over. Sadly, much of his original message has been forgotten, by the very people he was trying to help.

In some places, change occurred peacefully. In many places, though, the will of the Federal government was enforced at the end of a gun barrel. If not for National Guard troops and Federal marshals, there would still be segregation in many of the schools in the South - and in the North. (I think they're still fighting about it in Boston).

Looking back on the 1960's, especially in the earlier parts of the decade, we still had enough respect for authority and most people had enough belief in fairness, that the Civil Rights movement succeeded. But could it have been a blood bath? Yes, I think it came a lot closer than most people think.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jolly said:


> Books are good. Life is better.
> 
> You can read about an event all you'd like, but unless you lived it, you never get the whole story.
> 
> MLK was one reason why the Civil Rights movement succeeded (to the extent it did). He was an eloquent speaker with a powerful message and that message of basic fairness won a lot of people over. Sadly, much of his original message has been forgotten, by the very people he was trying to help.
> 
> In some places, change occurred peacefully. In many places, though, the will of the Federal government was enforced at the end of a gun barrel. If not for National Guard troops and Federal marshals, there would still be segregation in many of the schools in the South - and in the North. (I think they're still fighting about it in Boston).
> 
> Looking back on the 1960's, especially in the earlier parts of the decade, we still had enough respect for authority and most people had enough belief in fairness, that the Civil Rights movement succeeded. But could it have been a blood bath? Yes, I think it came a lot closer than most people think.


And you're still advocating violence by agreeing with anti abortion terrorists that abortion doctors should be assassinated.


----------



## gapeach

I read this today and it is so true.

Abortion has never been about "choice". It's about escaping the consequences of your choices by taking all choices away from another human being.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> I read this today and it is so true.
> 
> Abortion has never been about "choice". It's about escaping the consequences of your choices by taking all choices away from another human being.


Would that be anything like taking someones choices away by deliberately choosing to let that egg die before its ever even fertilized?


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Would that be anything like taking someones choices away by deliberately choosing to let that egg die before its ever even fertilized?


No, not all. That happens to most women every month if they are of childbearing age and if they are fertile. If the woman chooses to have sex without birth control , she takes the chance to get pregnant.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> No, not all. That happens to most women every month if they are of childbearing age and if they are fertile. If the woman chooses to have sex without birth control , she takes the chance to get pregnant.


Yes, I understand it happens a lot, but that's not the question I asked. Lemme try one more time. Is that not the same as denying that same persons right to play with puppy's and chase butterflies, by deliberately choosing to let that egg die before it even gets a chance to be fertilized? Both decisions produce exactly the same results.... The pet shop won't be selling that puppy.


----------



## painterswife

Carrying a fertilized egg to term is not a consequence of sex unless you choose that result. Pregnancy is a women's choice. A fertilized egg is not a child.

It may be your choice but you do not choose for anyone but yourself.

Abortion will never be off the table. Abortion after a certain date except for medical needs may.

Those are the facts and the realities.


----------



## gapeach

If every woman fertilized every egg she lays every month, she would have more children than she and the sperm donor could ever support. They would be like the Duggars and have to have money from a tv show to feed the children with.
This is getting silly. I just posted what I did because I think it is true.


----------



## Evons hubby

painterswife said:


> Carrying a fertilized egg to term is not a consequence of sex unless you choose that result. Pregnancy is a women's choice. A fertilized egg is not a child.
> 
> It may be your choice but you do not choose for anyone but yourself.
> 
> Abortion will never be off the table. Abortion after a certain date except for medical needs may.
> 
> Those are the facts and the realities.


well said!


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> If every woman fertilized every egg she lays every month, she would have more children than she and the sperm donor could ever support. They would be like the Duggars and have to have money from a tv show to feed the children with.
> This is getting silly. I just posted what I did because I think it is true.


I am not being silly..... I am quite serious about a very serious topic. Let me try again..... By choosing to let that egg (a very potential child) die are you not choosing to deny a child's right to life just exactly the way another woman chooses to deny her child's right to life by other means? It is indeed all about choices.


----------



## gapeach

I was one who was not fertile and never had but one pregnancy in my life after being married 12 1/2 years. I am thankful for that today because I would not have all my 3 children if things had not worked out that way. God has a way of giving you what you need and I could not imagine life with out any of our 3.


----------



## Irish Pixie

gapeach said:


> I was one who was not fertile and never had but one pregnancy in my life after being married 12 1/2 years. I am thankful for that today because I would not have all my 3 children if things had not worked out that way. God has a way of giving you what you need and I could not imagine life with out any of our 3.


It was your adopted children's mothers choice to carry the pregnancies to term, wasn't it?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Would that be anything like taking someones choices away by deliberately choosing to let that egg die before its ever even fertilized?


I'm pretty sure you're using this as a red herring, but, if you're not, then I am genuinely sorry for the magnitude of sorrow you must feel for the number of eggs that go unfertilized every day. That's got to be one heck of a cross to bear.

Fortunately, most of us on the pro-life side of the abortion debate don't see it that way, so we couldn't possibly imagine that. 

In (most of) our minds, the biological reality is the production of eggs and sperm by the respective sexes. The _choice_ comes in when each sex decides whether or not to allow their sexual faculties to function unchecked, and when the woman _chooses_ to allow the man access to her situated egg.

Once the egg is fertilized, the *choices* we have to make have been made. At that point, the new human has been created, and will depend on the mother only long enough to develop enough to survive in the outside world. 

This likening the unborn child to a parasite is not wholly unsound. The unborn child is parasitic in function, as we all were at that stage of our lives. It's important, however, to consider the word 'parasite' without the normal connotations. This 'parasite' did not seek out its host. Rather, biology dictated the parasitic nature of the earliest stages of it's life, and the mother's and father's _choices_ are what brought it into being. 

The _choice_ being imparted by legalized elective abortion is the choice to not have to face the consequences of the choices you've already made.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I'm pretty sure you're using this as a red herring, but, if you're not, then I am genuinely sorry for the magnitude of sorrow you must feel for the number of eggs that go unfertilized every day. That's got to be one heck of a cross to bear.
> 
> Fortunately, most of us on the pro-life side of the abortion debate don't see it that way, so we couldn't possibly imagine that.
> 
> In (most of) our minds, the biological reality is the production of eggs and sperm by the respective sexes. The _choice_ comes in when each sex decides whether or not to allow their sexual faculties to function unchecked, and when the woman _chooses_ to allow the man access to her situated egg.
> 
> Once the egg is fertilized, the *choices* we have to make have been made. At that point, the new human has been created, and will depend on the mother only long enough to develop enough to survive in the outside world.
> 
> This likening the unborn child to a parasite is not wholly unsound. The unborn child is parasitic in function, as we all were at that stage of our lives. It's important, however, to consider the word 'parasite' without the normal connotations. This 'parasite' did not seek out its host. Rather, biology dictated the parasitic nature of the earliest stages of it's life, and the mother's and father's _choices_ are what brought it into being.
> 
> The _choice_ being imparted by legalized elective abortion is the choice to not have to face the consequences of the choices you've already made.


Not a red herring at all. I am merely pointing out that the prolife crowd are in the very same camp with everyone else when they choose to deny a child's right to life. By any other name a rose still has its thorns.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Not a red herring at all. I am merely pointing out that the prolife crowd are in the very same camp with everyone else when they choose to deny a child's right to life. By any other name a rose still has its thorns.


Believing that an egg and a sperm are humans in their own right must be a terrible burden. I'm sorry you carry that.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Believing that an egg and a sperm are humans in their own right must be a terrible burden. I'm sorry you carry that.


No worries about me, I am all good with the concept of every woman's rights to decide how many kids they want to have. What bothers me is that some feel the need to make that choice for any one else.

A sperm or egg by themselves are not a human.... But when brought together they quite often produce a human... The act of deliberately keeping them apart Denys that human their right to life every bit as much as any other method of preventing a live birth. There cannot be a "holier than thou" place to stand when it comes to preventing a life. It's all the same to that lonely puppy who doesn't have his own boy to grow up with.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No worries about me, I am all good with the concept of every woman's rights to decide how many kids they want to have. What bothers me is that some feel the need to make that choice for any one else.
> 
> A sperm or egg by themselves are not a human.... But when brought together they quite often produce a human... The act of deliberately keeping them apart Denys that human their right to life every bit as much as any other method of preventing a live birth. There cannot be a "holier than thou" place to stand when it comes to preventing a life. It's all the same to that lonely puppy who doesn't have his own boy to grow up with.


You know, I've always wondered how it is that the Catholic Church denies its devout the option of most birth control because it thwarts the will of God, but allows them the use of calendar based birth control instead. That's not doing the same thing?


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> You know, I've always wondered how it is that the Catholic Church denies its devout the option of most birth control because it thwarts the will of God, but allows them the use of calendar based birth control instead. That's not doing the same thing?


Of course it's the same thing. Playing with a calendar in order to cheat a child out of playing with a puppy goes against Gods will every bit as much as any other method.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course it's the same thing. Playing with a calendar in order to cheat a child out of playing with a puppy goes against Gods will every bit as much as any other method.


