# Judge lifts ban on PP videos



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

And a new short one is immediately released of Stem express again. Look at the woman in the top pic for your first impression and then scroll down and read the second comment. Spot on. This particular segment of our society seems to be vehemently pro abortion for some reason.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/court-rem...eleases-8th-shocking-planned-parenthood-video


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

And you cannot help but wonder why? None of their arguments are not the least bit convincing. You will not see this report on the free press in America.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Anyone see this one? If you haven't, prepare yourself. 19 week old fetus. Still alive.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMAycMMXp8"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzMAycMMXp8[/ame]


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> Anyone see this one? If you haven't, prepare yourself. 19 week old fetus.* Still alive*.


There's a whole thread devoted to that one, and if you read what was actually said, the heart* wasn't* beating until it was "thumped", and the chest cavity was open. 

None of it involved PP employees


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

poppy said:


> And a new short one is immediately released of Stem express again. Look at the woman in the top pic for your first impression and then scroll down and read the second comment. Spot on. This particular segment of our society seems to be vehemently pro abortion for some reason.
> 
> http://www.mrctv.org/blog/court-rem...eleases-8th-shocking-planned-parenthood-video


That's the only video for which there was an injunction, and it's not PP employees, so your title is misleading


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's the only video for which there was an injunction, and it's not PP employees, so your title is misleading


Kinda like the videos themselves... Carefully packaged propaganda designed to look much different than the facts. I noticed even the judge said the same as she lifted the restrictions.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Why do people defend the death of a baby but go mad when a violent criminal gets killed. I don't get it. We are the only species on the planet that kills it's perfectly healthy baby. That alone should tell you something.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Why do people defend the death of a baby but go mad when a violent criminal gets killed. I don't get it. We are the only species on the planet that kills it's perfectly healthy baby. That alone should tell you something.


There are several other species in which males will kill any offspring that isn't their own, or where females will eat their young.

Abortion has gone on for thousands of years, and is never going to change, barring some huge medical breakthroughs, so there is little point in agonizing over what other people do


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are several other species in which males will kill any offspring that isn't their own, or where females will eat their young.
> 
> Abortion has gone on for thousands of years, and is never going to change, barring some huge medical breakthroughs, so there is little point in agonizing over what other people do


So female animals who eat their young, out of necessity usually, is the same as killing your baby because of you are ready to have sex but not ready for what sex is made for? Not to mention comparing animals with no cognitive thought to humans. Come to think of it maybe your right. Those who do it are incapable of cognitive thought. Considering most animals will fight TO the death for their child. Not fight FOR the death of their child.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> So female animals who eat their young, *out of necessity* usually, is the same as killing your baby because of you are ready to have sex but not ready for what sex is made for? Not to mention comparing animals with no cognitive thought to humans. Come to think of it maybe your right.
> 
> *Those who do it are incapable of cognitive thought. *
> 
> Considering most animals will fight TO the death for their child. Not fight FOR the death of their child.


Or maybe they just disagree with you.

There are many reasons for having an abortion, and if you don't want one, don't do it. 

No one will ever try to force you to do it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Why do people defend the death of a baby but go mad when a violent criminal gets killed. I don't get it. We are the only species on the planet that kills it's perfectly healthy baby. That alone should tell you something.


I do not defend the death of babies, I defend the right of a woman to decide for herself if she wants one.

I have zero problem with the death penalty for violent criminals, matter of fact it needs to be used much more often than it is.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Why do people defend the death of a baby but go mad when a violent criminal gets killed. I don't get it. We are the only species on the planet that kills it's perfectly healthy baby. That alone should tell you something.



Never had cats. ?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

AmericanStand said:


> Never had cats. ?


Goes back to my cognitive thought statement.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Maybe it's just me.... buttttttttt......

Getting a babies head in the mail just ain't right. A picture of a gloved hand holding just an infants arm, yep, just the arm.... seems a little extreme.



Bearfootfarm said:


> None of it involved PP employees


I wonder how a human head gets into box?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> Maybe it's just me.... buttttttttt......
> 
> Getting a babies head in the mail just ain't right. A picture of a gloved hand holding just an infants arm, yep, just the arm.... seems a little extreme.
> 
> ...


The StemExpress employees did that.
Didn't you read the article?
It's nothing new and nothing illegal


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The StemExpress employees did that.
> Didn't you read the article?
> It's nothing new and nothing illegal


And there is nothing "right" about getting a baby head or body in the mail.


And NO, YOU did not read the article...

"""""""""StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer admits that StemExpress gets intact fetuses from the abortion clinics they work with shipped to their laboratory."""""""""""""


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/08/13/planned-parenthood-attack-group-wont-tell-findings/



> What the Planned Parenthood Attack Group Won&#8217;t Tell You About Its &#8216;Findings&#8217;


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> And there is nothing "right" about getting a baby head or body in the mail.
> 
> 
> And NO, YOU did not read the article...
> ...


StemExpress employees "work with" those clinics by obtaining and packaging the specimens *at* the PP facilities. 

It's in the videos and articles

Whether or not you consider it "right" makes no difference in the reality that it's all quite legal.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/08/13/planned-parenthood-attack-group-wont-tell-findings/


I know that the pro unborn won't read this link but they definitely need to so they can understand the sheer amount of lies and half truths coming from the Center for Medical Progress. 

I realize that many of the pro unborn don't care if the videos are lies, and that should scare the crap out of every rational human being on the planet.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> I know that the pro unborn won't read this link but they definitely need to so they can understand the sheer amount of lies and half truths coming from the Center for Medical Progress.
> 
> I realize that many of the pro unborn don't care if the videos are lies, and that should scare the crap out of every rational human being on the planet.


Of they are lies why is pp fighting tooth and nail to keep the video from being released?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or maybe they just disagree with you.
> 
> *There are many reasons for having an abortion, and if you don't want one, don't do it. *
> 
> No one will ever try to force you to do it.


Who will stand for the Unborn? I am certain that it will not be you. Who stood up for the Slaves when legally that label only held the value of possessions? Who felt that they could be killed at the owner's whim? Who saw them as true "persons"? Why do many today feel that the unborn are the possessions of the mother, to do with however they feel? When all is said and done, I believe that the unborn children of this world will finally be seen for the "persons" that they are. The act of killing them will one day be outlawed. People will have to suffer or celebrate, as that have always had to, their own personal choices. No more conveniences when there is a life at stake.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Of they are lies why is pp fighting tooth and nail to keep the video from being released?


It was StemExpress that filed the injunction.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> It was StemExpress that filed the injunction.


It is getting ridiculous how people don't bother to read the info provided or actually watch the full videos but keep posting untruths.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Who will stand for the Unborn? I am certain that it will not be you. Who stood up for the Slaves when legally that label only held the value of possessions? Who felt that they could be killed at the owner's whim? Who saw them as true "persons"? Why do many today feel that the unborn are the possessions of the mother, to do with however they feel? When all is said and done, I believe that the unborn children of this world will finally be seen for the "persons" that they are. The act of killing them will one day be outlawed. People will have to suffer or celebrate, as that have always had to, their own personal choices. No more conveniences when there is a life at stake.


How are you with the practice letting those "children" die every month? Perhaps we should make it illegal to fail to fertilize every egg that any ovary releases? Or would that infringe on a woman's right to choose the convenience of not having to go through a full term pregnancy and take on the task of raising a child every time she ovulated? Can you say "choice"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Who will stand for the Unborn? I am certain that it will not be you. Who stood up for the Slaves when legally that label only held the value of possessions? Who felt that they could be killed at the owner's whim? Who saw them as true "persons"? Why do many today feel that the unborn are the possessions of the mother, to do with however they feel? When all is said and done, I believe that the unborn children of this world will finally be seen for the "persons" that they are. The act of killing them will one day be outlawed. People will have to suffer or celebrate, as that have always had to, their own personal choices. No more conveniences when there is a life at stake.


You're entitled to that opinion.
Less than half agree


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It is getting ridiculous how people don't bother to read the info provided or actually watch the full videos but keep posting untruths.


Many barely make it past the headlines before going off on their melodramatic emotional rants.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The StemExpress employees did that.
> Didn't you read the article?
> It's nothing new and nothing illegal


No, Didn't you read the article?


""""""""""""showed the StemExpress CEO joking about receiving dead babies *from Planned Parenthood (over lunch).*""""""""""""

""""""""""""""""""abortion clinics they work with shipped *to* their laboratory""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How are you with the practice letting those "children" die every month? Perhaps we should make it illegal to fail to fertilize every egg that any ovary releases? Or would that infringe on a woman's right to choose the convenience of not having to go through a full term pregnancy and take on the task of raising a child every time she ovulated? Can you say "choice"?


Your continued insistence that an unfertilized egg carries some importance is getting old. It is pure nature that the unfertilized egg passes with no importance if it goes unfertilized. If it gets fertilized then there is a whole different story. There is no substance to your premise regarding an egg "dying".


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're entitled to that opinion.
> Less than half agree


Wonder how many people were "For" slavery before they were "Against" slavery... Wonder how many were "For" the killing of Native Americans before they were "against" it? 

Times change, people become aware of things that are inherently immoral.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Is very sad the amount of disregard for the life of a child there is here. On a homesteading site at that. Generally those into homesteading are very much family oriented and believe in health and life. Guess that's not always true.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> Your continued insistence that an unfertilized egg carries some importance is getting old. It is pure nature that the unfertilized egg passes with no importance if it goes unfertilized. If it gets fertilized then there is a whole different story. There is no substance to your premise regarding an egg "dying".


What is pure nature is the fertilization (or the attempt) of those eggs. It is the natural way. Look at all the other species who do their best to have offspring every time nature presents the opportunity. Only mankind attempts to prevent that from happening with many various methods ranging from abstinence to abortion and many other gadgets, pills and potions. What is getting old is some of us refusal to accept the fact that one method is no different than another.... They all deny that egg the chance to fulfill its natural destiny.

ETA: another thing is getting rather old is some insisting they have the right to impose their choices upon others.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Is very sad the amount of disregard for the life of a child there is here. On a homesteading site at that. Generally those into homesteading are very much family oriented and believe in health and life. Guess that's not always true.


Guess not. 

Prime example of the guilt and manipulation that the pro unborn use to push their agenda.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Guess not.
> 
> Prime example of the guilt and manipulation that the pro unborn use to push their agenda.


Question for you. Say you got an egg. In this egg is a growing chick. You have candled it and is a healthy growing chick. It's doing what God and nature intended it do right on schedule. It wants to continue doing so until it is born into the earth. Well after putting the egg in the incubator on your own free will and starting that life, you realize you already got to many chickens or just aren't ready for the care of anymore chicks. So you just toss the egg out. It slowly dies as it cools. Is that right? You started that life and then just decide to kill it because you didn't think things through before doing what you know could result in a life. That's what we are talking about here. Over 90% of abortions are free will. Not rape or illness. So this is premeditated murder because of their own ignorance. At least the chick dies without to much pain. Where as a baby is ripped limb from limb. That is very humane there.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Question for you. Say you got an egg. In this egg is a growing chick. You have candled it and is a healthy growing chick. It's doing what God and nature intended it do right on schedule. It wants to continue doing so until it is born into the earth. Well after putting the egg in the incubator on your own free will and starting that life, you realize you already got to many chickens or just aren't ready for the care of anymore chicks. So you just toss the egg out. It slowly dies as it cools. Is that right? You started that life and then just decide to kill it because you didn't think things through before doing what you know could result in a life. That's what we are talking about here. Over 90% of abortions are free will. Not rape or illness. So this is premeditated murder because of their own ignorance. At least the chick dies without to much pain. Where as a baby is ripped limb from limb. That is very humane there.


That is exactly it. I make life and death decisions on the homestead every day. I also know that that fetus does not have a brain to process pain or death for a good part of the gestation. If it is going to feel any type of pain the doctors give it digitalis before as you put it, it is ripped it limb from limb so it is dead before that happens.

It is not murder but yes it is death.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Question for you. Say you got an egg. In this egg is a growing chick. You have candled it and is a healthy growing chick. It's doing what God and nature intended it do right on schedule. It wants to continue doing so until it is born into the earth. Well after putting the egg in the incubator on your own free will and starting that life, you realize you already got to many chickens or just aren't ready for the care of anymore chicks. So you just toss the egg out. It slowly dies as it cools. Is that right? You started that life and then just decide to kill it because you didn't think things through before doing what you know could result in a life. That's what we are talking about here. Over 90% of abortions are free will. Not rape or illness. So this is premeditated murder because of their own ignorance. At least the chick dies without to much pain. Where as a baby is ripped limb from limb. That is very humane there.


More rhetoric, guilt and manipulation from the pro unborn.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Question for you. Say you got an egg. In this egg is a growing chick. You have candled it and is a healthy growing chick. It's doing what God and nature intended it do right on schedule. It wants to continue doing so until it is born into the earth. Well after putting the egg in the incubator on your own free will and starting that life, you realize you already got to many chickens or just aren't ready for the care of anymore chicks. So you just toss the egg out. It slowly dies as it cools. Is that right? You started that life and then just decide to kill it because you didn't think things through before doing what you know could result in a life. That's what we are talking about here. Over 90% of abortions are free will. Not rape or illness. So this is premeditated murder because of their own ignorance. At least the chick dies without to much pain. Where as a baby is ripped limb from limb. That is very humane there.


I see no difference in your hypothetical situation and a woman who refuses to allow her own egg to fulfill its own natural destiny.
Perhaps God and nature did not create a woman's reproductive system for the purpose of perpetuating human life?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

popscott said:


> No, Didn't you read the article?
> 
> 
> """"""""""""showed the *StemExpress* CEO joking about *receiving* dead babies *from Planned Parenthood (over lunch).*""""""""""""
> ...


How many times do you need to repeat that when it's been explained they used their *own* techs to process the specimens. 

They "received" them as soon as the abortions were performed.

They were there waiting to process them

Then their own employees packaged and shipped them to the labs.

They didn't just throw them in the trunk of their cars.

There was an entire video devoted to that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> *Your continued insistence that an unfertilized egg carries some importance is getting old.* It is pure nature that the unfertilized egg passes with no importance if it goes unfertilized. If it gets fertilized then there is a whole different story. There is no substance to your premise regarding an egg "dying".


You once told me: "If you want to control the posts, buy the forum"

Do you have a receipt?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Wonder how many people were "For" slavery before they were "Against" slavery... Wonder how many were "For" the killing of Native Americans before they were "against" it?
> 
> Times change, people become aware of things that are inherently immoral.


Times have changed and that is why abortions are now legal.
You worry about your own morality, and let others take care of theirs


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Is very sad the amount of disregard for the life of a child there is here. On a homesteading site at that. Generally those into homesteading are very much family oriented and believe in health and life. Guess that's not always true.


According to the poll, well over half want abortions to remain legal
There's little point in being sad over reality


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Question for you.* Say you got an egg*. In this egg is a growing chick. You have candled it and is a healthy growing chick. It's doing what God and nature intended it do right on schedule. It wants to continue doing so until it is born into the earth. Well after putting the egg in the incubator on your own free will and starting that life, you realize you already got to many chickens or just aren't ready for the care of anymore chicks. So you just toss the egg out. It slowly dies as it cools. Is that right? You started that life and then just decide to kill it because you didn't think things through before doing what you know could result in a life. That's what we are talking about here. Over 90% of abortions are free will. Not rape or illness. So this is premeditated murder because of their own ignorance.* At least the chick dies without to much pain. Where as a baby is ripped limb from limb*. That is very humane there.


Say it's not *your* egg

There's no reason to think those fetuses feel any pain either, given the fact that their brains haven't fully formed.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2015)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How many times do you need to repeat that when it's been explained they used their *own* techs to process the specimens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's it, they get compensated for handing over a tray of parts. Excellent business plan. Little to no cost factor. &50 and up for a relay in office add in the $500 and up for the abortion of a third of a million procedures and your sittin pretty good.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dlmcafee said:


> That's it, they get compensated for handing over a tray of parts. Excellent business plan. Little to no cost factor. &50 and up for a relay in office add in the $500 and up for the abortion of a third of a million procedures and your sittin pretty good.


Bad business plan. PP can only be reimbursed for the actual costs involved.... Ballpark guesstimate 30 to 100, depending up which organs the research organization needs.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Bad business plan. PP can only be reimbursed for the actual costs involved.... Ballpark guesstimate 30 to 100, depending up which organs the research organization needs.


Nope, good plan no cost related expenses and ya get 30 to 100, just to pass the plate. Plus the procedure fee, it ain't free ya know even for those poor that wish to remain barren, they or a donors pay for it. Just think it keeps the undesirable peasants at a controllable level and enriches the fat cats.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dlmcafee said:


> Nope, good plan no cost related expenses and ya get 30 to 100, just to pass the plate. Plus the procedure fee, it ain't free ya know even for those poor that wish to remain barren, they or a donors pay for it. Just think it keeps the undesirable peasants at a controllable level and enriches the fat cats.


You seem to be missing a very important point. PP can only be reimbursed for their actual costs incurred in the packaging and shipping of the tissue. They are not making any money from the donation of organs.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You seem to be missing a very important point. PP can only be reimbursed for their actual costs incurred in the packaging and shipping of the tissue. They are not making any money from the donation of organs.


Nope, no proof of that, no proof at all, just your words and mine, we need no stinking investigation. Everyone is honest and upright. I am sure stemexpress loved free product. But alas they ran away real fast to be replaced by anouther for profit biotech group I'm sure. $165,000,000 conservatively per year ain't bad for 3% of your business even without those $30-$100 tip jars.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dlmcafee said:


> Nope, no proof of that, no proof at all, just your words and mine, we need no stinking investigation. Everyone is honest and upright. I am sure stemexpress loved free product. But alas they ran away real fast to be replaced by anouther for profit biotech group I'm sure. $165,000,000 conservatively per year ain't bad for 3% of your business even without those $30-$100 tip jars.


Stem express did love the free product, which they could not sell either. All tissue is donated and cannot be sold..... By anyone. Which part of "donate" gives you so much trouble here? I am not quite sure where you found the 165,000,000 figure but when you spread that number out over 700 or so clinics with surgeons on staff along with all the of the other overhead it's not all that lucrative. As a matter of fact I believe they are a non profit organization that provides medical services at their cost.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ok so here's where I am lost. I was under the impression that the real horror of abortion involved crushing, mangling and chopping. (Y'alls word choice not mine) So now we find out it is possible to have an abortion where none of that is necessary and the fetus can be passed intact and you are having fits over that? Keeping in mind of course either intact or not these are all still before the fetus can actually feel pain. 

I just don't get it. From what I can see any video involving PP at this point would send some of you into screaming fits of outraged horror. Maybe you should stop watching the videos.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Vahomesteaders*
> _Question for you. Say you got an egg. In this egg is a growing chick. You have candled it and is a healthy growing chick. It's doing what God and nature intended it do right on schedule. It wants to continue doing so until it is born into the earth. Well after putting the egg in the incubator on your own free will and starting that life, you realize you already got to many chickens or just aren't ready for the care of anymore chicks. So you just toss the egg out. It slowly dies as it cools. Is that right? You started that life and then just decide to kill it because you didn't think things through before doing what you know could result in a life. That's what we are talking about here. Over 90% of abortions are free will. Not rape or illness. So this is premeditated murder because of their own ignorance. At least the chick dies without to much pain. Where as a baby is ripped limb from limb. That is very humane there._


I have tossed a few partially incubated eggs to the pigs for various reasons. Sometimes hatching doesn't work out. I also, horror of horrors, eat eggs that have been fertilised and I eat chickens too..... And cute fuzzy rabbits, lambs, goats, cows and pigs. I am afraid that is probably the wrong analogy for a homesteading forum since most of us here have learned you have to be practical and that means killing things sometimes. Doesn't make it easy or fun but pragmatism is a necessity or you won't get very far as a farmer.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Stem express did love the free product, which they could not sell either. All tissue is donated and cannot be sold..... By anyone. Which part of "donate" gives you so much trouble here? I am not quite sure where you found the 165,000,000 figure but when you spread that number out over 700 or so clinics with surgeons on staff along with all the of the other overhead it's not all that lucrative. As a matter of fact I believe they are a non profit organization that provides medical services at their cost.


Show me where stem express is a non profit company, their bio doesn't show it. 

330,000 est abortions per year at a median price of $500.00, on a pp website they estimate costs for first trimester abortions up to $1,200. You dismiss it easily but your crowd insist it is only 3% of thier business. Do the math that would be a whopping total business revenue just as ridiculous as that 3% figure. Kid yourself all you want, they ain't hurting, the staff ain't hurting, the directors are far from hurting. They do not need your tax dollar at all, period.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dlmcafee said:


> Show me where stem express is a non profit company, their bio doesn't show it.
> 
> 330,000 est abortions per year at a median price of $500.00, on a pp website they estimate costs for first trimester abortions up to $1,200. You dismiss it easily but your crowd insist it is only 3% of thier business. Do the math that would be a whopping total business revenue just as ridiculous as that 3% figure. Kid yourself all you want, they ain't hurting, the staff ain't hurting, the directors are far from hurting. They do not need your tax dollar at all, period.


Ok let's clear up one issue here. Abortions account for 3% of their "services" as in customers, not 3% of dollars coming in. IE, for every 100 customers they see 3 will be for the purpose of an abortion. The other 97% are there for any number of health care services. I agree their staff aren't hurting, probably getting around Union scale wages, and surgeons aren't cheap but nobody working in these clinics will be headlining in Forbes.

Stem express is a for profit company but they still can't charge for donated tissue.... Nobody can, that's a very serious federal crime and no rational businessman would risk it.... There's too much legit money to be made.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok let's clear up one issue here. Abortions account for 3% of their "services" as in customers, not 3% of dollars coming in. IE, for every 100 customers they see 3 will be for the purpose of an abortion. The other 97% are there for any number of health care services. I agree their staff aren't hurting, probably getting around Union scale wages, and surgeons aren't cheap but nobody working in these clinics will be headlining in Forbes.


Oh no need to clear it up with me, I knew that all along, and to use it as a excuse or selling point is just as ridiculous. As a glass worker in my own buisness I sold untold numbers of cheep trinkets and did not break even on those, but one art piece set me in the black easily.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dlmcafee said:


> Oh no need to clear it up with me, I knew that all along, and to use it as a excuse or selling point is just as ridiculous. As a glass worker in my own buisness I sold untold numbers of cheep trinkets and did not break even on those, but one art piece set me in the black easily.


Well I am as apposed to abortion as most anyone and am not here to defend the practice by PP or anyone else. What growls me about these videos is they are attacking what I believe to be a legitimate organization with misleading headlines and outright lies. They have not brought forth a single piece of evidence against PP... Just rants and raving without substance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> That's it, they get compensated for handing over a tray of parts. Excellent business plan. *Little to no cost factor*. &50 and up for a relay in office add in the $500 and up for the abortion of a third of a million procedures and your sittin pretty good.


Yeah, those Drs and Nurses all work for free, and all that medical equipment is given to them at no charge 

You often complain that some don't want to have "reasonable" discussions, but then you make up fantasies such as this?

Federal law *requires* those costs to be reimbursed, and you obviously have no clue as to what those costs entail.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> Nope, *no proof *of that, *no proof at all*, just your words and mine, we need no stinking investigation. Everyone is honest and upright. I am sure stemexpress loved free product. But alas they ran away real fast to be replaced by anouther for profit biotech group I'm sure. $165,000,000 conservatively per year ain't bad for 3% of your business even without those $30-$100 tip jars.


You're correct.
There's no proof of anything you've claimed.
It's all just talk and no substance


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> I have tossed a few partially incubated eggs to the pigs for various reasons. Sometimes hatching doesn't work out. I also, horror of horrors, eat eggs that have been fertilised and I eat chickens too..... And cute fuzzy rabbits, lambs, goats, cows and pigs. I am afraid that is probably the wrong analogy for a homesteading forum since most of us here have learned you have to be practical and that means killing things sometimes. Doesn't make it easy or fun but pragmatism is a necessity or you won't get very far as a farmer.


I was merely making a point. I'm a generational farmer from the Appalachias. I've eaten more things than you can count. I butcher near daily. There is no issue there. It is sad that you put a human baby in the same importance category as a cute fuzzy rabbit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I was merely making a point. I'm a generational farmer from the Appalachias. I've eaten more things than you can count. I butcher near daily. There is no issue there. It is sad that you put a human baby in the same importance category as a cute fuzzy rabbit.


It's a shame you'd force someone to have a baby they don't want.
The bottom line is you don't have any right to make *any *decisions for others, including "morals"


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I see no difference in your hypothetical situation and a woman who refuses to allow her own egg to fulfill its own natural destiny.
> Perhaps God and nature did not create a woman's reproductive system for the purpose of perpetuating human life?


Yes, this is really getting tiresome, YH. To be the only one practically in the universe who thinks this is truly crazy. I submit you do not truly think this, you're just inserting idiotic statements. There's "HUNDREDS" of links to say otherwise, go google.
Female's eggs die off regularly, as do sperm. No am't of "saving" could help. You KNOW this. Just stop.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

More threads, on this subject, are pointless. It would seem that the discussion has been exhausted and is only circling. I will boil down the argument. The pro-life side believes that to kill an unborn child is murder, the pro-abortion side believes that it boils down to choice. There is no middle ground. There is little room for compromise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> More threads, on this subject, are pointless. It would seem that the discussion has been exhausted and is only circling. I will boil down the argument. The pro-life side believes that to kill an unborn child is murder, the pro-abortion side believes that it boils down to choice. There is no middle ground. There is little room for compromise.


It's been circling for years and that will not change, which is why folks need to just worry about themselves rather than trying to control others


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been circling for years and that will not change, which is why folks need to just worry about themselves rather than trying to control others


 
That is one of the poorer arguments against life. (Well, we can't change it, so, why bother?)

This is an example of what I mean. The pro-abortionist says "don't try to control others", but, they want control over the most fundamental right of another, the right to live.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> That is one of the poorer *arguments against life*. (Well, we can't change it, so, why bother?)
> 
> This is an example of what I mean. The pro-abortionist says "don't try to control others", but, they want control over the most fundamental right of another, the right to live.


There is no "right to live" prior to birth

I have nothing "against life".
I'm for not trying to tell others how to live theirs


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Yes, this is really getting tiresome, YH. To be the only one practically in the universe who thinks this is truly crazy. I submit you do not truly think this, you're just inserting idiotic statements. There's "HUNDREDS" of links to say otherwise, go google.
> Female's eggs die off regularly, as do sperm. No am't of "saving" could help. You KNOW this. Just stop.