It's a little creepy when you think about it. If it's Gods will that you're thwarting then doesn't it stand to reason that it's Gods will you're having sex? And then you can go ahead and tell your wife or husband that they are going against God if they have a headache? Which I'm guessing people already do.

I may not be making sense. Need more coffee.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No worries about me, I am all good with the concept of every woman's rights to decide how many kids they want to have. What bothers me is that some feel the need to make that choice for any one else.
> 
> A sperm or egg by themselves are not a human.... But when brought together they quite often produce a human... The act of deliberately keeping them apart Denys that human their right to life every bit as much as any other method of preventing a live birth. There cannot be a "holier than thou" place to stand when it comes to preventing a life. It's all the same to that lonely puppy who doesn't have his own boy to grow up with.


So, it is a red herring, by definition. You can take that with the negative connotation if you like, your call, but it is just another tactic for trying to make your point - good or bad.

I don't take a stand on preventing a life to "occur", and, since I believe that life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg, my motivation to stop abortion is not one of wishing to be "holier than" anyone, but to save lives that already exist. 



For your rhetorical entertainment, though, if I may, some opposing red herrings that I could propose:


If someone thinks that abortion is acceptable at 20 weeks gestation, because the baby is not fully formed, then abortion must be acceptable right up until 24 or 25 years of age, when growth generally terminates. In fact, since many of us continue to grow right through old age (thinking bottoms and bellies), then abortion should be an option right on through to natural death. I'm not sure who's choice that should be, but, since I'm all for "choice" for all, I say that anyone, at any time, can make that "choice".

If someone thinks that abortion is acceptable because the developing baby is parasitic on the mother, and it is, therefore, her choice to continue to carry the parasite or not, then it must be acceptable to "abort" on up to 2 or 3 years of age. I mean, all mammals continue to be indirectly parasitic on their parents for some time; being 2 or 3 years (arguably more) in humans. If the parents decide that they're tired of the whining and depending on them for food, shouldn't it be their "choice" to kill the child and end the parasitic relationship? This should be an option right up to the age where you could reasonably expect the child to survive on their own, if set down on the ground in the woods. At any age beyond this, should the parent "choose" to end the diminishingly-parasitic relationship, they can set their child down on the ground in the woods and walk away.


I could propose those, but I don't find that red herrings generally do much to advance a topic, so I won't argue either of those. You can feel free to use either of them, if you like, though.


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> It's a little creepy when you think about it. If it's Gods will that you're thwarting then doesn't it stand to reason that it's Gods will you're having sex? And then you can go ahead and tell your wife or husband that they are going against God if they have a headache? Which I'm guessing people already do.
> 
> I may not be making sense. Need more coffee.


Actually you are making perfect sense.


----------



## gapeach

You can make words mean anything you want them too. Life isn't a level playing field for sure. On the other hand, there are many people who would gladly take that unwanted baby if the mother would allow him/her to live in her incubator womb for a few more weeks.
She would be giving the greatest gift that she could possibly give. Life.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, it is a red herring, by definition. You can take that with the negative connotation if you like, your call, but it is just another tactic for trying to make your point - good or bad.
> 
> *I don't take a stand on preventing a life to "occur", and, since I believe that life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg, *my motivation to stop abortion is not one of wishing to be "holier than" anyone, but to save lives that already exist.
> 
> 
> 
> For your rhetorical entertainment, though, if I may, some opposing red herrings that I could propose:
> 
> 
> If someone thinks that abortion is acceptable at 20 weeks gestation, because the baby is not fully formed, then abortion must be acceptable right up until 24 or 25 years of age, when growth generally terminates. In fact, since many of us continue to grow right through old age (thinking bottoms and bellies), then abortion should be an option right on through to natural death. I'm not sure who's choice that should be, but, since I'm all for "choice" for all, I say that anyone, at any time, can make that "choice".
> 
> If someone thinks that abortion is acceptable because the developing baby is parasitic on the mother, and it is, therefore, her choice to continue to carry the parasite or not, then it must be acceptable to "abort" on up to 2 or 3 years of age. I mean, all mammals continue to be indirectly parasitic on their parents for some time; being 2 or 3 years (arguably more) in humans. If the parents decide that they're tired of the whining and depending on them for food, shouldn't it be their "choice" to kill the child and end the parasitic relationship? This should be an option right up to the age where you could reasonably expect the child to survive on their own, if set down on the ground in the woods. At any age beyond this, should the parent "choose" to end the diminishingly-parasitic relationship, they can set their child down on the ground in the woods and walk away.
> 
> 
> I could propose those, but I don't find that red herrings generally do much to advance a topic, so I won't argue either of those. You can feel free to use either of them, if you like, though.


It's my understanding that quite a few place the beginning of life at conception... And that's fine too, but what makes that moment any different than any other part of a rather lengthy process required to provide that puppy with someone to pull its tail? I have posted a couple times now that life began..... Many generations back and is simply regenerating itself.... There really is no "new" life... Just a continuation of the same life that's been going on for centuries. If there is a beginning of new life then in my mind it would almost certainly be when that egg drops into the hopper and awaits that visit from the sperm.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's my understanding that quite a few place the beginning of life at conception... And that's fine too, but what makes that moment any different than any other part of a rather lengthy process required to provide that puppy with someone to pull its tail? I have posted a couple times now that life began..... Many generations back and is simply regenerating itself.... There really is no "new" life... Just a continuation of the same life that's been going on for centuries. If there is a beginning of new life then in my mind it would almost certainly be when that egg drops into the hopper and awaits that visit from the sperm.


And this would mean that to preserve life at all costs, women should be married at 12 or 13. Heck, even earlier given precocious puberty in many girls. Don't want those eggs to go to waste. Promoting abstinence till marriage in 20's is surely thwarting Gods will.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> You can make words mean anything you want them too. Life isn't a level playing field for sure. On the other hand, there are many people who would gladly take that unwanted baby if the mother would allow him/her to live in her incubator womb for a few more weeks.
> She would be giving the greatest gift that she could possibly give. Life.


Yeppers, I guess that's why there are so few kids needing to be adopted.


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> And this would mean that to preserve life at all costs, women should be married at 12 or 13. Heck, even earlier given precocious puberty in many girls. Don't want those eggs to go to waste. Promoting abstinence till marriage in 20's is surely thwarting Gods will.


(In my best proper English accent) By Jove.... I do believe he's got it!


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> A sperm or egg by themselves are not a human.... But when brought together they quite often produce a human... The act of deliberately keeping them apart Denys that human their right to life every bit as much as any other method of preventing a live birth.


You admit that an egg or sperm are not human then claim that preventing conception is denying 'that human' their right to life?

_What_ human? You just admitted that there is no human, only an egg and a sperm! 

The logic in here gets more illogical every day. :stars:


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> (In my best proper English accent) By Jove.... I do believe he's got it!


She. 

But then if you're following the will of God about bringing life into the world with no interference...what about interfering with gods will in letting it leave? No medical intervention? And isn't trying to save at risk pregnancies and preemies also interfering with his will?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Txsteader said:


> You admit that an egg or sperm are not human then claim that preventing conception is denying 'that human' their right to life?
> 
> _What_ human? You just admitted that there is no human, only an egg and a sperm!
> 
> The logic in here gets more illogical every day. :stars:


No, it's the potential for a human...just like the embryo is not a human yet, it's a potential human. It depends on another humans body to become human like a sperm and egg depend on the act of coitus to become a human.


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> She.
> 
> But then if you're following the will of God about bringing life into the world with no interference...what about interfering with gods will in letting it leave? No medical intervention? And isn't trying to save at risk pregnancies and preemies also interfering with his will?


Oops! Sorry about that, I really need to pay more attention to who I am posting to instead of just the topic I am posting about. 

I am very much in favor of death with dignity if that is what you are asking.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oops! Sorry about that, I really need to pay more attention to who I am posting to instead of just the topic I am posting about.
> 
> I am very much in favor of death with dignity if that is what you are asking.


No, I figured. Just trying to play out the logical consequences of making sex about Gods will. Wondering aloud. Seems like many of the religious want to use his will for one thing but not the other.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> You admit that an egg or sperm are not human then claim that preventing conception is denying 'that human' their right to life?
> 
> _What_ human? You just admitted that there is no human, only an egg and a sperm!
> 
> The logic in here gets more illogical every day. :stars:


i was referring to the human that would have been playing with that puppy had the woman gotten busy and gotten that egg and sperm together. But you Knew that.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It's my understanding that quite a few place the beginning of life at conception... And that's fine too, but what makes that moment any different than any other part of a rather lengthy process required to provide that puppy with someone to pull its tail? .


The moment of conception is different than "any other part of the lengthy process" because it is the moment where life that _is_ has entered the equation, rather than merely life _that could be_.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have posted a couple times now that life began..... Many generations back and is simply regenerating itself.... There really is no "new" life... Just a continuation of the same life that's been going on for centuries. If there is a beginning of new life then in my mind it would almost certainly be when that egg drops into the hopper and awaits that visit from the sperm.