How many of those eggs would die off if they were fertilized and allowed to proceed as nature intends? The reason they die off regularly is because someone made a conscious decision to go against natures plan. And no I am not just tossing this in the mix for nothing. I am stating facts based on rational logical thoughts as apposed to religious beliefs or emotions. What it boils down to is every one wants to be able to choose when and where they bear children, some want to make others choices for them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There is no &quot;right to live&quot; prior to birth


 That right has been denied. Fundamental human rights are not gifts from government, but, rather a natural condition of humanity. The crime, as the pro-life movement sees it, is that those fundamental rights have been denied the unborn, who are fully human. These rights are not gifts from government, but, it is the role of government to protect those rights. That is the goal for which we fight. The protection of a currently unprotected class of human, the unborn.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> That right has been denied. Fundamental human rights are not gifts from government, but, rather a natural condition of humanity. The crime, as the pro-life movement sees it, is that those fundamental rights have been denied the unborn, who are fully human. These rights are not gifts from government, but, it is the role of government to protect those rights. That is the goal for which we fight. The protection of a currently unprotected class of human, the unborn.


The female has always had the right to do with her body what she wants. That includes terminating a pregnancy. You can rail against that all you want but you will never be able to change that. There is no person with rights inside another person's body.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How many of those eggs would die off if they were fertilized and allowed to proceed as nature intends? The reason they die off regularly is because someone made a conscious decision to go against natures plan. And no I am not just tossing this in the mix for nothing. I am stating facts based on rational logical thoughts as apposed to religious beliefs or emotions. What it boils down to is every one wants to be able to choose when and where they bear children, some want to make others choices for them.


 The rational and logical thought is that sperm and eggs are part of the parent organism and not a separate unique life form. An embryo is a separate and unique life form. But we know that you understand this and are simply attempting to muddy the water.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> That right has been denied. Fundamental human rights are not gifts from government, but, rather a natural condition of humanity. The crime, as the pro-life movement sees it, is that those fundamental rights have been denied the unborn, who are fully human. These rights are not gifts from government, but, it is the role of government to protect those rights. That is the goal for which we fight. *The protection of a currently unprotected class of human, the unborn.*


And yet you defend the practice of disposing of those unborn lives on a regular basis, as long as it's done according to "your rules" those lives don't seem to matter.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The female has always had the right to do with her body what she wants. That includes terminating a pregnancy. You can rail against that all you want but *you will never be able to change that*. There is no person with rights inside another person's body.


 
We shall see.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> The rational and logical thought is that sperm and eggs are part of the parent organism and not a separate unique life form. An embryo is a separate and unique life form. But we know that you understand this and are simply attempting to muddy the water.


Actually the water has been muddied for a very long time, I am merely trying to clear it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And yet you defend the practice of disposing of those unborn lives on a regular basis, as long as it's done according to "your rules" those lives don't seem to matter.


 
No one, with any scientific education, will believe your argument.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> No one, with any scientific education, will believe your argument.


No one with any scientific education, believes that fertilization means there is a person you are killing.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

God (for the religious set) or Mother Nature, (for those non believers) created a highly complex system for the express purpose of perpetuating life on this planet... All forms of life (except one) strives at every opportunity to fulfill that function. Mankind is the only exception to this even though he knows it's what God/nature intended. Why? I think it's because we want to control our own lives and figured out ways to bypass that plan when if we so desire. I really have no problem with that, but when some decide they need to control the decision of others I want to know why. Why is it ok for some to interrupt the plan using some methods and yet deny others their right to use a different method to cheat God/nature out of their goal?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> No one, with any scientific education, will believe your argument.


Anyone with a scientific back ground will affirm my argument. Look around you, all forms of life strive to reproduce at every opportunity, it's as though it's their sole reason to exist.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> That right has been denied. Fundamental human rights are not gifts from government, but, rather a natural condition of humanity. The crime, as the pro-life movement sees it, is that those fundamental rights have been denied the unborn, who are fully human. These rights are not gifts from government, but, it is the role of government to protect those rights. That is the goal for which we fight. The protection of a currently unprotected class of human, the unborn.


Remember this?:



> Originally Posted by Farmerga View Post
> More threads, on this subject, are *pointless*. It would seem that the discussion has been exhausted and is only circling. I will boil down the argument. The pro-life side believes that to kill an unborn child is murder, the pro-abortion side believes that it boils down to choice. There is no middle ground. There is little room for compromise.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> No one with any scientific education, believes that fertilization means there is a person you are killing.


 Pre-person, perhaps, but fully unique human.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Pre-person, perhaps, but fully unique human.


Yes, and ear or a liver grown in a petri dish is human. You need a functioning brain to be considered a person and imbued with rights.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Anyone with a scientific back ground will affirm my argument. Look around you, all forms of life strive to reproduce at every opportunity, it's as though it's their sole reason to exist.


 Well, I have had more than a little education on the subject and the gametes are part of an organism, the fertilized embryo is its own unique life. To say that they equate to each other is as silly as planting pollen in your garden rather than seeds.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Pre-person, perhaps, but fully unique human.


And when it develops into a person by being born our government will ste up to the plate and defend its rights, until that time the woman it derives its existence from gets to decide what rights it may or may not have.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Yes, and ear or a liver grown in a petri dish is human. You need a functioning brain to be considered a person and imbued with rights.


 Says you, but, attitudes and laws can be changed.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And when it develops into a person by being born our government will ste up to the plate and defend its rights, until that time the woman it derives its existence from gets to decide what rights it may or may not have.


 And, at the moment, that is true. Hopefully that will not always be the case.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Remember this?:


 
Yep, but, a little pointless rehashing does me no harm.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Well, I have had more than a little education on the subject and the gametes are part of an organism, the fertilized embryo is its own unique life. To say that they equate to each other is as silly as planting pollen in your garden rather than seeds.


 what is the expected yield if you plant unpollinated seeds? I suspect about the same as if you plow the crop under prior to it bearing fruit. There is a reason for the entire process. Interrupting the life cycle at any point results in the exact same thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Says you, but, attitudes and laws can be changed.


So have any attitudes been changed here?
Did you go to a PP protest this weekend?



> Yep, but, a little pointless rehashing *does me no harm*.


Neither does another woman getting an abortion


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And, at the moment, that is true. Hopefully that will not always be the case.


It wasn't the case prior to roe v wade either and I think we all know how that worked out. Not pretty at all.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> what is the expected yield if you plant unpollinated seeds? I suspect about the same as if you plow the crop under prior to it bearing fruit. There is a reason for the entire process. *Interrupting the life cycle at any point results in the exact same thing*.


 No, when you interrupt it, after fertilization, it results in the death of a unique human life, if you interrupt it, prior to fertilization, it does not.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So have any attitudes been changed here?
> Did you go to a PP protest this weekend?
> 
> 
> Neither does another woman getting an abortion


 Don't know. Among posters, likely not, but, my postings, much like the videos, are not aimed at those on the pro-life, or, pro-abortion side, but, rather the vast numbers, in the middle, who can be persuaded. 

We don't have a PP slaughter house anywhere close to my home. Thank God. 

Yes, but the abortion does harm to another.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Don't know. Among posters, likely not, but, my postings, much like the videos, are not aimed at those on the pro-life, or, pro-abortion side, but, rather the vast numbers, in the middle, who can be persuaded.
> 
> We don't have a PP slaughter house anywhere close to my home. Thank God.
> 
> Yes, but the abortion does harm to another.


Sensational overly emotional rhetoric does nothing but diminish your agenda. Frankly, it makes you (collective you) look ridiculous.

The outright lying in the videos to "trick" the uninformed is yet another way the pro unborn prove they are beneath contempt. Anyone with two working brain cells can see the lies and half truths.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> No, when you interrupt it, after fertilization, it results in the death of a unique human life, if you interrupt it, prior to fertilization, it does not.


Either way it results in an empty basket. You can call it whatever you like.... There is no life, unique or otherwise. Your argument seems to be based on your own moral standards, because this way you think you can claim some sort of moral high ground above those who opt to interrupt the life cycle after conception instead of prior to it. According to nature you have no such claim available.... Any one who interfers with the process at any point is just as guilty as those who interrupt it at any other point. If God didn't want us to perpetuate life He wouldn't have designed us with the magnificent equipment to do so.... All those nerve endings in that small region were put ther for a purpose! It's all part of the plan.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

There are no "vast numbers in the middle"
The polls show a little over half favor keeping abortions legal, and the other half doesn't.

As the population gets younger, it will be more liberal and less controlling


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sensational overly emotional rhetoric does nothing but diminish your agenda. Frankly, it makes you (collective you) look ridiculous.
> 
> The outright lying in the videos to "trick" the uninformed is yet another way the pro unborn prove they are beneath contempt. Anyone with two working brain cells can see the lies and half truths.


 It is sweet that you are concerned with the success of my agenda, to the point that you offer advice to make my arguments more successful. 

I can't speak to the videos, I haven't watched a single one of them as they are irrelevant to the matter at hand.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> It is sweet that you are concerned with the success of my agenda, to the point that you offer advice to make my arguments more successful.
> 
> I can't speak to the videos, I haven't watched a single one of them as they are irrelevant to the matter at hand.


No prob. The more emotional and sensational the less believable your agenda becomes. Well, if that's even possible. 

It doesn't bother you that the organization you support so ardently lies like a dog?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are no "vast numbers in the middle"
> The polls show a little over half favor keeping abortions legal, and the other half doesn't.
> 
> As the population gets younger, it will be more liberal and less controlling


 The polls, only a few years ago, that people didn't support the rights of homosexuals to marry, That has changed, rather quickly. 

It is my hope is that the less controlling aspect of the future culture will fall on those who currently have control over the life, or, death of the unborn.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> No prob. The more emotional and sensational the less believable your agenda becomes. Well, if that's even possible.
> 
> It doesn't bother you that the organization you support so ardently lies like a dog?


 What organization is that?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> What organization is that?


Seriously? The pro life/pro unborn, but you knew that...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The polls, only a few years ago, that people didn't support the rights of homosexuals to marry, That has changed, rather quickly.
> 
> It is my hope is that the less controlling aspect of the future culture will fall on those who currently have control over the life, or, death of the unborn.


That sort of proves my point that as time goes by, the population tends to be more tolerant, although I don't think the change was really "quick".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How many of those eggs would die off if they were fertilized and allowed to proceed as nature intends? The reason they die off regularly is because someone made a conscious decision to go against natures plan. And no I am not just tossing this in the mix for nothing. I am stating facts based on rational logical thoughts as apposed to religious beliefs or emotions. What it boils down to is every one wants to be able to choose when and where they bear children, some want to make others choices for them.


Not true at all. Natures plan is to have an egg available. AVAILABLE. The rest get old & die or just sluff off. THAT is the plan.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Either way it results in an empty basket. You can call it whatever you like.... There is no life, unique or otherwise. Your argument seems to be based on your own moral standards, because this way you think you can claim some sort of moral high ground above those who opt to interrupt the life cycle after conception instead of prior to it. According to nature you have no such claim available.... Any one who interfers with the process at any point is just as guilty as those who interrupt it at any other point. If God didn't want us to perpetuate life He wouldn't have designed us with the magnificent equipment to do so.... All those nerve endings in that small region were put ther for a purpose! It's all part of the plan.


 By your reasoning, anyone who murders is just as guilty as an abortionist, or, someone who prevents fertilization. To take your thoughts to their logical conclusion, anyone who kills anything, ever, is just as guilty as Stalin.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That sort of proves my point that as time goes by, the population tends to be more tolerant, although I don't think the change was really "quick".


 Over time rights expand. What is to say that they won't expand for the last unprotected group, the unborn? 

Well, when it did start to change, it was rapid.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Anyone with a scientific back ground will affirm my argument. Look around you, all forms of life strive to reproduce at every opportunity, it's as though it's their sole reason to exist.


Why do you suppose nature/God has deemed plants make "HUNDREDS" of seeds for @ flower/fruit? B/c not all are planted. Nor could they be.
We, being higher beings, w/souls, have a more complex 'circle of life' & never were all eggs & sperm meant to be united. That's why there's a process!

To set the record strait-again-I don't believe there's a soul, yet, til the embryo divides, is implanted & has a chance to grow.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> By your reasoning, anyone who* murders* is just as guilty as an abortionist, or, someone who prevents fertilization. To take your thoughts to their *logical* conclusion, anyone who kills anything, ever, is just as guilty as Stalin.


Not everyone thinks abortions are murder, so your premise is flawed, and comparisons to Stalin/Hitler/Nazis/Slavery etc have all been done.

If you really want to be "logical" you can't compare legal acts to illegal acts


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? The pro life/pro unborn, but you knew that...


 
I actually thought you were talking about this group who did the videos. 

But, to answer your question. What lies? There are likely some as there will be some, on any side of an emotional debate such as this one, who would get carried away. And, even if some do lie, it is better than the wholesale slaughter, performed by the group that you support.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not everyone thinks abortions are murder, so your premise is flawed, and comparisons to Stalin/Hitler/Nazis/Slavery etc have all been done.
> 
> If you really want to be "logical" you can't compare legal acts to illegal acts


 I believe you misunderstood that post, please read again. 

When I used the word "murder" in that post, I was actually referring to todays legal definition, not, abortion. 

Why can't one compare legal and illegal acts in a conversation about morality?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> I actually thought you were talking about this group who did the videos.
> 
> But, to answer your question. What lies? There are likely some as there will be some, on any side of an emotional debate such as this one, who would get carried away. And, even if some do lie, it is better than the wholesale slaughter, performed by the group that you support.


So lying is acceptable as long as it supports your agenda? The ends justify the means. SMH 

You'll do just about anything to violate my civil rights, won't you?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> So lying is acceptable as long as it supports your agenda? The ends justify the means. SMH
> 
> You'll do just about anything to violate my civil rights, won't you?


 
Where did I say that? Show me.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's a shame you'd force someone to have a baby they don't want.
> The bottom line is you don't have any right to make *any *decisions for others, including "morals"


If they don't want a baby there are lots of ways to prevent that from happening. I'm not against birth control. We don't use it. My wife and I have been together near every single night in the last 10 years since our daughter was born and no pregnancy yet. Why? Because we have 2 and our happy. So if you don't want a baby you don't have to have one.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

If a baby in the womb isn't a person, then how come if a woman 4 weeks pregnant gets killed the person guilty is charged with double homicide?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If they don't want a baby there are lots of ways to prevent that from happening. I'm not against birth control. We don't use it. My wife and I have been together near every single night in the last 10 years since our daughter was born and no pregnancy yet. Why? Because we have 2 and our happy. So if you don't want a baby you don't have to have one.


To clarify. You are saying that the reason your wife hasn't conceived in 10 years despite regular, unprotected sex is because you are happy and content with the two children you have?


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2015)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If a baby in the womb isn't a person, then how come if a woman 4 weeks pregnant gets killed the person guilty is charged with double homicide?


Simple today's laws are as bias and hypocritical as always with one difference, the amount of them.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Tiempo said:


> To clarify. You are saying that the reason your wife hasn't conceived in 10 years despite regular, unprotected sex is because you are happy and content with the two children you have?


Yep we are. But if she were to get pregnant I would thank God for it and love it with all me heart. Why? Because it was something I helped create by an act meant to create it. You see I believe that when a child is conceived there is a soul immediately destined within that life form. It is not our place to play God and destroy something as precious as a beautiful life that is given to us not only to love but that will give nothing but love. That's the saddest part of this all. To kill something so precious as a child who would love nothing more than to squeeze your finger, hold your hand and love you unconditionally. So very sad the lack of pure love there is among the left. What a sad life you must have lived to feel that a beautiful child doesn't deserve the chance to live, love and possibly change the world.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

And I'm referencing the 90 plus percent of abortions that happen due to carelessness. See I do understand the life threatening reasons it has to be done. But that's less than 1 percent of yearly abortions. So these children in referencing are dieing do to carelessness. Mostly by those who are rather easy of you know what I mean.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> And I'm referencing the 90 plus percent of abortions that happen due to carelessness. See I do understand the life threatening reasons it has to be done. But that's less than 1 percent of yearly abortions. So these children in referencing are dieing do to carelessness. Mostly by those who are rather easy of you know what I mean.


Does birth control failure count as s l u t shame or carelessness?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Vahomesteaders said:


> And I'm referencing the 90 plus percent of abortions that happen due to carelessness. See I do understand the life threatening reasons it has to be done. But that's less than 1 percent of yearly abortions. So these children in referencing are dieing do to carelessness. Mostly by those who are rather easy of you know what I mean.


And some are too high or too drunk. It is the responsibility of both partners to make sure one of them is using birth control. Yes, they do die because their parents were too careless and too lazy to make preparations for their consequences.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If they don't want a baby there are lots of ways to prevent that from happening. I'm not against birth control. We don't use it. My wife and I have been together near every single night in the last 10 years since our daughter was born and no pregnancy yet. Why? Because we have 2 and our happy. So if you don't want a baby you don't have to have one.


I am a little baffled. Are you saying a woman can only get pregnant if she wants to. So if you don't want a baby, it doesn't happen?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> I believe you misunderstood that post, please read again.
> 
> When I used the word "murder" in that post, I was actually referring to todays legal definition, not, abortion.
> 
> Why can't one compare legal and illegal acts in a conversation about morality?


I was also talking about "today's definition", and abortion isn't "murder"
As to "morality" you don't get to force yours on anyone else. 



> Murder is the killing of another person without justification or valid excuse, and it is especially the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought. This state of mind may, depending upon the jurisdiction, distinguish murder from other forms of unlawful homicide, such as manslaughter. In some U.S. states, laws regarding murder are determined by the Model Penal Code.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> *If they don't want a baby there are lots of ways to prevent that from happening.* I'm not against birth control. We don't use it. My wife and I have been together near every single night in the last 10 years since our daughter was born and no pregnancy yet. Why? Because we have 2 and our happy. So if you don't want a baby you don't have to have one.


Abortion is one of those ways.

The fact your wife never got pregnant again would seem to indicate some medical problem, or she has reached menopause 

It's certainly *not* because "you don't want one"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> If a baby in the womb isn't a person, then how come if a woman 4 weeks pregnant gets killed the person guilty is charged with double homicide?


Because only the mother can choose to terminate a pregnancy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> And some are *too high or too drunk*. It is the responsibility of both partners to make sure one of them is using birth control. Yes, they do die because their parents were *too careless and too lazy* to make preparations for their consequences.


And these are the ones you would force to become parents and be responsible for raising the unwanted children


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Where did I say that? Show me.


Right here:



> And, even if some do lie, it is better than the wholesale slaughter, performed by the group that you support.


What happened to "morality"?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Abortion is one of those ways.
> 
> The fact your wife never got pregnant again would seem to indicate some medical problem, or she has reached menopause
> 
> It's certainly *not* because "you don't want one"


We are 34 and in our prime. Without going into detail there are ways not to allow the boys to swim up there. Just picture a mack truck driving out of a tunnel very fast in reverse. Working great for 10 years with no transmission problems. Lol


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

keenataz said:


> I am a little baffled. Are you saying a woman can only get pregnant if she wants to. So if you don't want a baby, it doesn't happen?


Reference previous post.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> We are 34 and in our prime. Without going into detail there are ways not to allow the boys to swim up there. Just picture a mack truck driving out of a tunnel very fast in reverse. Working great for 10 years with no transmission problems. Lol


So you *are* using birth control, even though it's the most unreliable method. 

Why didn't you just say you use the withdrawal method instead of "we don't want to get pregnant"?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> And these are the ones you would force to become parents and be responsible for raising the unwanted children


You would hope that they would mature and accept the responsiblity for the child that they created. When people know abortions are the easiest way out, they will continue to use abortion for birth control. Sometimes multiple abortions.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

gapeach said:


> You would hope that they would mature and accept the responsiblity for the child that they created. When people know abortions are the easiest way out, they will continue to use abortion for birth control. Sometimes multiple abortions.


Actually over 45% of abortions each year in America are by women who have had multiple abortions. So almost half of them are repeat customers.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> We are 34 and in our prime. Without going into detail there are ways not to allow the boys to swim up there. Just picture a mack truck driving out of a tunnel very fast in reverse. Working great for 10 years with no transmission problems. Lol



:tmi:


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you *are* using birth control, even though it's the most unreliable method.
> 
> Why didn't you just say you use the withdrawal method instead of "we don't want to get pregnant"?


Like I said. I'm not against birth control. Would rather it not happen if the life is going to be murdered. As to my method. 10 years without a hiccup. Pretty good odds considering my wife was on the pill with the first two.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> We are 34 and in our prime. Without going into detail there are ways not to allow the boys to swim up there. Just picture a mack truck driving out of a tunnel very fast in reverse. Working great for 10 years with no transmission problems. Lol


Ew. You know you could have just said natural family planning. But you had to compare your..... "self" to a Mack truck. 

Just ew. Does anyone have bleach?


TMI.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Ew. You know you could have just said natural family planning. But you had to compare your.....self to a Mack truck.
> 
> Just ew. Does anyone have bleach?


What has been seen cannot be unseen. :yuck:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> The polls, only a few years ago, that people didn't support the rights of homosexuals to marry, That has changed, rather quickly.
> 
> It is my hope is that the less controlling aspect of the future culture will fall on those who currently have control over the life, or, death of the unborn.


And you would like that control taken out of the woman's hands and given to whom? Yourself perhaps?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

gapeach said:


> *You would hope* that they would mature and accept the responsiblity for the child that they created. When people know abortions are the easiest way out, they will continue to use abortion for birth control. Sometimes multiple abortions.


If they are getting multiple abortions, it's clear they aren't good parent material.

"Hoping" isn't a good plan in the face of reality


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gapeach said:


> You would hope that they would mature and accept the responsiblity for the child that they created. When people know abortions are the easiest way out, they will continue to use abortion for birth control. Sometimes multiple abortions.


Again. None of your business.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> By your reasoning, anyone who murders is just as guilty as an abortionist, or, someone who prevents fertilization. To take your thoughts to their logical conclusion, anyone who kills anything, ever, is just as guilty as Stalin.


No. Swatting an annoying fly is not murder. To take my reasoning to its logical conclusion is to say anyone who knowingly interrupts the process of bringing a child into the world is just as guilty of whatever that crime is as any other person who interrupts that process. There is no moral high ground to stand upon and condemn others for doing exactly the same thing..... Preventing a child from its chance at life.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually over 45% of abortions each year in America are by women who have had multiple abortions. So almost half of them are repeat customers.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html



> â¢ Fifty-one percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%).[7]


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

So a mack truck reference is eww but ripping babies to pieces and selling them for profit is a beautiful thing? The logic behind that is just mind boggling. And these are the people electing our leaders. Lol


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> So a mack truck reference is eww but ripping babies to pieces and selling them for profit is a beautiful thing? The logic behind that is just mind boggling. And these are the people electing our leaders. Lol


Actually I find the Mack truck reference somewhat difficult to visualize, it's probably more realistic to visualize a tooth pick sliding out of a soda straw.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Actually I find the Mack truck reference somewhat difficult to visualize, it's probably more realistic to visualize a tooth pick sliding out of a soda straw.


Even though we aren't in high-school anymore I'll throw one out there for ya. Is likely easier for you to visualize something you see everyday. Lol


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

It's a well known fact liberals don't have much to work with. It's why they are always playing the victim card and hating everybody.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Even though we aren't in high-school anymore I'll throw one out there for ya. Is likely easier for you to visualize something you see everyday. Lol


I haven't seen it years, not since I swapped out that six pack for a keg.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> So a mack truck reference is eww but ripping babies to pieces and selling them for profit is a beautiful thing? The logic behind that is just mind boggling. And these are the people electing our leaders. Lol


And overly emotional and untrue rhetoric is what the conservative pro unborn do best.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I haven't seen it years, not since I swapped out that six pack for a keg.


That happens. Just gives it extra protection. Lol


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Like I said. I'm not against birth control. Would rather it not happen if the life is going to be murdered. As to my method. 10 years without a hiccup. Pretty good odds considering my wife was on the pill with the first two.


10 years, every night with the withdrawal method and no hiccup suggests a high probability of a plumbing problem with either you or her.

I don't say this to be mean, but in the hope that others don't read what you wrote and think they could expect the same results. I sure hope you don't council any youngsters to use that method.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

No plumbing problems at all. Like I said. I beat the pill and the patch for my first two. Just education. My wife is like the sun. She knows when she is ovulating. And how many days after we are safe. I guy knows when things are going to take place. If he is late is his own fault.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> No plumbing problems at all. Like I said. I beat the pill and the patch for my first two. Just education. My wife is like the sun. She knows when she is ovulating. And how many days after we are safe. I guy knows when things are going to take place. If he is late is his own fault.


No explosion is needed for a swimmer to make a run for it. You are not a good example of birth control.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> No explosion is needed for a swimmer to make a run for it. You are not a good example of birth control.


A great example of dumb luck though! I hope their luck holds up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> No plumbing problems at all. Like I said. I beat the pill and the patch for my first two. Just education. My wife is like the sun. *She knows when she is ovulating. And how many days after we are safe*. I guy knows when things are going to take place. If he is late is his own fault.


So now you say you're using 2 different methods of birth control (both based largely on luck), and you're not really doing it "nearly every night".

You could have gotten to this point in one post rather than dragging it out.
You can use all the adult terms here (assuming you know them)


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So now you say you're using 2 different methods of birth control (both based largely on luck), and you're not really doing it "nearly every night".
> 
> You could have gotten to this point in one post rather than dragging it out.
> You can use all the adult terms here (assuming you know them)


We use to be like everyone else. Then realized the dangers of some birth controls and went for a healthier approach. Knowing if it happened we world be fine with it. And yes. 3 years ago my wife and I said no matter what whether angry or not we would be intimate every night unless we both agreed not too. Well there is only a few days at the end of the month when we both agree not to. It has been the best thing we have ever done in our 15 years of marriage. This is a family site. Some parents don't want their children to read certain things or terms . So I insinuate and use examples. No need to try and belittle someone as to proper terms. Guess that's to be expected from the liberal mindset. If you have no argument resort to name calling or scream racism.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This is a family site. Some parents don't want their children to read certain things or terms .


Parents wouldn't let young children read General Chat.
Older children can understand "withdrawal" as easily as "backing the truck out of the tunnel"



> Guess that's to be expected from the liberal mindset. If you have no argument resort to name calling or scream racism.


So your use of "liberal" isn't name calling and insulting?
You're funny.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No. Swatting an annoying fly is not murder. To take my reasoning to its logical conclusion is to say anyone who knowingly interrupts the process of bringing a child into the world is just as guilty of whatever that crime is as any other person who interrupts that process. There is no moral high ground to stand upon and condemn others for doing exactly the same thing..... Preventing a child from its chance at life.


I hate to tell ya again, but there IS NO CHILD.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I was also talking about "today's definition", and abortion isn't "murder"
> As to "morality" you don't get to force yours on anyone else.


 You keep saying that, but, our history is replete with people doing that very thing. Slavery was seen as an immoral institution, so, laws were enacted to stop it. Was that not a group of people forcing their morality on others? The baker thread, you, yourself defend forcing morals, through law, on to others. I guess, it is not forcing morality when you are the one who does/supports the forcing.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Right here:
> 
> 
> What happened to "morality"?