That's a very unique standpoint that, if genuine, would be a terrible moral burden. If its the red herring, which you've already illustrated it is, then it's just an untenable position with only philosophical value. If that's the line of reasoning you'd like to argue, then I'm more than happy to, though I don't see it taking our conversation to any place worth taking it. 

So, allowing for other red herrings (I'll leave strawmen out until you indicate you want those in the discussion as well), I'll play.

If there is no such thing as "new" life, then there is no difference between a child developing in the womb and an egg or sperm. 

If there is no difference between a child developing in the womb, an egg or a sperm, then there is no difference between an egg/sperm and a protein molecule. 

If there is no difference between an egg/sperm and a protein molecule, then there is no difference between a protein molecule and a carbon atom. 

If there is no difference between a protein molecule and a carbon atom, then there is no difference between a carbon atom and you.

If there is no difference between a carbon atom and you, then there is no difference between you and me. 

If there is no difference between you and me, there is no difference between me and Rachel Goldstein.

If there is no difference between Rachel Goldstein and me, then there is no difference between living in NC, USA in 2015 and being killed by an errant tank round in Poland in 1939.

If there is no difference between living in NC, USA in 2015 and being killed by an errant tank round in Poland in 1939, then there is no difference between living and being killed.

If there is no difference between living and being killed, then there is no difference between killing an individual and killing an entire species. 

If there is no difference between killing an individual and an entire species, then there is no difference between an individual and a species.

If there is no difference between an individual and an entire species, then there is no individual life, only a continuum *"of life the same life that's been going on for centuries."*

If all life is a continuum, and there is no individual life, then any act of killing is irrelevant, assuming it leaves behind at least one single amoeba capable of replicating itself. Mass murder has never happened.


Of course, there is a difference between a carbon atom and you. A carbon atom never cast a red herring.


----------



## Guest

basketti said:


> No, I figured. Just trying to play out the logical consequences of making sex about Gods will. Wondering aloud. Seems like many of the religious want to use his will for one thing but not the other.


Just curious, is it your wish that those who claim religious beliefs should follow only your interpretation of their faith? 

I will say my opposition to abortion at any stage is mine alone, my opposition to government involvement is the same, do not force me to pay or condone it. If a woman wishes to terminate a pregnancy that is her action and her consequences alone. 

I will say it is entertaining but disturbing reading all the "logical" banter on a subject so morose.


----------



## Txsteader

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i was referring to the human that would have been playing with that puppy had the woman gotten busy and gotten that egg and sperm together. But you Knew that.


No, you readily admitted that an egg or sperm, by themselves, are not a human being. ETA: Until the point of conception, they are merely an egg and a sperm.

You're going to twist yourself into a pretzel if you keep trying to defend that logic.


----------



## Shine

...wasn't that Albuquerque we just passed? I think we should'a taken a left...


----------



## gapeach

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, I guess that's why there are so few kids needing to be adopted.



The adoption world changed when women started having abortions like they are going out of style. Fertility problems are still there but with invitro fertilization the people who can afford it can have the baby they badly want. There will always be older children for adoption because those children are tied up with family court and being unable for adoption, some until they become of age. There are many, many people who would love to adopt but cannot pay for lawyers fees both for parents and mother plus her doctors and hospitalization costs. That is why so many people go out of the country to adopt and it is still very expensive.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gapeach said:


> The adoption world changed when women started having abortions like they are going out of style. Fertility problems are still there but with invitro fertilization the people who can afford it can have the baby they badly want. There will always be older children for adoption because those children are tied up with family court and being unable for adoption, some until they become of age. There are many, many people who would love to adopt but cannot pay for lawyers fees both for parents and mother plus her doctors and hospitalization costs. That is why so many people go out of the country to adopt and it is still very expensive.


So now unwilling women are supposed to be broodmares for the infertile? Have you ever read The Handmaid's Tale?


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The moment of conception is different than "any other part of the lengthy process" because it is the moment where life that _is_ has entered the equation, rather than merely life _that could be_.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a very unique standpoint that, if genuine, would be a terrible moral burden. If its the red herring, which you've already illustrated it is, then it's just an untenable position with only philosophical value. If that's the line of reasoning you'd like to argue, then I'm more than happy to, though I don't see it taking our conversation to any place worth taking it.
> 
> So, allowing for other red herrings (I'll leave strawmen out until you indicate you want those in the discussion as well), I'll play.
> 
> If there is no such thing as "new" life, then there is no difference between a child developing in the womb and an egg or sperm.
> 
> If there is no difference between a child developing in the womb, an egg or a sperm, then there is no difference between an egg/sperm and a protein molecule.


You were doing ok until this part.... You and I both know that there is a huge difference twixt an embryo and a single protein molecule thus rendering the rest of that diatribe moot.

As to conception being a magic moment..... The same could be said for the moment of drawing a first breath., or the moment the egg drops. That egg as well as the sperm are very much alive... Just like every other live cell in ones body.


----------



## gapeach

basketti said:


> So now unwilling women are supposed to be broodmares for the infertile? Have you ever read The Handmaid's Tale?


I don't think any mother who gave her baby up for adoption thought of herself as a brood mare. She gave the ultimate gift to her child, life and a good home. Only in the last few years have single parents been able to adopt which I think is wonderful.  Caseworkers are very particular about the people that they place babies with. Everybody does not get approved.


----------



## Evons hubby

Txsteader said:


> No, you readily admitted that an egg or sperm, by themselves, are not a human being. ETA: Until the point of conception, they are merely an egg and a sperm.
> 
> You're going to twist yourself into a pretzel if you keep trying to defend that logic.


I also maintain that an embryo by itself will never play with any puppies. I am not twisting anything, perhaps you are having trouble wrapping your mind around a concept other than what you've always believed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

gapeach said:


> You can make words mean anything you want them too. Life isn't a level playing field for sure. On the other hand, there are *many people who would gladly take that unwanted baby* if the mother would allow him/her to live in her incubator womb for a few more weeks.
> She would be giving the greatest gift that she could possibly give. Life.


And yet there are still orphanages and foster homes because there are too many children now.

That also doesn't include those dying of starvation in third world countries


----------



## Cornhusker

Bearfootfarm said:


> And yet there are still orphanages and foster homes because there are too many children now.
> 
> That also doesn't include those dying of starvation in third world countries


Just wait, democrats will extend abortion into the 4th and 5th trimester, problem solved.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> The adoption world changed when women started having abortions like they are going out of style. Fertility problems are still there but with invitro fertilization the people who can afford it can have the baby they badly want. There will always be older children for adoption


I think birth control pills probably had more to do with the live birth rate than abortion becoming legal. And what's wrong with adopting older kids? Or crack babies? There seems to be no shortage of them.


----------



## gapeach

You might get a big surprise if you tried to adopt an older child. It is not not that easy. They still try to match the child with the adoptive parents and I have known people who waited a very long time even when they were foster parents to the child or children in their case, 2 brothers. Not only that but you have to be financially secure. It just is not that easy. I don't about orphanages. Around here they have all closed. There are plenty of children in the system in Florida but many have emotional problems and agencies have qualifications for those children. It is a long drawn out process and even takes another year of probation with home visits after a child is placed.

Have women stopped using birth control pills? They work in most cases. Not when you don't have the responsibility to take them correctly.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> You might get a big surprise if you tried to adopt an older child. It is not not that easy. They still try to match the child with the adoptive parents and I have known people who waited a very long time even when they were foster parents to the child or children in their case, 2 brothers. Not only that but you have to be financially secure. It just is not that easy. I don't about orphanages. Around here they have all closed. There are plenty of children in the system in Florida but many have emotional problems and agencies have qualifications for those children. It is a long drawn out process and even takes another year of probation with home visits after a child is placed.
> 
> Have women stopped using birth control pills? They work in most cases. Not when you don't have the responsibility to take them correctly.


97percent success rate was the last number I heard. (if taken properly) That sure beats abstinence. It does however leave those other three percent with an unwanted situation.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gapeach said:


> I don't think any mother who gave her baby up for adoption thought of herself as a brood mare. She gave the ultimate gift to her child, life and a good home. Only in the last few years have single parents been able to adopt which I think is wonderful. Caseworkers are very particular about the people that they place babies with. Everybody does not get approved.


It's only a gift if she CHOOSES to give it. Otherwise you're implying that because there are infertile folks, a pregnant woman has a duty to carry a pregnancy to furnish the infertile with a child.


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> It's only a gift if she CHOOSES to give it. Otherwise you're implying that because there are infertile folks, a pregnant woman has a duty to carry a pregnancy to furnish the infertile with a child.


I am getting a bit confused.... First we are told a woman should take an unwanted pregnancy to full term so those who want a child can adopt it. Lots of those moms out there, then we are told they can't adopt kids coz it's too expensive, legal issues etc. so which is it? Do we have ready willing and able parents to take these kids or not?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am getting a bit confused.... First we are told a woman should take an unwanted pregnancy to full term so those who want a child can adopt it. Lots of those moms out there, then we are told they can't adopt kids coz it's too expensive, legal issues etc. so which is it? Do we have ready willing and able parents to take these kids or not?