 Where did I say it was "acceptable". There is a difference between the definitions of the words "better" and "acceptable", but, I believe you are aware of that. Because it may be better to have a cold than to have Ebola, doesn't mean that having a cold is acceptable.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And you would like that control taken out of the woman's hands and given to whom? Yourself perhaps?


 The law, as responsibility for the protection of rights has been given for centuries.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> *No. Swatting an annoying fly is not murder.* To take my reasoning to its logical conclusion is to say anyone who knowingly interrupts the process of bringing a child into the world is just as guilty of whatever that crime is as any other person who interrupts that process. There is no moral high ground to stand upon and condemn others for doing exactly the same thing..... Preventing a child from its chance at life.


 Says you, who are you to force your morality on others? 

I know you want to twist facts to make your point, and any honest person sees and knows that there is a huge difference between preventing fertilization and killing the product of fertilization. I believe you see it as well, and are just being obtuse for kicks.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Says you, who are you to force your morality on others?
> 
> I know you want to twist facts to make your point, and any honest person sees and knows that there is a huge difference between preventing fertilization and killing the product of fertilization. I believe you see it as well, and are just being obtuse for kicks.


What gives that product of fertilization the "right" to take from another? Even presupposing your contention that that product of fertilization is fully human( and I don't) what makes this unwelcome visitor different from the person who walks through the front door you accidently left open and helps themself to the food in your fridge and your big screen tv. Can you have them forcibly evicted? Can you shoot and kill them with impunity in certain jurisdictions and be applauded by some of the very same folks who would say you cannot deny entrance and accomodation to conjoined cells? Isn't the woman, as property owner , equally endowed with the right to control access to her property. Or does she lose that control because she made a mistake and had unprotected sex just as you may have mistakenly left a door unlocked?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> I hate to tell ya again, but there IS NO CHILD.


Exactly! :clap:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> *Says you, who are you to force your morality on others? *
> 
> I know you want to twist facts to make your point, and any honest person sees and knows that there is a huge difference between preventing fertilization and killing the product of fertilization. I believe you see it as well, and are just being obtuse for kicks.


That shoe pinches a bit doesnt it when someone else shows you how it fits. I am not twisting any facts, just pointing out facts. Any honest person has to agree that the outcome is identical.... There is no child! And lastly Where have I said anything was immoral?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> The law, as responsibility for the protection of rights has been given for centuries.


thats right were it is right now... our laws say the woman has the right to control her own reproductive organs.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> What gives that product of fertilization the "right" to take from another? Even presupposing your contention that that product of fertilization is fully human( and I don't) what makes this unwelcome visitor different from the person who walks through the front door you accidently left open and helps themself to the food in your fridge and your big screen tv. Can you have them forcibly evicted? Can you shoot and kill them with impunity in certain jurisdictions and be applauded by some of the very same folks who would say you cannot deny entrance and accomodation to conjoined cells? Isn't the woman, as property owner , equally endowed with the right to control access to her property. Or does she lose that control because she made a mistake and had unprotected sex just as you may have mistakenly left a door unlocked?


 Lets make your analogy a little more accurate. Your "unwelcome guest" didn't walk through the front door, but, was passed out and carried, by his friends, and left in a strange house. He is there by no fault of his own and has no evil intent. 

If your "unwelcome visitor" is not posing a threat, and you kill him, you will, likely, face the heavy hand of the law. 

Just as the unwelcome visitor, who doesn't pose a threat cannot be removed where the removal will kill him, so to the same rights should be afforded to the fetus, who, by no fault of its own, finds itself in her "kitchen".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That shoe pinches a bit doesnt it when someone else shows you how it fits. I am not twisting any facts, just pointing out facts. *Any honest person has to agree that the outcome is identical....* There is no child! And lastly Where have I said anything was immoral?


Sure, the outcome is identical, just like if a person moves out of a house, never moved in, in the first place, or, is shot in the head and dragged out. The outcome is identical, an empty house. 

I don't believe I ever said that you did say anything was immoral.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> thats right were it is right now... our laws say the woman has the right to control her own reproductive organs.


 And we do not wish to prevent her from exercising those right, except when another is living in them, posing no real threat of harm.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Lets make your analogy a little more accurate. Your "unwelcome guest" didn't walk through the front door, but, was passed out and carried, by his friends, and left in a strange house. He is there by no fault of his own and has no evil intent.
> 
> If your "unwelcome visitor" is not posing a threat, and you kill him, you will, likely, face the heavy hand of the law.
> 
> Just as the unwelcome visitor, who doesn't pose a threat cannot be removed where the removal will kill him, so to the same rights should be afforded to the fetus, who, by no fault of its own, finds itself in her "kitchen".


Let's go to intent and threat. Who knows what intent any other being really has? Who can predict the future. Who gets to decide what is threatening. The person doing the threatening or the person threatened. The standard of law is that it must be a reasonable person and I'd say most reasonable people could agree that the process of hosting another being in one's body is fraught with peril. 

Egg and sperm exist for only one reason. To unite and implant in a host. That's as purposeful an act as walking in a house to burgle it. Why can't a woman lock her door and prevent implantation, just as you can lock your door to prevent others from sleeping in your bed and eating your food.

People die in jails on a regular basis. Since this is a possible outcome of arrest and incarceration should we never lock anyone away for the crime of breaking and entering?

One cannot rationally argue that a conjoined egg and sperm have all of the rights if a human but none of the responsibilities. The only way this human of yours can survive is to take from others. All well and good if the others are willing to provide. But some of those others reserve the right not to. It is equally their right to make this choice.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

This is the most asinine things I've ever read. We are talking about a child. Not a parasite living off a host that had only the intent to harm. This is a living being that is the only living thing your body is designed to carry purposely. It's not a threat but a gift. And im sorry but every species was designed to carry on life of that species. It nature is the sole purpose and goal of that species. In reality we are no different. I keep hearing about these cells. Well we are all consistent of these same cells. What makes your blob of cells anymore human than that of a baby. The only difference is their blob of cells only wants to live and grow. Yours wants to kill and destroy.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> that is the only living thing your body is designed to carry purposely.


Not true



> It's not a threat but a gift.


For you, perhaps. For others, not.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> This is the most asinine things I've ever read. We are talking about a child. Not a parasite living off a host that had only the intent to harm. This is a living being that is the only living thing your body is designed to carry purposely. It's not a threat but a gift. And im sorry but every species was designed to carry on life of that species. It nature is the sole purpose and goal of that species. In reality we are no different. I keep hearing about these cells. Well we are all consistent of these same cells. What makes your blob of cells anymore human than that of a baby. The only difference is their blob of cells only wants to live and grow. Yours wants to kill and destroy.


First if all, I wish no abortion ever happened. It's not realistic and certainly not my choice.

"... their blob of cells only wants to live and grow." That pretty much says it all. That blob of cells doesn't care where it lives and grows, only that it does. It doesn't care about the risk to the person providing for it, only that it be provided for. What makes that blob of cells so special that it gets to usurp the rights of any other blob of cells? What makes that blob of cells entitled to anything that must be involuntarily provided by another blob of cells? Wish to volunteer. You have my blessings. Wish not to. The same.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Says you, *who are you to force your morality on others? *
> 
> I know you want to twist facts to make your point, and any honest person sees and knows that there is a huge difference between preventing fertilization and killing the product of fertilization. I believe you see it as well, and are just being obtuse for kicks.


How can you ask someone else that when it's exactly what you want to do?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Let's go to intent and threat. Who knows what intent any other being really has? Who can predict the future. Who gets to decide what is threatening. The person doing the threatening or the person threatened. The standard of law is that it must be a reasonable person and I'd say most reasonable people could agree that the process of hosting another being in one's body is fraught with peril.
> 
> Egg and sperm exist for only one reason. To unite and implant in a host. That's as purposeful an act as walking in a house to burgle it. Why can't a woman lock her door and prevent implantation, just as you can lock your door to prevent others from sleeping in your bed and eating your food.
> 
> ...


 Humans have the rights that we choose to protect. We do not kill the person who steals to eat, especially when you invite his friends over for a party and they leave him there.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> First if all, I wish no abortion ever happened. It's not realistic and certainly not my choice.
> 
> "... their blob of cells only wants to live and grow." That pretty much says it all. That blob of cells doesn't care where it lives and grows, only that it does. It doesn't care about the risk to the person providing for it, only that it be provided for. What makes that blob of cells so special that it gets to usurp the rights of any other blob of cells? What makes that blob of cells entitled to anything that must be involuntarily provided by another blob of cells? Wish to volunteer. You have my blessings. Wish not to. The same.


Risk to the person? That is a very small percentage. It is designed that way on where to grow. If you stick it anywhere else in the body it will die. These would be valid arguments if 9 out of 10 abortions were not for any other reason other than they just don't want children. No physical harm or disease or rape. Just plain don't want one. So it's a senseless killing. Those cells are alive and living. They are killing them for no good reason. And all the cells are in place. The cells destined to become the brain, hands, feet, nose and gave are all there. Just in smaller form. So all the pieces of the child are there and intact. So the child is a living thing.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How can you ask someone else that when it's exactly what you want to do?


 It shows hypocrisy. Many have said that we can't impose our morality on others, while, at the same time, have no problem imposing theirs on others.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Risk to the person? That is a very small percentage. It is designed that way on where to grow. If you stick it anywhere else in the body it will die. These would be valid arguments if 9 out of 10 abortions were not for any other reason other than they just don't want children. No physical harm or disease or rape. Just plain don't want one. So it's a senseless killing. Those cells are alive and living. *They are killing them for no good reason*. And all the cells are in place. The cells destined to become the brain, hands, feet, nose and gave are all there. Just in smaller form. So all the pieces of the child are there and intact. So the child is a living thing.


It doesn't matter one bit whether or not* you* think there is any good reason

It's none of your business


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Risk to the person? That is a very small percentage. It is designed that way on where to grow. If you stick it anywhere else in the body it will die. These would be valid arguments if 9 out of 10 abortions were not for any other reason other than they just don't want children. No physical harm or disease or rape. Just plain don't want one. So it's a senseless killing. Those cells are alive and living. They are killing them for no good reason. And all the cells are in place. The cells destined to become the brain, hands, feet, nose and gave are all there. Just in smaller form. So all the pieces of the child are there and intact. So the child is a living thing.


But that is their choice. The reasons may not be good to you or the ones you would make but they could make perfect sense to others. That is part if what freedom is. Making choices and allowing others to do the same. The question remains- what gives that blob of cells the right to take that which is not freely given. If I walk by a hungry child while I'm eating a ham sandwich can the police officer remove it from my hands to give to them. Or is it my choice to share or not. What of a blood transfusion or organ donation? Can the government compel such things or am I free to volunteer or not? Am I free to assess my own risk or must I live by your assessment?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Humans have the rights that we choose to protect. We do not kill the person who steals to eat, especially when you invite his friends over for a party and they leave him there.


Humans have the same rights whether we choose to protect them or not. The only one who can truly assure and exercise his rights is the individual. Does not the individual have the right to tell those friends to get their drunken friend off the couch and out the door?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> It shows hypocrisy. Many have said that we can't impose our morality on others, while, at the same time, have no problem *imposing theirs on others.*


You keep repeating that, but I've seen no *real* examples


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> But that is their choice. The reasons may not be good to you or the ones you would make but they could make perfect sense to others. That is part if what freedom is. Making choices and allowing others to do the same. The question remains- what gives that blob of cells the right to take that which is not freely given. If I walk by a hungry child while I'm eating a ham sandwich can the police officer remove it from my hands to give to them. *Or is it my choice to share or not.* What of a blood transfusion or organ donation? Can the government compel such things or am I free to volunteer or not? Am I free to assess my own risk or must I live by your assessment?


 Through taxes, you are forced to share. Also, you are free to assess your own risk, but, not at the risk of another human life.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep repeating that, but I've seen no *real* examples


 
You believe that the baker should be forced to bake a cake for one for whom he wishes not to do business. Your moral code dictates that his form of discrimination is wrong and should not be allowed. So, others, who felt the same way you did, got together and used the law to force their form of morality on the entire society.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Humans have the same rights whether we choose to protect them or not. The only one who can truly assure and exercise his rights is the individual. Does not the individual have the right to tell those friends to get their drunken friend off the couch and out the door?


 Parties over and the friends have left. You are left with the drunk friend on the couch. When he can be asked to leave, but, you cannot shoot him in the head and drag him out of your house if he is not threatening you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> You believe that *the baker* should be forced to bake a cake for one for whom he wishes not to do business. Your moral code dictates that his form of discrimination is wrong and should not be allowed. So, others, who felt the same way you did, got together and used the law to force their form of morality on the entire society.


Everyone's "moral code" should dictate that discrimination is wrong.

But in that case there are no real "morals" involved since he's not being asked to do anything different than what he does for every other customer, which is why I said that's not a *real* example. 

He doesn't find it "immoral" to bake a cake, and that's the full extent of his participation. He had already condoned a mockery of "marriage" by doing a cake for a "dog wedding"

It's hardly a comparison to forcing a woman to care for an unwanted child for nearly 2 decades


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And we do not wish to prevent her from exercising those right, *except* when another is living in them, posing no real threat of harm.


Lose the except and we will be on the same page.... until then you obviously do want to prevent her from exercising her rights. What give you the right to deny someone else their rights?

Posing no threat or harm? Are you kidding me?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Parties over and the friends have left. You are left with the drunk friend on the couch. When he can be asked to leave, but, you cannot shoot him in the head and drag him out of your house if he is not threatening you.


But you wouldn't even allow the woman to make his friends take him with them when they leave and not plunk his heinie on her couch in perpetuity. You wouldnt allow the woman to assess her own risk. What gives you that right?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> This is the most asinine things I've ever read. We are talking about a child. Not a parasite living off a host that had only the intent to harm. This is a living being that is the only living thing your body is designed to carry purposely. *It's not a threat but a gift.* And im sorry but *every species was designed to carry on life of that species.* It nature is the sole purpose and goal of that species. *In reality we are no different. *I keep hearing about these cells. Well we are all consistent of these same cells. What makes your blob of cells anymore human than that of a baby. The only difference is their blob of cells only wants to live and grow. *Yours wants to kill and destroy.*


One mans trash is another mans treasure.... what you perceive to be a gift can also be a horrible nightmare to the next person. 

I am glad you recognize that nature wants every species to reproduce itself, and that we are NO DIFFERENT. Man is the only species that I have ever heard of that does not do their very best to procreate at every opportunity. All the rest of nature does this, and we should be no different. when that egg drops.... lets get it fertilized! 

I have no desire to kill anything... ok, that spider over there building his web on my bookshelf is at risk, but not when it comes to people. You couldnt be more wrong about that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Through taxes, you are forced to share. Also, you are free to assess your own risk, but, not at the risk of another human life.


Even with taxes I ostensibly have the freedom to choose. I can vote for those who wouldn't take my money for uses I disapprove of. I can structure my life so as not to pay taxes. I can choose many paths of whether to give or not, to take or not. 

So if I can't assess my risk at the risk of another's life I cannot kill even in self defense? Or because I assess the other person aims to do me grevious harm?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> It shows hypocrisy. Many have said that we can't impose our morality on others, while, at the same time, have no problem imposing theirs on others.


I think its pretty obvious who wants to impose their morality on others here, and its not the woman contemplating an abortion.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lose the except and we will be on the same page.... until then you obviously do want to prevent her from exercising her rights. What give you the right to deny someone else their rights?
> 
> Posing no threat or harm? Are you kidding me?


 The right shouldn't exist to kill another for doing nothing other than existing.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *Everyone's "moral code" should dictate that discrimination is wrong.
> *
> But in that case there are no real "morals" involved since he's not being asked to do anything different than what he does for every other customer, which is why I said that's not a *real* example.
> 
> ...


 Says you and your moral code, and you support having the law crafted and enforced to push your morality on others. My moral code dictates that abortion is wrong and I believe everyone should think so and that the law should be crafted and enforced to push my morality on everyone. I am not speaking to the morality of baking a cake, that is not at issue and you know it. 

As I have said numerous times before. No one wants to force women to care for unwanted children. IMO there should be two choice points, prior to fertilization and after birth. She should be free to give up that child, after birth, if she wishes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> The right shouldn't exist to kill another for doing nothing other than existing.


Ok I will go along with this, if you will agree that killing an existing egg through intentional neglect is equal. Not saying its right or wrong, just that its an equal act that produces an equal result.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> But you wouldn't even allow the woman to make his friends take him with them when they leave and not plunk his heinie on her couch in perpetuity. You wouldnt allow the woman to assess her own risk. What gives you that right?


 She has the right not to "party", or, to stop them at the door, or, to block her couch, so that he cannot be plunked. She could even get rid of her couch prior to the party. She just can't kill him for being there once he is there.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok I will go along with this, if you will agree that killing an existing egg through neglect is equal. Not saying its wrong, just that its an equal act that produces an equal result.


Not the same. An egg by itself cannot become life. Once fertilized it then has become a living growing child.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Says you and your moral code, and you support having the law crafted and enforced to push your morality on others. My moral code dictates that abortion is wrong and I believe everyone should think so and that the law should be crafted and enforced to push my morality on everyone.
> 
> *I am not speaking to the morality of baking a cake, that is not at issue and you know it. *
> 
> As I have said numerous times before. No one wants to force women to care for unwanted children. IMO there should be two choice points, prior to fertilization and after birth. She should be free to give up that child, after birth, if she wishes.


That is precisely the issue, since that is what that case was about.

You still want to force the women to carry the pregnancy to full term, and unless you are going to take responsibility for the child, it will be up to her to do so.

You are free to follow any "code" you like.
You can't make others follow yours


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok I will go along with this, if you will agree that killing an existing egg through neglect is equal. Not saying its wrong, just that its an equal act that produces an equal result.


 
I don't care if you agree with me, or, not. I am not going to accept your silly straw man. As I have said before, sure, you end up with equal results, but, the ends do not justify the means. Like having a renter in your house. You can refuse to rent to him, wait for him to move, when he is ready, or, shoot him in the head and drag him out. The end result is the same, an empty house, but, the means are different.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That is precisely the issue, since that is what that case was about.
> 
> You still want to force the women to carry the pregnancy to full term, and unless you are going to take responsibility for the child, it will be up to her to do so.
> 
> ...


 You can twist words anyway you wish, but, it doesn't make what I have said any less true. 

You know that the case was about discrimination and not about cake baking. You also know that there are more options than me taking the responsibility, or, the woman. Most states have laws that allow for no-questions asked abandonment as long as the child is handed over to an authority figure such as Police, fire, or Medical professionals, so, don't give us this false dichotomy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Not the same. An egg by itself cannot become life. Once fertilized it then has become a living growing child.


I somehow doubt that a fertilized egg is going to become a child by itself either.... It requires a lot of nutrients, and a stable sophisticated environment if its ever to become a child, the host has to provide all of those things. Lay that fertilized egg on a bare table and see how long it lasts. its all part of a lengthy process that begins when that ovary sets the game in motion by send an egg down to become fertilized. 

I believe it was you who stated that in nature reproduction is the sole reason for every species existence and that we were no different. I agree with that completely. There seems to be no purpose to our own existence other than to reproduce, and just like every other species, at every opportunity. That opportunity is when a woman ovulates.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> You can twist words anyway you wish, but, it doesn't make what I have said any less true.
> 
> *You know that the case was about discrimination and not about cake baking. *
> 
> You also know that there are more options than me taking the responsibility, or, the woman. Most states have laws that allow for no-questions asked abandonment as long as the child is handed over to an authority figure such as Police, fire, or Medical professionals, so, don't give us this *false dichotomy.*


No, I don't "know" that since it's not even remotely true.
It's all about the cake, and has nothing to do with "morals"

If you're concerned about "false dichotomy" you'll stop insisting you aren't trying to force your morals on others. 

No one will force you to have an abortion, so you won't have to do anything you don't want to do.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> I don't care if you agree with me, or, not. I am not going to accept your silly straw man.


there is no strawman here, silly or otherwise. In previous posts you have agreed that every aspect of my argument are valid individually. The only part you dont seem to accept is the conclusion.... being that there is no moral high ground to be found in the "prolife" arguments. 

Some of us are indeed not more equal than others!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, I don't "know" that since it's not even remotely true.
> It's all about the cake, and has nothing to do with "morals"
> 
> If you're concerned about "false dichotomy" you'll stop insisting you aren't trying to force your morals on others.
> ...


 I am aware of no law that speaks to baking cakes. I do know of a law that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. Which one did the baker break? The non-existent cake baking law, or, the anti-discrimination law? 

Again, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. When have I denied trying to force my morals on others? I have pointed out that most laws are written by those who wish to push their morals on others, which, for some reason, you deny. 

No one is forcing me to go out and shoot my neighbor, but, I still support laws that prevent others from shooting her.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> there is no strawman here, silly or otherwise. In previous posts you have agreed that every aspect of my argument are valid individually. The only part you dont seem to accept is the conclusion.... being that there is no moral high ground to be found in the "prolife" arguments.
> 
> Some of us are indeed not more equal than others!


 I have never agreed with you saying that an egg is the same as a near- full term fetus. I have also make it very clear that the ends do not always justify the means. 

Do you agree with my analogy of the renter? The results are the same so there can be no moral high ground for the one who lets him leave, when he is ready, over the one who shoots him in the head and drags his lifeless body out, correct?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> I have never agreed with you saying that an egg is the same as a near- full term fetus. I have also make it very clear that the ends do not always justify the means.
> 
> Do you agree with my analogy of the renter? The results are the same so there can be no moral high ground for the one who lets him leave, when he is ready, over the one who shoots him in the head and drags his lifeless body out, correct?


I think most likely the reason you have never agreed with me that an egg is the same as a near full term fetus is because I have never said it was. There is a difference of nine months development between them. 
The only problem here is that in one scenario the renter leaves very much alive and in the other he does not. I would agree to being the same result if there were two renters involved. one you lock in an empty room and let starve to death and then drag him out, compared to the one that I shot to death and I drug outside. then we have the same result, an empty house and two renters that will never be bothering us again. No moral high ground there either.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think most likely the reason you have never agreed with me that an egg is the same as a near full term fetus is because I have never said it was.
> *The only problem here is that in one scenario the renter leaves very much alive and in the other he does not.* I would agree to being the same result if there were two renters involved. one you starved nearly to death and let him crawl outside to die, compared to the one that I shot to death and I drug outside. then we have the same result, an empty house and two renters that will never be bothering us again. No moral high ground there either.


 And that differs from abortion, where one is killed, verses a live birth where one leaves alive, how? And, before you say it, you don't go to a doctor to abort an egg cell.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

***********************


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And that differs from abortion, where one is killed, verses a live birth where one leaves alive, how? And, before you say it, you don't go to a doctor to abort an egg cell.


apples and oranges. in one case you have a live birth because the mother chose to have a child, in the other you dont. totally different outcomes. What we were discussing was the difference between allowing the egg to die of neglect versus an abortion. Two entirely different scenarios.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think most likely the reason you have never agreed with me that an egg is the same as a near full term fetus is because I have never said it was. .


 Ok, you have been saying that there was no moral difference between stopping fertilization and partial birth abortion because the end result is the same. Something about no child and no need for a puppy, etc.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Ok, you have been saying that there was no moral difference between stopping fertilization and partial birth abortion because the end result is the same. Something about no child and no need for a puppy, etc.


Yes, THAT I have maintained all along. There is no difference "morally" if one chooses to not have a little kid playing with puppies and accomplishes that by deliberate neglect or by taking other steps to prevent it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> apples and oranges. in one case you have a live birth because the mother chose to have a child, in the other you dont. totally different outcomes. What we were discussing was the difference between allowing the egg to die of neglect versus an abortion. Two entirely different scenarios.


 Nope. In one you have a live renter because the landlord chose not to shoot him, in the other, you don't. The only difference is that, currently, one is legal, the other is not.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yes, THAT I have maintained all along. There is no difference "morally" if one chooses to not have a little kid playing with puppies and accomplishes that by deliberate neglect or by taking other steps to prevent it.


 
And, IMO that is a twisted form of morality.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Nope. In one you have a live renter because the landlord chose not to shoot him, in the other, you don't. The only difference is that, currently, one is legal, the other is not.


Which renter is alive? the one you deliberately locked in a room and allowed him to slowly starve to death? or the one I shot?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And, IMO that is a twisted form of morality.


And you are entitled to hold any opinion you want. What our Constitution prohibits is forcing some one else to agree with you. I cannot force you to admit that I am right, and you cannot force a woman to carry an embryo full term if she opts not to.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Which renter is alive? the one you deliberately locked in a room and allowed him to slowly starve to death? or the one I shot?


 In my original analogy, one is shot because the landlord chose to shoot him, the other one was left to leave when he was ready. The results are the same, an empty rental house. It can also be said that refusal to rent to the man, because of a bad credit check, would also give the same results. In one, a life is taken, in the other two, none were.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> And we do not wish to prevent her from exercising those right, except when another is living in them, posing no real threat of harm.


That statement right there is perhaps the best evidence that you don't have a clue about the very real harm that an unplanned pregnancy can and does cause for women. Just force women to be incubators -- what's the harm?

Know any women who would be disowned by their families due to an unplanned pregnancy? 

How about any women who would have the stuffing beat out of them? Know any of them? 

Know any women who would be so violently ill from morning sickness due to their forced incubator status that they would be unable to work? 

Know any women who would be thrown out of their homes due to being pregnant?

Know any women whose partners would walk out on them because they're pregnant?

All of these situations are all very real and they happen. You have no idea what harm an unplanned pregnancy can cause women. But yet you have some misguided notion that you should be able to make decisions for women while knowing absolutely nothing about their lives.

Women are fully capable of making their own decisions without your input.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And you are entitled to hold any opinion you want. What our Constitution prohibits is forcing some one else to agree with you. I cannot force you to admit that I am right, and you cannot force a woman to carry an embryo full term if she opts not to.


 
Who is trying to force anyone to agree with me? No, much like I support laws that would protect renters from landlords who would shoot them. I don't care if those packin landlords agree with me or not, as long as they follow the law. I support laws that would protect the unborn from those who would vacuum them out of their homes as well.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SLFarmMI said:


> That statement right there is perhaps the best evidence that you don't have a clue about the very real harm that an unplanned pregnancy can and does cause for women. Just force women to be incubators -- what's the harm?
> 
> Know any women who would be disowned by their families due to an unplanned pregnancy?
> 
> ...


Rare occurrences all and no justification for the killing of the unborn. However, if any of those are true, a look at ones family/partner/boss is in order with the end result being the avoidance of them. And I would be more than willing to give aid/food/shelter to any such woman.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> More threads, on this subject, are pointless. It would seem that the discussion has been exhausted and is only circling. I will boil down the argument. The pro-life side believes that to kill an unborn child is murder, the pro-abortion side believes that it boils down to choice. There is no middle ground. There is little room for compromise.