Search me. :shrug::shrug:

I still think it's a control issue. Some people can't rest till they have power over another person.


----------



## Evons hubby

basketti said:


> Search me. :shrug::shrug:
> 
> I still think it's a control issue. Some people can't rest till they have power over another person.


Upon that we are in complete agreement.... If you are a meddler..... It's what you do.


----------



## gapeach

You all are trying the old switcheroo. Put it back on the people who want to adopt. I said that the birth mother who chooses adoption for her baby is giving the child they greatest gift that she could give to the child, complete unselfish love, wanting a better life for her child that she could not give her/him.

You have your pro-abortion minds made up. That is why you are still sounding your broken records. :boring:  84 pages and counting.


----------



## Lisa in WA

gapeach said:


> You might get a big surprise if you tried to adopt an older child. It is not not that easy. They still try to match the child with the adoptive parents and I have known people who waited a very long time even when they were foster parents to the child or children in their case, 2 brothers. Not only that but you have to be financially secure. It just is not that easy. I don't about orphanages. Around here they have all closed. There are plenty of children in the system in Florida but many have emotional problems and agencies have qualifications for those children. It is a long drawn out process and even takes another year of probation with home visits after a child is placed.
> 
> Have women stopped using birth control pills? They work in most cases. Not when you don't have the responsibility to take them correctly.


Do you support sex education in schools and readily available birth control for teenagers?


----------



## gapeach

I support sex education in schools as along as boys and girls are taught in separate classes. I do not support birth control for any girl under 17 unless it is prescribed for her from her own doctor with her parents knowledge.


That is the way I raised my daughter even though some of her classmates were getting the pill from PP without their parents knowledge. My daughter told me which ones were getting the pill from PP.


----------



## Jolly

basketti said:


> Do you support sex education in schools and readily available birth control for teenagers?


Do you support orphanages?


----------



## Cornhusker

84 pages and nobody has changed their mind :smack


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You were doing ok until this part.... You and I both know that there is a huge difference twixt an embryo and a single protein molecule thus rendering the rest of that diatribe moot.


No, with your red herring sitting here in the boat betwixt us, we both know that an embryo and a single protein molecule are exactly the same....

Remember your herring?


Yvonne's hubby said:


> .... Lemme try one more time. Is that not the same as denying that same persons right to play with puppy's and chase butterflies, by deliberately choosing to let that egg die before it even gets a chance to be fertilized? Both decisions produce exactly the same results.... The pet shop won't be selling that puppy.


If the parent deliberately chooses to not eat the piece of meat their bodies would convert into the egg/sperm, then, philosophically analogous to your herring, the egg/sperm would never form, and the puppy would never sell. 

That is, unless we're ready to release the herring back into the water.
Then we're both obviously just being silly.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> As to conception being a magic moment..... The same could be said for the moment of drawing a first breath., or the moment the egg drops. That egg as well as the sperm are very much alive... Just like every other live cell in ones body.


Eggs and sperm are exactly as "very much alive" as my finger is. My finger, and my sperm are both part of my body, but not a life of their own. Once my sperm fertilizes an egg, then the thing they create is a life. The moment that that occurs is a logical point of origin for the beginning of life but, obviously, not universally accepted as such. 

Perhaps the first breath should be, but then, a moment before birth, and for MANY moments before that, those very same lungs are capable of drawing a breath, they just haven't been exposed to an environment yet where they can. 

The moment before the first moment of viability for those lungs, they are only a moment away from being viable, and, allowed to develop for one more moment would be ready to draw breath. 

The moment before the first lung cell develops, that baby is just a moment away from building its own lungs. 

Taken back to the moment before the second cell, the moment of conception is the first moment that he recipe for that human was written. A mother and a father chose to put their two unique haves of the story together and complete the recipe. 

Once they've made that choice, their choice has been made. The human's recipe is written and the *life* has begun building itself. Choosing to end it even a single second after that is only making the choice to forgo the consequences of the choice they made the moment before.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> 97percent success rate was the last number I heard. (if taken properly) That sure beats abstinence. It does however leave those other three percent with an unwanted situation.


The failure rate for BC pills is 9%


----------



## Lisa in WA

gapeach said:


> I support sex education in schools as along as boys and girls are taught in separate classes. I do not support birth control for any girl under 17 unless it is prescribed for her from her own doctor with her parents knowledge.
> 
> 
> That is the way I raised my daughter even though some of her classmates were getting the pill from PP without their parents knowledge. My daughter told me which ones were getting the pill from PP.


Then what about the girls who don't have parental permission getting pregnant?
Forced by parents to carry the pregnancy to term? Then do they get to keep it or do the parents decide whether the baby goes up for adoption?
And if the teen mom keeps it, you're prepared to chip in to raise it. You as in taxpayer.


----------



## Evons hubby

gapeach said:


> You all are trying the old switcheroo. Put it back on the people who want to adopt. I said that the birth mother who chooses adoption for her baby is giving the child they greatest gift that she could give to the child, complete unselfish love, wanting a better life for her child that she could not give her/him.
> 
> You have your pro-abortion minds made up. That is why you are still sounding your broken records. :boring:  84 pages and counting.


I am not pro abortion any more than you are prolife. I do believe that everyone should have the right to choose their own birth control methods from abstinence to abortion. Anyone who is truly prolife would be doing everything in their power to make sure they conceive every time they ovulate.... So far I haven't heard any one on this board chiming in to say they have done so. Everyone so far has offered up the various choices they make for themselves.... And even some posters here would impose their own choice upon others. What makes anyone's choice to prevent a child any more "moral" than anyone else's!?!?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Jolly said:


> Do you support orphanages?


I support the right to a legal and safe abortion. 

For true orphans, yes...better able to watch over than foster care. But I prefer government regulated orphanages with lots and lots of oversight. Nothing Dickensian.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Anyone who is truly prolife would be doing everything in their power to make sure they conceive every time they ovulate.... !?!?


So you're sticking with your red herring. Can we go back to straw men arguments, they're at least more fun and vitriolic.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> And even some posters here would impose their own choice upon others. What makes anyone's choice to prevent a child any more "moral" than anyone else's!?!?


You're right that no method to "prevent a child" is more "moral" than any other. "Preventing" a child is not immoral, however "killing" one is.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Once they've made that choice, their choice has been made. The human's recipe is written and the *life* has begun building itself. Choosing to end it even a single second after that is only making the choice to forgo the consequences of the choice they made the moment before.


You are aware I presume that not everyone is making the choice to bring a baby into the game just because they happen to copulate? Do you really believe that every one that walks into grand central station plans to take the 3:57 train to Boston?


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So you're sticking with your red herring. Can we go back to straw men arguments, they're at least more fun and vitriolic.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right that no method to "prevent a child" is more "moral" than any other. "Preventing" a child is not immoral, however "killing" one is.


Again with the red herring garbage..... There is no fish, herring or trout or any other kind in my basket.

I am glad you agree that killing a child is immoral. "Killing a fetus" is another entirely different matter. You have no say in what any woman opts to do with her fetus and to attempt to violate her rights is every bit as immoral as she would be to impose her choices upon you.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are aware I presume that not everyone is making the choice to bring a baby into the game just because they happen to copulate? Do you really believe that every one that walks into grand central station plans to take the 3:57 train to Boston?


I am aware of your presumption, and I, neither, presume that "everyone is making the choice to bring a baby into the game just because they happen to copulate?" (re-quoted in my statement because you used the passive implication of _happen to_).

However, with the exception of rape, everyone who "brings a baby into the game" made the _choice_ to have sex. The possible pregnancy is a natural consequence that is only brought about by the act that, again, excepting in the case of rape, is only brought about by that _choice._

Not everyone who skydives _plans_ to hit the ground with a failed parachute. Their _choice_ was to jump out of the plane, and one possible consequence of that is dying when you hit the ground.

A bank-robber hasn't made a choice to go to prison by walking into the bank with a gun. They made a choice to rob the bank. If they end up caught, they don't get to make the "choice" to not go to jail. 

Consequences come about because of the actions we _choose_ to take. Whether that consequence is a punishment or a blessing, in the case of a pregnancy, is subjective. An easy and convenient answer, for those who find the consequence inconvenient, is to terminate the consequence. The problem, in the case we're discussing, is that the only way to terminate the consequence is to terminate a life.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Again with the red herring garbage..... There is no fish, herring or trout or any other kind in my basket.


This is the continuation of your red herring argument.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Anyone who is truly prolife would be doing everything in their power to make sure they conceive every time they ovulate....


It's an argument that is a logical fallacy intended to mislead the conversation.

Similar to a straw-man, where the debater sets up a claim that was never made by the opposition, in order to tear it down in order to appear as having debunked the opposition's actual argument, your red herring is a logical fallacy, based (falsely) on the opposition's argument, in order to lead the conversation down an absurd path in order to apply that absurdity to your opposition's argument.

There are a few on the pro-life side of the debate who believe that pregnancy-control is a sin, whether for coopting God's will or for having intercourse for reasons of pleasure, but that is clearly not the view of all/most of us. But, even within the segment of pro-lifers that do believe that way, I've never seen one that equated the sin of pregnancy-control with the sin of killing of the unborn. 

The argument that you've been carrying these last 10 or so pages has been that those on the pro-life side (without allowing exception in your rhetoric)should have just as much problem with any single egg or sperm failing to result in a fertilization as they do with an unborn baby being killed.

That's a logical fallacy intended to distract the discussion from the actual position the pro-lifers participating here which is, as I've read it, that they support the choice for pregnancy-control, but not the "choice" of killing the unborn.

That's your red herring. Even if you don't like what it's called, it is what it is.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> This is the continuation of your red herring argument
> It's an argument that is a logical fallacy intended to mislead the conversation.


I might go along with you if it was a logical fallacy.... Which you seem to think it is. My argument is perfectly logical to a logical minded person.... I can see where those who are more geared to either emotional thought patterns or simply believe whatever their respected mentors tell them might have trouble accepting a new train of thought. That does not however change the facts. Preventing conception by whatever means has exactly the same affect as does a late term abortion..... Put a hold on that puppy, there isn't going to be a child to play with it. You can twist and turn and spin it any way you want but that's going to be a lonely puppy either way.


----------



## Shine

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I might go along with you if it was a logical fallacy.... Which you seem to think it is. My argument is perfectly logical to a logical minded person.... I can see where those who are more geared to either emotional thought patterns or simply believe whatever their respected mentors tell them might have trouble accepting a new train of thought. That does not however change the facts. Preventing conception by whatever means has exactly the same affect as does a late term abortion..... Put a hold on that puppy, there isn't going to be a child to play with it. You can twist and turn and spin it any way you want but that's going to be a lonely puppy either way.


I too vote that this is not logic but a display of illogic. I do not think that I am aware of any pro-lifer who wants the sperm protected, or wants the unfertilized egg protected, I heard the premise here first. I believe that you are the originator of this argument regarding the sperm and the unfertilized egg. I do not understand which direction that you're are going with it if you are not trying to muddy the waters.

If you are trying to muddy the waters - well then... attaboy!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> If you are trying to muddy the waters - well then... *attagirl*!


You just called a man a woman

You need to report yourself for that *deliberate* "insult"


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> You just called a man a woman
> 
> You need to report yourself for that "insult"


You are correct, I keep seeing Yvonne as the first part.

I apologize to the hubby.

[see how you do that?]

Oh, you screwed up the "deliberate" part... lol


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> .... I can see where those who are more geared to either emotional thought patterns or simply believe whatever their respected mentors tell them might have trouble accepting a new train of thought.


I can only assume this is directed at me, since I'm being quoted, but I'm not sure how you infer that I am mindlessly following what some "respected mentors tell [_me_]". Care to point out who you think those mentors of mine might be?



Yvonne's hubby said:


> I might go along with you if it was a logical fallacy.... Which you seem to think it is. My argument is perfectly logical to a logical minded person.... Preventing conception by whatever means has exactly the same affect as does a late term abortion..... Put a hold on that puppy, there isn't going to be a child to play with it. You can twist and turn and spin it any way you want but that's going to be a lonely puppy either way.


And, for the sake of playing along, I posited the "_If x is the same as y, then y is the same as z..."_ post that you dismissed as absurdity. But, if the object of the discussion is the prevention of things that _could be_, then my argument that the father forgoing the steak containing the extra protein molecule that would produce the extra sperm, thus preventing the like that could have been, is exactly the same argument. 

Likewise, breaking up with your college girl-friend before you could get in that one last romp creates exactly the same situation. Not racking it out with your neighbor's wife that night at the pool party when she was giving you the eye creates exactly the same situation. Deciding not to hook up with your big sister that summer when your mother went back to work and you were left alone so much creates the exact same situation. 

You want I should go on?

I don't care to, because my argument was NEVER about preventing the life that could be. In fact, I don't recall anyone _but you_ making that argument. Everyone on the pro-life side, and, in fact, everyone I've EVER heard on the pro-life side, has made the argument about the wrong of snuffing out life that already is. 

That argument has been your device throughout this discussion. It's impracticality resides in a metaphysical morass that can't even be reconciled by quantum theory, so, until there is something else to substantiate it, or someone on the pro-life who wishes to subscribe to your concern, it is a logical fallacy who's only place in this debate is to mislead the discussion.

Ladies and gentlemen...Mr. Yvonne's red herring.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> You are correct, I keep seeing Yvonne as the first part.
> 
> I apologize to the hubby.
> 
> [see how you do that?]
> 
> Oh, you screwed up the "deliberate" part... lol


It must have been deliberate since his name clearly indicates the gender

Did you report yourself or is it not an "insult" when you do it?


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> I support the right to a legal and safe abortion.
> 
> For true orphans, yes...better able to watch over than foster care. But I prefer government regulated orphanages with lots and lots of oversight. Nothing Dickensian.


The same government that can't put together a website, keep track of guns they gave away or find corruption in the IRS even when given the names?
That government?


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> I too vote that this is not logic but a display of illogic. I do not think that I am aware of any pro-lifer who wants the sperm protected, or wants the unfertilized egg protected, I heard the premise here first. I believe that you are the originator of this argument regarding the sperm and the unfertilized egg.


Of course you haven't heard the prolifers begging to have those eggs fertilized at every opportunity, that would put them in a rather sticky position. They would have to admit that their stance is not really prolife at all, but prochoice, as long as they are the ones that get to make those choices and set the parameters for others choices. It would show the real hypocrisy of there code of morality. And yep that would shore nuff rile the waters. I do admit to being the originator of this method of exposing the fraudulent "morality" the prolifers insist upon imposing on others.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> You are correct, I keep seeing Yvonne as the first part.
> 
> I apologize to the hubby.
> 
> [see how you do that?]
> 
> Oh, you screwed up the "deliberate" part... lol


That's ok, yer new here, you'll sort out who I am in due time.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I can only assume this is directed at me, since I'm being quoted, but I'm not sure how you infer that I am mindlessly following what some "respected mentors tell [_me_]". Care to point out who you think those mentors of mine might be?
> 
> 
> 
> And, for the sake of playing along, I posited the "_If x is the same as y, then y is the same as z..."_ post that you dismissed as absurdity. But, if the object of the discussion is the prevention of things that _could be_, then my argument that the father forgoing the steak containing the extra protein molecule that would produce the extra sperm, thus preventing the like that could have been, is exactly the same argument.
> 
> Likewise, breaking up with your college girl-friend before you could get in that one last romp creates exactly the same situation. Not racking it out with your neighbor's wife that night at the pool party when she was giving you the eye creates exactly the same situation. Deciding not to hook up with your big sister that summer when your mother went back to work and you were left alone so much creates the exact same situation.
> 
> You want I should go on?
> 
> I don't care to, because my argument was NEVER about preventing the life that could be. In fact, I don't recall anyone _but you_ making that argument. Everyone on the pro-life side, and, in fact, everyone I've EVER heard on the pro-life side, has made the argument about the wrong of snuffing out life that already is.
> 
> That argument has been your device throughout this discussion. It's impracticality resides in a metaphysical morass that can't even be reconciled by quantum theory, so, until there is something else to substantiate it, or someone on the pro-life who wishes to subscribe to your concern, it is a logical fallacy who's only place in this debate is to mislead the discussion.
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen...Mr. Yvonne's red herring.


i wasn't directing that at you personally but rather to a general audience which would include those who swallow whatever nonsense their respected mentors tell them. For lack of a better description.... meddlers.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> .... I can see where those who are more geared to either emotional thought patterns or simply believe whatever their respected mentors tell them might have trouble accepting a new train of thought...





GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I can only assume this is directed at me, since I'm being quoted, but I'm not sure how you infer that I am mindlessly following what some "respected mentors tell [_me_]". Care to point out who you think those mentors of mine might be?





Yvonne's hubby said:


> i wasn't directing that at you personally but rather to a general audience which would include those who swallow whatever nonsense their respected mentors tell them. For lack of a better description.... meddlers.


Oh.
I see.

You meant "meddlers". 

Like Oskar Schindler, Harriet Tubman, and John Rabe.

In that case, my question is the same; care to point me to the mentors you think they were mindlessly following the advice of?

I've got some reading to do.
I'd REALLY like to hear what their mentors had to say.



Thanks in advance, Mr. Yvonne.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course you haven't heard the prolifers begging to have those eggs fertilized at every opportunity, that would put them in a rather sticky position. They would have to admit that their stance is not really prolife at all, but prochoice, as long as they are the ones that get to make those choices and set the parameters for others choices. It would show the real hypocrisy of there code of morality. And yep that would shore nuff rile the waters. I do admit to being the originator of this method of exposing the fraudulent "morality" the prolifers insist upon imposing on others.


...and I addressed this point as well, when I was helping you carry the herring. It's getting kinda stinky, BTW, but here goes.


Remember, it's of no consequence to kill the unborn because there is no new life since....


Yvonne's hubby said:


> ... life began.... Many generations back and is simply regenerating itself.... There really is no "new" life... Just a continuation of the same life that's been going on for centuries.


And, therefore...


GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ...If there is no such thing as "new" life, then there is no difference between a child developing in the womb and an egg or sperm.
> 
> If there is no difference between a child developing in the womb, an egg or a sperm, then there is no difference between an egg/sperm and a protein molecule...
> 
> ...
> ...
> ...
> 
> ...If there is no difference between killing an individual and an entire species, then there is no difference between an individual and a species.
> 
> If there is no difference between an individual and an entire species, then there is no individual life, only a continuum *"of life the same life that's been going on for centuries."*
> 
> If all life is a continuum, and there is no individual life, then any act of killing is irrelevant, assuming it leaves behind at least one single amoeba capable of replicating itself. Mass murder has never happened.


So, by way of the logic you're applying to the pro-life, being "hypocrites" if they don't fight equally to protect every egg and sperm that _could_ become a life, then the "pro-choicers" must be morally obligated to support everyone's choice to kill _anyone, at any time, for any reason_. There's no new life, and they're not interrupting the continuum of life, they're just exercising their choice.

Why would you try to _meddle_ in anyone's business and try to circumvent their _choice_? 

You're not a hypocritical meddling control-freak are you?



Can we put this fish back in the water now? It's really starting to stink.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ...and I addressed this point as well, when I was helping you carry the herring. It's getting kinda stinky, BTW, but here goes.
> 
> 
> Remember, it's of no consequence to kill the unborn because there is no new life since....
> 
> 
> And, therefore...
> 
> 
> So, by way of the logic you're applying to the pro-life, being "hypocrites" if they don't fight equally to protect every egg and sperm that _could_ become a life, then the "pro-choicers" must be morally obligated to support everyone's choice to kill _anyone, at any time, for any reason_. There's no new life, and they're not interrupting the continuum of life, they're just exercising their choice.
> 
> Why would you try to _meddle_ in anyone's business and try to circumvent their _choice_?
> 
> You're not a hypocritical meddling control-freak are you?
> 
> 
> 
> *Can we put this fish back in the water now? It's really starting to stink.*


This is your fish, not mine, do with it as you please.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Oh.
> I see.
> 
> You meant "meddlers".
> 
> Like Oskar Schindler, Harriet Tubman, and John Rabe.
> 
> In that case, my question is the same; care to point me to the mentors you think they were mindlessly following the advice of?
> 
> I've got some reading to do.
> I'd REALLY like to hear what their mentors had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance, Mr. Yvonne.


nope that's not who I was talking about either... I was referring to those who blindly believe in what ever their preacher tell them. People like my dear departed granny.... Always meddling in others business and would have jumped off a cliff if the preacher told her to.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Oh.
> I see.
> 
> You meant "meddlers".
> 
> Like Oskar Schindler, Harriet Tubman, and John Rabe.
> 
> In that case, my question is the same; care to point me to the mentors you think they were mindlessly following the advice of?
> 
> I've got some reading to do.
> I'd REALLY like to hear what their mentors had to say.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance, Mr. Yvonne.





Yvonne's hubby said:


> nope that's not who I was talking about either... I was referring to those who blindly believe in what ever their preacher tell them. People like my dear departed granny.... Always meddling in others business and would have jumped off a cliff if the preacher told her to.


hmmmm....
I guess I see. You weren't talking about "meddlers" categorically, though your quote was about them as a category of people. You were just talking about your granny, though she hasn't come up anywhere else in this discussion....when you quoted me and made your statement about "meddlers".

So I guess Schindler, Rabe, Tubman, and those of us who are speaking out against the currently legal practice of killing unborn children are the good kind of meddlers? Just your granny that you had a problem with?

That's odd, but I'm glad we cleared that up.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is your fish, not mine, do with it as you please.


So, if the extension of your logic is NOT a red herring, then you agree that the only way to reconcile the assertion that "pro-lifers" MUST be against any act that results in a single egg or sperm failing to succeed according to the intention of their design, is to accept that it also means that "pro-choicers" must support everyone's choice to kill any one at any time, lest they risk being hypocrites meddling with others' right to choice? 

Glad we cleared that one up, too.



Back to the regularly scheduled programing.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> So, if the extension of your logic is NOT a red herring, then you agree that the only way to reconcile the assertion that "pro-lifers" MUST be against any act that results in a single egg or sperm failing to succeed according to the intention of their design, is to accept that it also means that "pro-choicers" must support everyone's choice to kill any one at any time, lest they risk being hypocrites meddling with others' right to choice?


wrong again... You might be better served to read my words without adding what you think I said to them. I have never said pro choisers must support anything. That seems to be your position, not mine.


----------



## kasilofhome

I pro responsibility.

If your not ready to be a parent your not ready to have unprotected sex.

There are lots of options

Just because someone apply and states what is my position for does not make them correct. 

I have no problems with fertilization not happening there is no death of a new life when there is no fertilization.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> hmmmm....
> I guess I see. You weren't talking about "meddlers" categorically, though your quote was about them as a category of people. You were just talking about your granny, though she hasn't come up anywhere else in this discussion....when you quoted me and made your statement about "meddlers".
> 
> So I guess Schindler, Rabe, Tubman, and those of us who are speaking out against the currently legal practice of killing unborn children are the good kind of meddlers? Just your granny that you had a problem with?
> 
> That's odd, but I'm glad we cleared that up.


You guess you see.... Your guessing is again flawed. One more time you need to read my words without adding your guesswork to the mix. Doing so tends to confuse others as to what my position really is. Read it again... I did not say "my granny", I said "people like my dear departed granny"... Try to keep up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> it also means that "pro-choicers" must support everyone's choice to kill any one at any time


Statements such as that are why you have no credibility, since that is merely a fantasy you are trying to present as if it were fact


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> wrong again... You might be better served to read my words without adding what you think I said to them. I have never said pro choisers must support anything...


You're right. You didn't say that they "must". That was a bit of rhetorical expediency on my part. You said they were hypocrites if they didn't; ala...


Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course you haven't heard the prolifers begging to have those eggs fertilized at every opportunity, that would put them in a rather sticky position... It would show the real hypocrisy of there (_sic_) code of morality...


At which point, I pointed out that, by your very own logic (albeit, established in a red herring argument) that pro-choicers then must (read: _should they not wish to also be hypocrites)_ also support anyone&#8217;s choice to kill anyone at any time. This, of course, being pivoted on the logical-link used in your red herring, that there was no new life, only a continuation of life that originated long ago, used to support the claim of no moral-failing in killing the unborn,

Of course, I recognize that as being as ridiculous as your initial argument, concerning what pro-lifers must support in order to not be hypocrites, but that is the nature of a red herring. Once you pull it out, everyone gets to smell it.

Twisted logic in a debate is a lot like a lie, in that after you twist it enough, you very likely find yourself trapped in it. 

You laid the bull scat on the table, I just made it into a pie and handed it back to you.
And now your fingers are sticky.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You guess you see.... Your guessing is again flawed. One more time you need to read my words without adding your guesswork to the mix. Doing so tends to confuse others as to what my position really is. Read it again... I did not say "my granny", I said "people like my dear departed granny"... Try to keep up.


Actually, I did the first time. You quoted me directly, and then proceeded t make your comment&#8230;.


Yvonne's hubby said:


> I can see where those who are more geared to either emotional thought patterns or simply believe whatever their respected mentors tell them might have trouble accepting a new train of thought.


&#8230;which was clearly directed at me.

I asked you to enlighten me as to who you though the mentors I was blindly following were, and you responded that it was directed at a &#8220;general audience&#8221; of people who swallow whatever they&#8217;re told, and that you categorized as meddlers.

Still interested in finding out who these mentors were, I gave you some specific examples of well-known &#8220;meddlers&#8221;, suggesting this was who you meant, and you dodged once again saying that it was &#8220;people like&#8221; your granny.

No inference necessary, it is clear to anyone who read your post, then your subsequent dodges, that you were trying to say that I have &#8220;emotional thought patterns or simply believe whatever&#8221; my respected mentors tell me, and then you lost the chutzpah to actually back it up.

It&#8217;s obvious that you were/are just saying things with no substance or bearing on the conversation and got caught in it. That&#8217;s telling, not only about your debating skills, but also about your character.

The irony of people without character, though, is that they don&#8217;t generally give a whit about the thing, so they are immune to any self-evident observations others might make about their lack of it.


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Actually, I did the first time. You quoted me directly, and then proceeded t make your commentâ¦.
> 
> â¦which was clearly directed at me.* wrong*
> 
> I asked you to enlighten me as to who you though the mentors I was blindly following were, and you responded that it was directed at a âgeneral audienceâ of people who swallow whatever theyâre told, and that you categorized as meddlers.* correct*
> 
> Still interested in finding out who these mentors were, I gave you some specific examples of well-known âmeddlersâ, suggesting this was who you meant, and you dodged once again saying that it was âpeople likeâ your granny.*also correct*
> 
> No inference necessary, it is clear to anyone who read your post, then your subsequent dodges, that you were trying to say that I have âemotional thought patterns or simply believe whateverâ my respected mentors tell me, and then you lost the chutzpah to actually back it up.* wrong*
> 
> Itâs obvious that you were/are just saying things with no substance or bearing on the conversation and got caught in it. Thatâs telling, not only about your debating skills, but also about your character.* your opinion which you are perfectly welcome to hold whether accurate or not.*
> 
> The irony of people without character, though, is that they donât generally give a whit about the thing, so they are immune to any self-evident observations others might make about their lack of it.*also your opinion *


your basic comprehension of what I post seems to be a bit off. You managed to get two out of four. This could be my fault but I do my best to be very clear with my posts here.