That's actually not true. As I posted in a big long post on one of the multitudinous threads in here on PP and abortion there is plenty of middle ground for us to work together on. I can't seem to get anyone to do so though.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Rare occurrences all and no justification for the killing of the unborn. However, if any of those are true, a look at ones family/partner/boss is in order with the end result being the avoidance of them.


No they are not rare occurrences. Sadly it's a big reason women choose abortion. One thing I have not seen in these threads is how much pressure is put on women by their families and the father of child.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> In my original analogy, one is shot because the landlord chose to shoot him, the other one was left to leave when he was ready. The results are the same, an empty rental house. It can also be said that refusal to rent to the man, because of a bad credit check, would also give the same results. In one, a life is taken, in the other two, none were.


This is the problem with analogies, they quite often appear similar but end up being an apples and oranges delima. How about just looking at the real situation? one woman chooses to have her egg fertilized, and carrys the embryo through to a live birth. That gets you a child. Thats one result of having ovulated. Another woman opts to deny her egg the chance to become an embryo and develop into a child. Thats a different result. The third woman ovulates, unknowingly allows fertilization because she is not aware of the ovulation, or whatever birth control method she was using failed, finds out later after a skipped period or two and chooses to have an abortion. We now have two identical results, one entirely different result. Trying to compare the morality of the woman who chooses to have the child to the two women who didnt want to have a child is basically impossible, the two women who opted out of having a child can be compared because they have achieved the same result no matter how they got there. There is morally no difference between the last two. There well may be a moral distinction between the first woman and the other two.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> No they are not rare occurrences. Sadly it's a big reason women choose abortion. One thing I have not seen in these threads is how much pressure is put on women by their families and the father of child.


 
As I have said, that is a problem that needs to be looked at and dealt with. I have given to women's shelters, but, I could do more.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> This is the problem with analogies, they quite often appear similar but end up being an apples and oranges delima. How about just looking at the real situation? one woman chooses to have her egg fertilized, and carrys the embryo through to a live birth. That gets you a child. Thats one result of having ovulated. Another woman opts to deny her egg the chance to become an embryo and develop into a child. Thats a different result. The third woman ovulates, unknowingly allows fertilization because she is not aware of the ovulation, or whatever birth control method she was using failed, finds out later after a skipped period or two and chooses to have an abortion. We now have two identical results, one entirely different result. Trying to compare the morality of the woman who chooses to have the child to the two women who didnt want to have a child is basically impossible, the two women who opted out of having a child can be compared because they have achieved the same result no matter how they got there. There is morally no difference between the last two. There well may be a moral distinction between the first woman and the other two.


 There is no moral distinction between the first two, but, the last one ended a human life. That is the difference between the three women.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> I would be more than willing to give aid/food/shelter to any such woman.


Easier said than done..... there are hundreds of thousands of these women every year.... ya may want to add a couple rooms to yer house, and stock up that pantry!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> There is no moral distinction between the first two, but, the last one ended a human life. That is the difference between the three women.


Lemme see if I got this right. 
Assuming all three women ovulated, and have no physical reason not to bear a child other than their individual choices.

Woman A has a child
Woman B has no child
Woman C has no child

It looks to me like woman A had a different outcome than the other two.... who have identical outcomes. But then I could be wrong.... lemme look again.... nope, the last two have identical outcomes, woman A is the one thats different.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Easier said than done..... there are hundreds of thousands of these women every year.... ya may want to add a couple rooms to yer house, and stock up that pantry!


 
Then we, as a society concentrate on shelters. We throw dirt bags, who beat women, in jail. We shame families who would disown pregnant daughters. I can't help them all, but, I can help some. There are millions who can also. We must not kill the innocent because of the animalistic behavior of the "adults".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Lemme see if I got this right.
> Assuming all three women ovulated, and have no physical reason not to bear a child other than their individual choices.
> 
> Woman A has a child
> ...


 But, again, the ends do not justify the means. Only woman C TOOK A HUMAN LIFE. Woman A did not take a life. Woman B did not take a life. Woman A and Woman B are the morally equivalent parties here.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Who is trying to force anyone to agree with me? No, much like I support laws that would protect renters from landlords who would shoot them. I don't care if those packin landlords agree with me or not, *as long as they follow the law.* I support laws that would protect the unborn from those who would vacuum them out of their homes as well.


I am glad to hear you believe in the law, coz last time I looked women are well within their legal bounds to make up their own minds as to whether they want a child or not. That being said, lets hear about a law that prevents them from running a vacuum cleaner. Bear in mind the Constitution grants her that right. phrase your law in such a manner that it doesnt violate her rights, get it passed and see where it goes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> But, again, the ends do not justify the means. Only woman C TOOK A HUMAN LIFE. Woman A did not take a life. Woman B did not take a life. Woman A and Woman B are the morally equivalent parties here.


Really? What did woman B name her child? Where is it? Woman A is the only one who could possibly claim any moral high ground if there is any to be had. Woman B and Woman C both refused to allow mother nature take her course, only woman A opted to follow gods or mother natures plan and have a child. As I recall you were the one that stated procreation is the sole purpose of any species and that we are no different. If the plan is to procreate, and we opt out of that plan, for any reason, then those who opt out are the ones committing the "sin".


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am glad to hear you believe in the law, coz last time I looked women are well within their legal bounds to make up their own minds as to whether they want a child or not. That being said, lets hear about a law that prevents them from running a vacuum cleaner. Bear in mind the Constitution grants her that right. phrase your law in such a manner that it doesnt violate her rights, get it passed and see where it goes.


 Pet peeve of mine: the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it enumerates them. I don't agree with the Roe V. Wade decision. It was the OPINION of 7 men. Such land mark decisions can and have been overturned in the past. If this one was ever overturned, all that would happen is that the question of abortion would be kicked back to the states where they could make laws that regulate it as they see fit. Some would, no doubt, keep it legal, others would outlaw it. 

No, the long term goal must be a Constitutional amendment that enumerates the right of the unborn to life. That would kill abortion in all 50 states. I have no illusions, this fight will likely go beyond my lifetime, but, it is a fight well worth waging.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Really? What did woman B name her child? Where is it? Woman A is the only one who could possibly claim any moral high ground if there is any to be had. Woman B and Woman C both refused to allow mother nature take her course, only woman A opted to follow gods or mother natures plan and have a child. As I recall you were the one that stated procreation is the sole purpose of any species and that we are no different.


 This obsession with the results is tiresome. I know you understand the very simple reason why woman A and B are on equal moral ground. The fact is that neither woman A or Woman B took a human life. It is that simple. 

And you are mistaken, I didn't say the sole purpose of our species was procreation.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Pet peeve of mine: the Constitution doesn't grant rights, it enumerates them. I don't agree with the Roe V. Wade decision. It was the OPINION of 7 men. Such land mark decisions can and have been overturned in the past. If this one was ever overturned, all that would happen is that the question of abortion would be kicked back to the states where they could make laws that regulate it as they see fit. Some would, no doubt, keep it legal, others would outlaw it.
> 
> No, the long term goal must be a Constitutional amendment that enumerates the right of the unborn to life. That would kill abortion in all 50 states. I have no illusions, this fight will likely go beyond my lifetime, but, it is a fight well worth waging.


Ahhh yes! Back to the future! for many many years abortion WAS ILLEGAL in all fifty states. Didnt stop them from happening at all. I am sure everyone wants to get on board that train.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ahhh yes! Back to the future! for many many years abortion WAS ILLEGAL in all fifty states. Didnt stop them from happening at all. I am sure everyone wants to get on board that train.


The culture has changed, there is less of a cultural bias against un-wed pregnancy. Murder is not stopped by law. Neither is rape, robbery, child abuse, etc. We don't make it legal because of that fact.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> And you are mistaken, I didn't say the sole purpose of our species was procreation.


My bad... sorry about that, it was VAhomesteader that brought that into the discussion.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> The culture has changed, there is less of a cultural bias against un-wed pregnancy. Murder is not stopped by law. Neither is rape, robbery, child abuse, etc. We don't make it legal because of that fact.


But those crimes are not illegal due to morality, they are designed to protect us from those who would do us harm. Prolifers always seem to want to hang out a morality shingle to support their desire to meddle in other peoples bedrooms. That was my reason for pointing out there is no moral difference between abstinence as a form or birth control and any other form.... the bottom line is they ALL prevent an unwanted baby.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> *The culture has changed*, there is less of a cultural bias against un-wed pregnancy. Murder is not stopped by law. Neither is rape, robbery, child abuse, etc. We don't make it legal because of that fact.


Yes, the changing culture is why abortions were legalized.
Abortions won't be stopped if they are made illegal.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> thats right were it is right now... our laws say the woman has the right to control her own reproductive organs.


The right to control your reproductive organs in no way means you can kill your unborn child. It means you can & prolly should be responsible & use preventative measures if you do not desire to conceive. 

And...when there is ONLY sperm? There is NO CHILD. 
When there is only egg-there is NO CHILD.
When there is a CHILD in the womb-there IS A CHILD.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Not true
> 
> 
> 
> For you, perhaps. For others, not.


If others do not wish to carry a child in their womb, they should take precautions. It is NOT the fault of the child if they conceive.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Do abortion folks believe in God and the afterlife. I know most don't. And that is fine. That's your right. But I believe that those who had abortions will face the soul of the child they kill and have to explain why that child did not deserve the right at a chance to live. That's why I believe it's a morality issue. How can you explain in good conscience why you killed them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

There's no "child" before birth



> child
> [CH&#299;ld]
> NOUN
> a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority





> feÂ·tus
> [&#712;f&#275;t&#601;s]
> NOUN
> an *unborn *offspring of a mammal, in particular an *unborn* human baby more than eight weeks after conception.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no "child" before birth


Again. That's a definition based on an opinion of those whos job it is to determine a words meaning. They decided what determine a fetus and what determines a child.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Do abortion folks believe in God and the afterlife. I know most don't. And that is fine. That's your right. But* I believe* that those who had abortions will face the soul of the child they kill and have to explain why that child did not deserve the right at a chance to live. That's why I believe it's a morality issue. How can you explain in good conscience why you killed them?


You are free to believe anything your heart desires.

That doesn't mean the rules of your chose religion will apply to anyone who does not follow that religion. 

The majority of the people in the world are not Christians, and don't really care what your rules or beliefs say, any more than you care about the tenets of Muslims or Buddhists


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Again. That's a definition based on an opinion of those whos job it is to determine a words meaning. They decided what determine a fetus and what determines a child.


Word definitions are not "opinions"


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Do abortion folks believe in God and the afterlife. I know most don't. And that is fine. That's your right. But I believe that those who had abortions will face the soul of the child they kill and have to explain why that child did not deserve the right at a chance to live. That's why I believe it's a morality issue. How can you explain in good conscience why you killed them?



Many, many Christians are pro-choice. You can believe anything you want. What you can't do is force your religious beliefs on anyone else. My conscience is clear.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You are free to believe anything your heart desires.
> 
> That doesn't mean the rules of your chose religion will apply to anyone who does not follow that religion.
> 
> The majority of the people in the world are not Christians, and don't really care what your rules or beliefs say, any more than you care about the tenets of Muslims or Buddhists


Actually about 84% of the world are Christian/religious according to recent polls.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually about 84% of the world are Christian according to recent polls.


You are way off. I am assuming most Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis, Arabs are not Christian. Now I believe we are already at 3 billion people at least. And now we factor in Jews, Buddhists, etc. And then the people in other countries who are agnostic or atheist. 

Still want to stand by your post?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> If others do not wish to carry a child in their womb, *they should *take precautions. It is NOT the fault of the child if they conceive.


Most do take precautions, but they don't always work.
When they don't, the mother gets to decide what to do about it.

You don't get to dictate what they "should" do


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually about 84% of the world are Christian/religious according to recent polls.


You need better research skills or better sources

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2012/12/01_groups.png


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually about 84% of the world are Christian/*religious* according to recent polls.


I see your little word game there.

I said "Christian"

Not "religious"

The majority of the world is not Christian


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Do abortion folks believe in God and the afterlife. I know most don't. And that is fine. That's your right. But I believe that those who had abortions will face the soul of the child they kill and have to explain why that child did not deserve the right at a chance to live. That's why I believe it's a morality issue. How can you explain in good conscience why you killed them?


I would say you are correct on this one. Aren't you glad you won't be asked to take her place on that day? From what I have read she won't be lonely though, all those women who used any other form of birth control will have some splainin to do as well. I can hear it now "and why did you deny my children the right to play with those puppies I created just for them?" Um ah um well um those guys over there said it was ok to ignore your will and bypass your perfect plan.... And those stretch marks don't look good in a bikini.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see your little word game there.
> 
> I said "Christian"
> 
> ...


I see Vahomesteader can edit after the fact. And I would still dispute 84% of the world is religious. And I am absolutely sure 84% do not follow the practices of their faith.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Do abortion folks believe in God and the afterlife. I know most don't. And that is fine. That's your right. But I believe that those who had abortions will face the soul of the child they kill and have to explain why that child did not deserve the right at a chance to live. That's why I believe it's a morality issue. How can you explain in good conscience why you killed them?


What's that thing that christians are supposed to believe? Oh, let the one without sin cast the first stone. You have never sinned? There's something else about not judging people. Do you remember what it was? No, you probably don't do you?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> What's that thing that christians are supposed to believe? Oh, let the one without sin cast the first stone. You have never sinned? There's something else about not judging people. Do you remember what it was? No, you probably don't do you?