----------



## Tricky Grama

gapeach said:


> I read this today and it is so true.
> 
> Abortion has never been about "choice". It's about escaping the consequences of your choices by taking all choices away from another human being.


Post of the millineum award.


----------



## Tricky Grama

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I'm pretty sure you're using this as a red herring, but, if you're not, then I am genuinely sorry for the magnitude of sorrow you must feel for the number of eggs that go unfertilized every day. That's got to be one heck of a cross to bear.
> 
> Fortunately, most of us on the pro-life side of the abortion debate don't see it that way, so we couldn't possibly imagine that.
> 
> In (most of) our minds, the biological reality is the production of eggs and sperm by the respective sexes. The _choice_ comes in when each sex decides whether or not to allow their sexual faculties to function unchecked, and when the woman _chooses_ to allow the man access to her situated egg.
> 
> Once the egg is fertilized, the *choices* we have to make have been made. At that point, the new human has been created, and will depend on the mother only long enough to develop enough to survive in the outside world.
> 
> This likening the unborn child to a parasite is not wholly unsound. The unborn child is parasitic in function, as we all were at that stage of our lives. It's important, however, to consider the word 'parasite' without the normal connotations. This 'parasite' did not seek out its host. Rather, biology dictated the parasitic nature of the earliest stages of it's life, and the mother's and father's _choices_ are what brought it into being.
> 
> The _choice_ being imparted by legalized elective abortion is the choice to not have to face the consequences of the choices you've already made.


Post of the day award.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> It must have been deliberate since his name clearly indicates the gender
> 
> Did you report yourself or is it not an "insult" when you do it?


Here is my response, if you are unable to get over it, please seek counseling... I have done as I should have, now I suggest you do so too.


----------



## kasilofhome

Gender is now fluid... we have been told.. 
To rely on DNA would be to deny each person to feel good about themself.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Here is my response, if you are unable to get over it, please seek counseling... I have done as I should have, now I suggest you do so too.


So you don't follow your own rules.
I figured as much


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you don't follow your own rules.
> I figured as much


Are you having trouble comprehending? And where is your dog in *this* fight? Are you Yvonne's Hubby's personal arbitrator? Really?  

Report me if you will but you will be doing so for naught, the perceived slight has been apologized for and the apology was accepted. WHERE IS YOUR DOG?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> Are you having trouble comprehending? And where is your dog in *this* fight? Are you Yvonne's Hubby's personal arbitrator? Really?
> 
> Report me if you will but you will be doing so for naught, *the perceived slight* has been apologized for and the apology was accepted. WHERE IS YOUR DOG?


No one is talking about dogs other than you

I never report anyone unless they make actual threats.

I just wondered why you seem to have a double standard about what is considered an "insult" or a "proper answer". 

You made a big deal out of reporting me for doing the same thing you did. :shrug:


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is talking about dogs other than you
> 
> I never report anyone unless they make actual threats.
> 
> I just wondered why you seem to have a double standard about what is considered an "insult" or a "proper answer".
> 
> You made a big deal out of reporting me for doing the same thing you did. :shrug:


Good, then I would bet that you reported me, I believe that the Mod(s) saw it for what it was and acted accordingly. 

Oh, I get it, but it seems that you have an issue correlating the saying "you don't have a dog in that fight" OK, I'll give you that. 

Your slight appeared intentional, mine was inadvertent. I apologized for my perceived slight, you have not. Who's more "proper" in this matter?

For the record, there is no double standard for proper behavior, I act how I feel others should act. ...or at least - try my very best. 

The ball is in your court. 

My actions are in black and white and are verifiable, how about yours?

ETA: I do my best to answer your questions, you, however seem to go out of your way not to answer mine with a truthful and complete answer.

- ...calls 'em likes I sees 'em...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Good, then I would bet that you reported me, I believe that the Mod(s) saw it for what it was and acted accordingly.


Wrong again, although your assumption tends to indicate you think you made a threat



> Your slight appeared intentional, mine was inadvertent. I apologized for my perceived slight, you have not. Who's more "proper" in this matter?


Again the double standard, since one name clearly indicates the proper gender and neither your name nor your profile does (since talking to yourself in the third person isn't really "normal")



> For the record, there is no double standard for proper behavior, I act how I feel others should act. ...or at least - try my very best.


You demand specifically worded answers to all your questions, otherwise claiming the were never answered at all, but then you won't respond in a similar manner to the questions of others Classic double standard behavior, as exhibited once more below:



> ETA: I do my best to answer your questions, you, however seem *to go out of your way not to answer* mine with a truthful and complete answer.
> 
> - ...calls 'em likes I sees 'em...


I "calls em like I sees em" too

Your excuse is now it was "inadvertent", but you see still mine as intentional, which requires one to ignore reality


----------



## Shine

No apology? Look, there is really no point in continuing this, run along...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No apology? Look, there is really no point in continuing this, run along...


There's nothing to apologize for.
Just a lot of complaining over nothing at all


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's _*nothing to apologize for*_.
> Just a lot of complaining over nothing at all



This is a spotlight into your psyche, I now understand how you, as a man, can so rigidly support women choosing abortion. You do not adhere to a rigid set of value standards. You got reported for insinuating that I was a woman, never apologized, continued with your fun-making, cheered on your groupies and now say that there was nothing to apologize for. Please feel free to continue as you are, I see no value in you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

:bdh:

Big sigh.


----------



## Marshloft

Irish Pixie said:


> :bdh:
> Big sigh.


Is this the new normal at HT?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> This is a spotlight into your psyche, I now understand how you, as a man, can so rigidly support women choosing abortion.
> 
> *You do not adhere to a rigid set of value standards*.
> 
> You got reported for insinuating that I was a woman,* never apologized, *continued with your fun-making, cheered on your groupies and *now say that there was nothing to apologize for*. Please feel free to continue as you are, I see no value in you.


Why would I apologize?
I'm not psychic

It appears you don't listen to your own advice:



> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> No apology? Look, there is really *no point in continuing* this,


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why would I apologize?
> I'm not psychic
> 
> It appears you don't listen to your own advice:


Please stick to the OP - if you have something off track and specific to me, I request that you use the PM function designed so that the threads stay on topic. If you are unable to do so then please do not continue this line of thought, this thread has been destroyed enough. I consider this enough warning and it is starting to border on harassment.


----------



## arabian knight

Don't fret too much that is the modus operandi of the liberal folks. They just can't stand to be wrong to say they are wrong or even to suggest they are wrong. It is right in their mind no matter how much real evidence is presented. That is what they do no room to compromise no room to say sorry no room to apologize either.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *Please stick to the OP* - if you have something off track and specific to me, I request that you use the PM function designed so that the threads stay on topic. If you are unable to do so then please do not continue this line of thought, this thread has been destroyed enough. I consider this enough warning and it is starting to border on harassment.


The OP was nothing but one person's opinion.



> Planned Parenthood
> Pure EVIL.
> If you need more of an explanation you are unfortunately already lost.
> I cannot believe G-d allows this country to go on...maybe He isn't.


What was there to discuss?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

What is this "apologize" you speak of?

Oh, wait, I see where Shine said that. "I apologize". 

Hmmm, so that's what that means. 

All Ive heard in the last few years is how people "mis-spoke", or "mis-characterized", or meant to say "homosexual", but the microphone "somehow mis-recorded" me to say "f&$&ing ****". 

"Apologize". 

What an interesting concept.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Delete that if you like, but you know that's funny. 




And painfully true.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> The OP was nothing but one person's opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> What was there to discuss?


The OP - or start another thread.


----------



## Lisa in WA

arabian knight said:


> Don't fret too much that is the modus operandi of the liberal folks. They just can't stand to be wrong to say they are wrong or even to suggest they are wrong. It is right in their mind no matter how much real evidence is presented. That is what they do no room to compromise no room to say sorry no room to apologize either.


Is there a post of yours that you can show us where you have admitted to being wrong or apologized?


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

I can show you where I have, and where Pixie has, and where Shine has, but that's all I can think of. 


It's a pretty exclusive club. 


I'm gonna have t-shirts made up. 

Pix, Shine, what are your sizes?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Y'all are breaking Shine's "no off topic posts" decree


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> Is there a post of yours that you can show us where you have admitted to being wrong or apologized?


The same could be said of most


----------



## Shine

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> I can show you where I have, and where Pixie has, and where Shine has, but that's all I can think of.
> 
> 
> It's a pretty exclusive club.
> 
> 
> I'm gonna have t-shirts made up.
> 
> Pix, Shine, what are your sizes?


To answer your query - L


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Since you used the word "query", you're clearly irrational, have zero credibility, and I refuse to dignify the rest of your post by giving it the time to be read. 


Now, would you tell me your shirt size already so I can get these things ordered?


----------



## Shine

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Since you used the word "query", you're clearly irrational, have zero credibility, and I refuse to dignify the rest of your post by giving it the time to be read.
> 
> 
> Now, would you tell me your shirt size already so I can get these things ordered?


Medium XL


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Med...what???

Oh I get it. Another dig against the MEDical doctors at baby-parts-r-us. 
Did Glenn Beck tell you to say that?
Cause, just cause he said it doesn't make it true. 
Y'all. 

Now, where's that 'ignore' button?


----------



## Evons hubby

preparing said:


> Pure EVIL.
> 
> If you need more of an explanation you are unfortunately already lost.
> 
> I cannot believe G-d allows this country to go on...maybe He isn't.


Yeppers, providing health care services to women is an abomination for sure and for certain.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> nope that's not who I was talking about either... I was referring to those who blindly believe in what ever their preacher tell them. People like my dear departed granny.... Always meddling in others business and would have jumped off a cliff if the preacher told her to.


You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here like that-why don't you do a poll?

You'd find folks like Harriet Tubman tho. BIG meddlers. Activists, I guess you'd say. Going against the SCOTUS.
Margaret Sanger too. 
Lost list. I'm happy to be called one of YOUR meddlers. I guess 'cause the unborn cannot speak its ok to kill 'em.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Marshloft said:


> Is this the new normal at HT?


Unfortunatly it is. Seems there's 3 or 4 who can insult, namecall, post irreverent crap & all is well. 
However, let a conservative post something that one of 'em "feels" should be in politics & BAM! Or post something that makes one of the non-conserves whine & well, ya know.


----------



## Tricky Grama

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yeppers, providing health care services to women is an abomination for sure and for certain.


Only the far left thinks abortion on demand is "health care".


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> Good, then I would bet that you reported me, I believe that the Mod(s) saw it for what it was and acted accordingly.
> 
> Oh, I get it, but it seems that you have an issue correlating the saying "you don't have a dog in that fight" OK, I'll give you that.
> 
> Your slight appeared intentional, mine was inadvertent. I apologized for my perceived slight, you have not. Who's more "proper" in this matter?
> 
> For the record, there is no double standard for proper behavior, I act how I feel others should act. ...or at least - try my very best.
> 
> The ball is in your court.
> 
> My actions are in black and white and are verifiable, how about yours?
> 
> ETA: I do my best to answer your questions, you, however seem to go out of your way not to answer mine with a truthful and complete answer.
> 
> - ...calls 'em likes I sees 'em...



I can assure you that the member you're attacking for reporting a post has never reported any posts in all the time I've been a mod.


----------



## Evons hubby

Tricky Grama said:


> Only the far left thinks abortion on demand is "health care".


I am pretty sure you know I am not a member of the far left. As I recall abortions account for something like four percent of PP services. They provide a lot of much needed health care to women that need it.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> The same could be said of most


And is anyone else bt Arabian Knight weeping and wailing about it?


----------



## kasilofhome

basketti said:


> And is anyone else bt Arabian Knight weeping and wailing about it?


Disappointed


----------



## susieneddy

Tricky Grama said:


> Only the far left thinks abortion on demand is "health care".


you would think wrong


----------



## gapeach

*The Core Dishonesty of Abortion Defenders*

*Mona Charen's column is released once a week. *

 By Mona Charen August 7, 2015 3:00 AM 
excerpt:

No one who has a passing familiarity with man's inhumanity to man can be completely surprised that people who consider themselves humane can pull bags of body parts out of the freezer and pick through hands, eyes, lungs and hearts on a light tray. 
As the footage was released, defenders of Planned Parenthood rushed to explain that many medical procedures are grisly. Writing in The New Republic, Dr. Jen Gunter protests, "These are not 'baby parts.' Whether a woman has a miscarriage or an abortion, the tissue specimen is called 'products of conception.'" Oh. If they're not baby parts, why are they valuable for research and sale? CNN's Errol Louis insisted, "Most of us would freak out if we listened to professionals ... discuss details of how a dying person's request to have their body parts donated ... actually gets carried out." No, we wouldn't. It isn't the gore that causes us to recoil; it's the intentional killing. It's knowing that if the abortionist's hand were stayed for just a few more weeks, that child could live out his whole life.
http://news.yahoo.com/core-dishones...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDTUFQMDA1XzEEc2VjA3Nj


Really, just think about it....Explain - in detail - why we would have doctors operate on fetuses in the womb to save their lives if they are not human beings. 
âIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.â That is exactly what has happened to the Abortion argument and its defenders.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> And is anyone else bt Arabian Knight weeping and wailing about it?


About what?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Tricky Grama said:


> Unfortunatly it is. Seems there's 3 or 4 who can insult, namecall, post irreverent crap & all is well.
> However, let a conservative post something that one of 'em "feels" should be in politics & BAM! Or post something that makes one of the non-conserves whine & well, ya know.


Are you including yourself and your obsession with Hilary Clinton's butt and cottage cheese or whatever you are always going on about? 

Because I could live a thousand years without hearing about that particular fantasy of yours again. Some things are best left to dream about privately, you know?


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> Are you including yourself and your creepy obsession with Hilary Clinton's butt and cottage cheese or whatever you are always going on about?
> 
> Because I could live a thousand years without hearing about that particular fantasy of yours again. Some things are best left to dream about privately, you know?


Is Hillary Clinton a member here?
That was a pretty insulting response, you just proved her point


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> Is Hillary Clinton a member here?
> That was a pretty insulting response, you just proved her point


I guess she could be? You don't post under your real name, do you?

Otherwise, I'm crushed. I live for your approval.:rain:

I did go ahead and took out the "creepy" for you. Why point out the obvious anyway, right?


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Is Hillary Clinton a member here?
> That was a pretty insulting response, you just proved her point


Name calling is fine as long as they are not a member of HT? I guess that is one kind of rationalization. It is good to know where people's morality levels are.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> I guess she could be? You don't post under your real name, do you?
> 
> Otherwise, I'm crushed. I live for your approval.:rain:
> 
> I did go ahead and took out the "creepy" for you. Why point out the obvious anyway, right?


Sorry to crush you, I know what an admirer of mine you are  :rotfl:


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Name calling is fine as long as they are not a member of HT? I guess that is one kind of rationalization. It is good to know where people's morality levels are.


I'm not saying it's fine, I'm saying insulting corrupt politicians, or complaining about them isn't against the rules
We can't all drool over Obama and Clinton


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> I'm not saying it's fine, I'm saying insulting corrupt politicians, or complaining about them isn't against the rules
> We can't all drool over Obama and Clinton


Drooling over politicians is not my thing. Now a good poke at people who complain about stuff they themselves are guilty of is drool worthy every time.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> Drooling over politicians is not my thing. Now a good poke at people who complain about stuff they themselves are guilty of is drool worthy every time.


Are you just looking for things to be mad about? :hrm:


----------



## painterswife

Cornhusker said:


> Are you just looking for things to be mad about? :hrm:


What am I mad about? Politician name callers? No just disgusted. I have very little to be mad about.


----------



## Cornhusker

painterswife said:


> What am I mad about? Politician name callers? No just disgusted. I have very little to be mad about.


Yeah, I notice it only bothers you when people pick on the democrats, but that's kind of expected 
I think name calling is childish, kinda like arguing just for the sake of arguing.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> Yeah, I notice it only bothers you when people pick on the democrats, but that's kind of expected
> I think name calling is childish, kinda like arguing just for the sake of arguing.


If you can find any posts where someone is calling out a repub because of his/her butt or other natural physical attributes, I'll join you in castigating them.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> If you can find any posts where someone is calling out a repub because of his/her butt or other natural physical attributes, I'll join you in castigating them.


Like Trump's hair?


----------



## Lisa in WA

Cornhusker said:


> Like Trump's hair?


I said natural.


----------



## Cornhusker

basketti said:


> I said natural.


So we can make fun of Pelosi's eyebrows? :rotfl:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> So we can make fun of Pelosi's eyebrows? :rotfl:


Why make fun of anyone's physical attributes? It isn't something that is acceptable regardless of who it is.


----------



## Cornhusker

Irish Pixie said:


> Why make fun of anyone's physical attributes? It isn't something that is acceptable regardless of who it is.


Except people like Trump?
As long as it's not natural?
Or a democrat?
I'm losing track of all the double standards :hrm:


----------



## wr

I'm of the opinion that if we've reached the point where the only things left to discuss is hair and bums, this thread has likely run it's course.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Cornhusker said:


> Except people like Trump?
> As long as it's not natural?
> Or a democrat?
> I'm losing track of all the double standards :hrm:


I have no double standard. I'm not perfect, and I'm sure I've at least _thought_ that Trump's hair is ridiculous, but I don't think I've ever said it here. 

You kinda lost the battle already as it's your buddy (among others- all conservative) that fat shame older women every chance she gets. I'll bet for every one crack on Trump's hair there are five about Hilary's butt, neck, or pantsuit size.


----------