Actually I could quote you several dozen scriptures from Jesus himself that say judge righteously. But I'm not judging anyone. I've mentioned no names and cast no stones accept at the practice of abortion. I'm not perfect. But I try to live as good as possible. But to consider that killing a life growing in you is an innocent little thing, it's a different story. Look I know it's a hard decision that some women have to make. But we as a society have said it's no big deal to kill your unborn. So now there are people using it as birth control. And that's night right. As a former fetus, I have to be against abortion.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> What's that thing that christians are supposed to believe? Oh, let the one without sin cast the first stone. You have never sinned? There's something else about not judging people. Do you remember what it was? No, you probably don't do you?


Isn't the whole mack truck in reverse thing a sin right there? Poor old Onan.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

basketti said:


> Isn't the whole mack truck in reverse thing a sin right there? Poor old Onan.


Nope. God got mad at him for not impregnating his brothers wife after his brother passed away. Which was customary of those times. It was his disobedience that fit forbid not the spilling of his seed.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Actually I could quote you several dozen scriptures from Jesus himself that say judge righteously. But I'm not judging anyone. I've mentioned no names and cast no stones accept at the practice of abortion. I'm not perfect. But I try to live as good as possible. But to consider that killing a life growing in you is an innocent little thing, it's a different story. Look I know it's a hard decision that stove women have to make. But we as a society have said it's no big deal to kill your unborn. So now there are people using it as birth control. And that's night right. As a former fetus, I have to be against abortion.


You've judged everyone that is pro choice this entire thread. I can understand why you wouldn't want see it that way tho. Please, read this again "Actually I could quote you several dozen scriptures from Jesus himself that say judge righteously. But I'm not judging anyone. I've mentioned no names and cast no stones accept at the practice of abortion. I'm not perfect. But I try to live as good as possible. But to consider that killing a life growing in you is an innocent little thing, it's a different story." After saying you don't judge people, you go and judge people for "killing a life growing in you." Tell you what, when you grow "a life" you can decide what to do with it, K? Until then it's her body, her choice. 

Not everyone thinks as you do, do they?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

This topic is old. It's just bickering now. But I'll ask one last question. If your pro choice, what choice does the father have? Should be not have a say in the choice? Is part of him as well. Shouldn't he have a choice?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> This topic is old. It's just bickering now. But I'll ask one last question. If your pro choice, what choice does the father have? Should be not have a say in the choice? Is part of him as well. Shouldn't he have a choice?


Her body, her choice. When your gender can get pregnant you (male) get a choice too. 

It's old because you've been backed into a corner?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Nope. God got mad at him for not impregnating his brothers wife after his brother passed away. Which was customary of those times. It was his disobedience that fit forbid not the spilling of his seed.


My bible doesn't say much about the why God was ticked off, only that He was. Enough so that He condemned Onan to death. That and Onan had pulled out early. There are other references that God wants us to take full advantage of the equipment He designed for the sole purpose of procreation. I suspect He likes to have lots of children to relieve the boredom of all those puppies he makes.... Scratching fleas only goes about so far. They need sticks to chase and lots of hugs and petting. Do be careful what you wish for, without those children to take care of those puppies we end up having to listen to Sarah McLaughlin singing while we have to look at those sad sad eyes.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> Her body, her choice. When your gender can get pregnant you (male) get a choice too.
> 
> It's old because you've been backed into a corner?


I'm not in a corner. Lol. You cant argue life with folks who don't regard it. So no point in trying. Why let the darkness in other people's hearts cloud my day? I'm done with it. I got a farm to run and more important things to read on. You keep arguing to take life and I'll keep hoping to preserve it.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I'm not in a corner. Lol. You cant argue life with folks who don't regard it. So no point in trying. *Why let the darkness in other people's hearts cloud my day?* I'm done with it. I got a farm to run and more important things to read on. You keep arguing to take life and I'll keep hoping to preserve it.


No. You don't judge people at all, do you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Vahomesteaders said:


> This topic is old. It's just bickering now. But I'll ask one last question. If your pro choice, what choice does the father have? Should be not have a say in the choice? Is part of him as well. Shouldn't he have a choice?


That's between the father and the mother, and no one else. 
She has the most say, since it's her body being affected


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Vahomesteaders View Post
> I'm not in a corner. Lol. You cant argue life with folks who don't regard it. So no point in trying. Why let the darkness in other people's hearts cloud my day?
> 
> *I'm done with it*.
> ...


I bet that's not accurate, because it's often stated and seldom true


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> No. You don't judge people at all, do you?


Only those with a guilty conscience who suffer from the statement made would see that as judgmental. Read it again. The darkness in the heart of others. Others being the key word there. No names given or fingers pointed.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I bet that's not accurate, because it's often stated and seldom true


So true


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Only those with a guilty conscience who suffer from the statement made would see that as judgmental. Read it again. The darkness in the heart of others. Others being the key word there. No names given or fingers pointed.


Sure comes off a judgment to me.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I bet that's not accurate, because it's often stated and seldom true


You win that one, ten minutes flat, wanna go for two outta three?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> Only those with a guilty conscience who suffer from the statement made would see that as judgmental. Read it again. The darkness in the heart of others. Others being the key word there. No names given or fingers pointed.


Sounds to me like you have a lot of sin in your life. I'm so glad I don't believe in that crap.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sounds to me like you have a lot of sin in your life. I'm so glad I don't believe in that crap.


I am pretty sure some of them don't believe it either. If they did they wouldn't need to spin the words as written to fit what they actually believe.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> This topic is old. It's just bickering now. But I'll ask one last question. If your pro choice, what choice does the father have? Should be not have a say in the choice? Is part of him as well. Shouldn't he have a choice?


I'm not sure if he should or shouldn't have a choice but I would ask you if you would feel just as strongly about father's rights if a father were to insist a woman abort, even if the mother was not in agreement? 

Would you also expect the father to pay support for the woman while she is on maternity leave and does he also have the right to insist she raises the child or would it be okay to put it up for adoption? 

Are you of the opinion he should be responsible for supporting this child for the next 18 or so years because a lot of young men who are faced with the idea of trading a college scholarship for a pair of work boots will quite often pick abortion as the quick fix to a difficult problem.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I'm not sure if he should or shouldn't have a choice but I would ask you if you would feel just as strongly about father's rights if a father were to insist a woman abort, even if the mother was not in agreement?
> 
> Would you also expect the father to pay support for the woman while she is on maternity leave and does he also have the right to insist she raises the child or would it be okay to put it up for adoption?
> 
> Are you of the opinion he should be responsible for supporting this child for the next 18 or so years because a lot of young men who are faced with the idea of trading a college scholarship for a pair of work boots will quite often pick abortion as the quick fix to a difficult problem.


these issues are only solvable on a case by case basis... Too many variables for a single one size. Fits. All ruling.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> these issues are only solvable on a case by case basis... Too many variables for a single one size. Fits. All ruling.


Not entirely. Everybody keeps saying that the father needs a say in the situation because they look at it as that ray of hope, believing that a slew of young males are going to step up and become champions for the cause when the reality I've seen over the years is that when most young men are advised that the rabbit died, they immediately offer to pay for an abortion. 

From my own perspective, if the father's opinion had more legal validity than mine, my choice would not be turning 26 next month.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> Not entirely. Everybody keeps saying that the father needs a say in the situation because they look at it as that ray of hope, believing that a slew of young males are going to step up and become champions for the cause when the reality I've seen over the years is that when most young men are advised that the rabbit died, they immediately offer to pay for an abortion.
> 
> From my own perspective, if the father's opinion had more legal validity than mine, my choice would not be turning 26 next month.


No doubt many young men would opt out, but many do stick around, Some even marry the woman. (Place photo of my father here) like I said these things need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No doubt many young men would opt out, but many do stick around, Some even marry the woman. (Place photo of my father here) like I said these things need to be dealt with on a case by case basis.


I chose to stick around.


You want women to have the choice to terminate their unborn child, you are on record with this stance as are others, so be it, I will not get in trouble for your or their support nor for your or their choice. I CHOOSE to let it be.

I have communicated my position quite clearly.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Shine said:


> I chose to stick around.
> 
> 
> You want women to have the choice to terminate their unborn child, you are on record with this stance as are others, so be it, I will not get in trouble for your or their support nor for your or their choice. I CHOOSE to let it be.
> ...


Then why am I so confused by this post? How can you get in trouble by "our" (whoever that is??) stance on this or any other issue?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> She has the right not to "party", or, to stop them at the door, or, to block her couch, so that he cannot be plunked. She could even get rid of her couch prior to the party. She just can't kill him for being there once he is there.[/QUOTE
> 
> What you've given are actions she could take to stop fertilization. More than a few have taken those actions and seen them fail, including one poster in this thread. Nature will ensure that 60% to 70% of those fertilized eggs will not find a host. Nature is far harsher than man. What you haven't given is one single reason not based on your moral view why one person( that fertilized egg you claim has full rights) has rights that trump another. By your logic I lose the right to keep or protect the things in my home or even my life if I forget to lock the door or invite the wrong person in.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> Nope. In one you have a live renter because the landlord chose not to shoot him, in the other, you don't. The only difference is that, currently, one is legal, the other is not.


Once again you change a word to better suit your argument. Renter. A rental agreement generally involves some quid pro quo. It generally involves both parties agreeing to the terms of the arrangement before one moves in and starts rearranging the furniture and knocking down walls. It doesn't usually involve someone seeing an open room in another's home, moving in and refusing to leave. There are other names for those types. And if you dont find them welcome you can work to exclude or even remove, even by force. What happens to them outside that house is on them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Now I'll promise to walk away from this fruitless discussion and vow not to engage in any others on this topic.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Once again you change a word to better suit your argument. Renter. A rental agreement generally involves some quid pro quo. It generally involves both parties agreeing to the terms of the arrangement before one moves in and starts rearranging the furniture and knocking down walls. It doesn't usually involve someone seeing an open room in another's home, moving in and refusing to leave. There are other names for those types. And if you dont find them welcome you can work to exclude or even remove, even by force. What happens to them outside that house is on them.


 I know you stated you wouldn't be back, so, this is for anyone. Using the renter analogy, if the said renter/squatter refuses to leave, can you kill him to get rid of him, assuming that he does nothing to suggest that he will do bodily harm to you the landlord?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> But those crimes are not illegal due to morality, *they are designed to protect us from those who would do us harm.* Prolifers always seem to want to hang out a morality shingle to support their desire to meddle in other peoples bedrooms. That was my reason for pointing out there is no moral difference between abstinence as a form or birth control and any other form.... the bottom line is they ALL prevent an unwanted baby.


 
As would be any law meant to protect the unborn.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Word definitions are not "opinions"


 Of course they are. They also change over time. For example:

Define the word "gay". Now, pretend it is 1947 and define the word "gay".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Of course they are. They also change over time. For example:
> 
> Define the word "gay". Now, pretend it is 1947 and define the word "gay".


It's still not an "opinion", and you are guessing, since it only took a few seconds for me to find some real facts

Just because you don't *know* how and when it was used doesn't mean it wasn't



> Gay: Some people believe that "gay" is an an acronym for "good as you." This is a nice theory, but without foundation. "Gay" has had many different meanings in the past.
> 
> It was used as a synonym for happy by Chaucer in the 14th century.
> 
> ...


The meaning of "pointless" still hasn't changed either


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I bet that's not accurate, because it's often stated and seldom true


Yes, you were right. He is still posting.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's still not an "opinion", and you are guessing, since it only took a few seconds for me to find some real facts
> 
> Just because you don't *know* how and when it was used doesn't mean it wasn't
> 
> ...


The meaning, in common usage in the 1940's, was "happy". That is a fact. The meaning, in common usage today, is "homosexual". That is a fact. 

The fact that the opinions of some were different is irrelevant. The common usage is to what I was referring.

BTW, the point I was making was that the meaning of words is fluid. The quote, that YOU provided, backs up that fact, so, Thanks!!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The meaning, in common usage in the 1940's, was "happy". That is a fact. The meaning, in common usage today, is "homosexual". That is a fact.
> 
> The fact that the *opinions *of some were different is irrelevant. *The common usage is to what I was referring.*
> 
> BTW, *the point I was making was that the meaning of words is fluid. *The quote, that YOU provided, backs up that fact, so, Thanks!!


And yet that's not what you *said*:
I said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> Word definitions are *not "opinions"*


And your reply:



> *Of course they are.*


"Common usage" is a matter of opinion.
The definitions are not.

Just more pointless rambling


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> > She has the right not to "party", or, to stop them at the door, or, to block her couch, so that he cannot be plunked. She could even get rid of her couch prior to the party. She just can't kill him for being there once he is there.[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Shine View Post
> *I chose to stick around.*
> 
> You want women to have the choice to terminate their unborn child, you are on record with this stance as are others, so be it, I will not get in trouble for your or their support nor for your or their choice. I CHOOSE to let it be.
> ...


Does that mean you got your girlfriend pregnant unintentionally?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Just more pointless rambling


 Agreed


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> mmoetc said:
> 
> 
> > I have given several. The right to live trumps most others. I have the right to property, but, If I find a squatter on my property, who is not threatening me, I can't kill him to get him off of my property. His rights to live outweigh my property rights, in that narrow instance. * On the other hand if said squatter came at you and you reasonably thought that he was going to harm you, or, your family, of course you have the right to use any and all force necessary to stop that threat.*
> ...


----------

